Human life is worth less and less in the world we live in. We hear about murders and deaths almost to a point of comfortable numbness. More than 50 people die in a bizarre cult-like fashion, 22 die in a violent explosion by a terrorist bomb while they ride the bus to work and the list goes on and on.There are some deaths that we as a society have the ability to do something about and there are those which we are helpless to do anything about. When a murder is committed and the murderer pleads guilty, we have the obligation and duty as a society to put that person into jail for a long time.
Two weeks ago it was reported in The New York Times that "a husband who admitted killing his wife after finding her in bed with another man was sentenced to 18 months in prison by a judge who said that such a killing is understandable."
Court documents showed that Kenneth Peacock arrived home unexpectedly during a storm, found his wife in bed with another man, drank some beer and wine, argued with his wife for several hours and then killed her with a single shot from a hunting rifle. In court, Peacock pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter and was sentenced to 18 months in jail, one year of probation, and 50 hours of community service in a domestic violence program.
A sentence as lenient as Peacock's is outrageous but it is hardly outside of the norm as far as sentencing goes in this day and age.
According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, in 1990 the expected punishment for someone committing a murder was 1.8 years; for rape the expected sentence was 60 days; for robbery, 23 days; and for aggravated assault, 6.4 days. It should be obvious that there is something wrong with a system that punishes so lightly for serious crimes such as these.
Peacock's case was not one of a person committing a murder in the heat of the moment. He had a chance to sit down and drink and then continue to argue for several hours. It should be obvious that Peacock was responsible for his actions and should be held fully accountable for the murder of his wife.
Judge Robert E. Cahill, who presided in this case, does not fully agree with this, stating, "I seriously wonder how many men married five, four years would have the strength to walk away without inflicting some corporal punishment."
A murder should be condemned, not understood. What kind of message is Judge Cahill trying to send to those who come before his bench? Maybe if Peacock had beaten his wife rather than pulling out his hunting rifle and killing her, he would not have to spend any time in jail at all. After all, this is where Judge Cahill's twisted logic leads. It is inexcusable for Judge Cahill to excuse Peacock's actions as he has done in giving such a lenient sentence.
We must ask ourselves what human life is worth and join the battle against those who would rob it of its value.
Our lives depend on it.
