Unfortunately I don't know many specifics of this case. Frankly, I had completely forgotten about it. But I do have some thoughts:
Ryan Routh doesn't have a middle name. All high target assassinations (attempted or completed) include the middle name. As far as I can find, all such assassinations are done by the government itself, and the assassin is not what people are told about them. Maybe Mr. Routh's attempt was actually organic?
According to the report, he never took a shot at anyone. Sure, there's issues there; looking through the bushes with a rifle is certainly an issue, but he never took a shot or even tried. Life in prison+ without actually doing anything or actually harming anyone seems very Pre-Crime to me. There's a crime there for sure, but it's not "attempted assassination" (a variation of attempted murder). He might have changed his mind. We will never know. In any other context of "Murder of a person" we wouldn't be calling it "attempted murder" for being in the bushes with a rifle. We would be calling it "psychological issues."
Related to (2), this punishment clearly wouldn't be appropriate if the target was anyone else. Why is thinking of harming a public figure more important than any other human being? That is NOT "Equal justice under the law." If Justice isn't blind, it's not Justice.
Our entire penal system was designed by Rockefeller in 1926 as part of his scam of "Prohibition." (Both Constitutional Amendments about Prohibition were created by Rockefeller Jr. specifically to create our legal, police, and penal systems. How can you be the Ultimate Crime Lord unless you control law itself?). The penal system specifically was (in part) a money laundering scheme. Before our current system, if someone needed to be removed from society permanently, they would simply be removed, not cost the Tax Payer millions.
I'm sure there's more to this story, but the facts have issues that suggest things aren't what they appear to be.
Regarding #3, laws can be cut and dried but the circumstances differ and what seems fair for one case may not seem to provide justice for another, and sometimes the sentence takes this into consideration. I think it's called equity, making things fair. If President Trump were killed, it would affect the entire country and deprive us of the leader we wanted for president. The crime is much more grave in that way than taking out someone that has no dependents, for example.
I appreciate that the number of people affected by an event is relevant to it's effects. I argue that it should not for Justice.
While context of an event is essential to passing judgement, that context should only include IMMEDIATE context, not "any feeling from any person who was not directly involved in the event."
The word "Justice" requires "fairness." How someone, who isn't an involved person, feels about an event has NO RELEVANCE to the event itself.
For example, if you get together a posse and string up some farmer who killed their neighbor, the reasons for that killing are essential. But if most of the posse were composed of brothers, father, and cousins of the dead guy, it would almost certainly be a tragedy of "Justice." You CAN'T BE FAIR if you include other people's feelings. It is impossible. That is what "Justice" means. It applies to Presidents (hated or loved) as much as paupers.
Let me ask you this: If it was Joe Biden who was "assassinated," would you consider the feelings of the country as important for the penalty?
Assassinating any president would have profound effects beyond the death of someone unknown. Equity really is an issue but I'm sure it comes into play into lawsuits more than in law. I'm not educated in law, but if it were cut and dried, we wouldn't need judges so much, or juries. There are always opinions weighing in.
Unfortunately I don't know many specifics of this case. Frankly, I had completely forgotten about it. But I do have some thoughts:
I'm sure there's more to this story, but the facts have issues that suggest things aren't what they appear to be.
Didn't he shoot at the secret service agent?
According to the report, yes. But the guy DIDN'T SHOOT BACK. He never fired a single shot at any time. Since when is being shot at a crime?
I'm not saying there's no crime there, but the SS shooting back is not part of any criminal activity.
Regarding #3, laws can be cut and dried but the circumstances differ and what seems fair for one case may not seem to provide justice for another, and sometimes the sentence takes this into consideration. I think it's called equity, making things fair. If President Trump were killed, it would affect the entire country and deprive us of the leader we wanted for president. The crime is much more grave in that way than taking out someone that has no dependents, for example.
I appreciate that the number of people affected by an event is relevant to it's effects. I argue that it should not for Justice.
While context of an event is essential to passing judgement, that context should only include IMMEDIATE context, not "any feeling from any person who was not directly involved in the event."
The word "Justice" requires "fairness." How someone, who isn't an involved person, feels about an event has NO RELEVANCE to the event itself.
For example, if you get together a posse and string up some farmer who killed their neighbor, the reasons for that killing are essential. But if most of the posse were composed of brothers, father, and cousins of the dead guy, it would almost certainly be a tragedy of "Justice." You CAN'T BE FAIR if you include other people's feelings. It is impossible. That is what "Justice" means. It applies to Presidents (hated or loved) as much as paupers.
Let me ask you this: If it was Joe Biden who was "assassinated," would you consider the feelings of the country as important for the penalty?
Assassinating any president would have profound effects beyond the death of someone unknown. Equity really is an issue but I'm sure it comes into play into lawsuits more than in law. I'm not educated in law, but if it were cut and dried, we wouldn't need judges so much, or juries. There are always opinions weighing in.