It’S Called Evil

Advertisement

Editor:

Seems it started in the ’60s, we let shrinks start calling evil by some other name that they invented to explain why they thought people did horrible things. And we have let them get away with it ever since.

They get monsters off that do things like kill their own children, rape and murder, and as in the Colorado shooting, they say those people have a mental defect.

It’s called “evil” and we refuse to confront evil and make it pay for the terror and heartbreak it causes.

There are people on death row that have been there for over 20 years. We called Hitler, Osama, Saddam, all evil and we put them to death, and yet we let doctors keep us from punishing evil as it should be punished.

The people whose lives have been destroyed by evil people still live in pain and anger every day, yet we say to put a monster to death is violating his rights, so in many states we abolish the death penalty.

Instead, these monsters live on in what they see as fame, they have a life in prison with computers, television, write letters have visitors, etc. While the loved ones who lost someone precious to them can only visit a gravesite, and put out flowers.

Then comes the blame for the gun, if the guns were all gone they would just go on the Internet and go to the site that shows you how to build a bomb, then all 71 would have died in Colorado.

We don’t even have the courage to arrest the people and shut down the sites that tell you how to make an I.E.D. Unbelievable!

We let civil rights advocates use “freedom” of speech to defend these people.

Until we start making evil pay for its deeds, we will have more of these things happen.

God help us for not doing what is right — punishing evil.

Dell Owens

Comments

ALLAN SIMS 1 year, 8 months ago

I agree in principle with most of what this person says, and it is commendable. However, in the last few sentences the writer says “We let civil rights advocates use “freedom” of speech to defend these people.” If the freedom of speech is a valid defense for anyone, guilty or not, then we must “let” whomever defend “these people” using those protections, whether we like it or not.
The term “these people” separates them from “us” in some meaningful way, and though I agree with the writer that “these people” are detestable, we can’t go singling out this group or that to apply the Bill of Rights to. It has to fit us all, exactly the same way. Otherwise, they are not defenses for any of us, but rather, they then become a bludgeoning tool to be used by those in power (The majority) to act in the position of mob rule to destroy “those people” that they deem worthy. This forces the minority to quake in fear that they might be next in the vigilante rule that suddenly rears its ugly head, knowing that that particular right they depended on has, for them disappeared, leaving them open to oppression. This happens when any defense under the Constitution is violated. For example, our state’s rights under the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights have been violated, without repercussion, and now Arizona and the other states are mere subdivisions of a Centralized Gov’t, eliminating the buffer we (The people) had between us and this power hungry central gov’t.
The 2nd Amendment is also under attack, and people who rightly enjoy the protections of those rights are suddenly stripped of them, making them outlaws to be considered terrorists. What does that do? It isolates another group who doesn’t ‘deserve’ the protections any longer. Therefore, they (Perhaps ‘we’) become a group to be persecuted by the gov’t we had (In the past) learned to trust.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.