In a constantly evolving world, the laws that govern us must do so as well. Yet, some laws, stemming from an era far different from our current reality, remain stagnant, leading to a system that often fails to deliver justice. Recent events like the school shooting in Georgia and the fatal drunk driving incident involving brothers Johnny and Matthew Gaudreau have highlighted the urgent need for legal reform, especially when it comes to how we punish those who commit the most heinous of crimes.
Consider the case of 14-year-old teenager Colt Gray, who was involved in the Georgia school shooting at Apalachee High School on September 4th. This individual, not even old enough to hold a driver’s license, took four lives with a cold-blooded resolve that belies his age. The current legal system, however, shields this young perpetrator from the full weight of his actions due to his age. But if a 14-year-old is capable of such a horrific act, should they not also be capable of facing the ultimate consequence? The argument here is not one of vengeance but of justice. If a person, regardless of age, is willing to take a life, they should be prepared to forfeit their own. The death penalty, while controversial, could serve as a powerful deterrent if applied in cases where the crime is especially egregious, even if the perpetrator is a minor.
Then there is the heartbreaking story of Johnny and Matthew Gaudreau, two brothers who were biking around the streets of New Jersey and were struck and killed by a drunk driver. The current maximum penalty for such a crime is a mere 10 years in prison—a sentence that is insufficient given the gravity of the offense. A car in the hands of a drunk driver is no less dangerous than a loaded gun in the hands of a reckless shooter. Both are lethal weapons, and both can result in the senseless loss of life. Yet, our legal system treats these crimes with a disparity that is hard to justify. A 10-year sentence for taking a life through drunk driving is a slap on the wrist compared to the lifelong pain and suffering inflicted on the victims’ families. This disparity calls for a reexamination of how we punish those who use vehicles as deadly weapons.
The disconnect between modern-day crimes and centuries-old laws becomes even more apparent when we consider the advancements in technology and weaponry since the time of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson and his contemporaries could never have imagined a world where automatic weapons and bombs exist—tools of mass destruction that can annihilate thousands of lives in mere seconds. Yet, the Second Amendment, written in an era of muskets and single-shot firearms, is still interpreted to protect the right to bear these modern weapons. If the Founding Fathers were to see the world today, would they not advocate for restrictions on such lethal technologies? The principle of the Second Amendment remains sound, but the tools it protects have evolved in ways the amendment creators could not have anticipated. It is time for our laws to reflect that reality.
Moreover, the U.S. military’s use of black sites—locations outside the jurisdiction of U.S. law—demonstrates how legal loopholes can be exploited to commit acts that would otherwise be considered illegal. These sites, often hidden in foreign countries, allow for the perpetration of acts that violate the very principles of justice and human rights that our nation was founded upon. The existence of these sites is a reminder that our laws are not always applied equally and that justice is too often avoided by those with the power to manipulate the system.
At the heart of these issues is a fundamental question: Should those who commit cruel and unusual punishments be protected from receiving the same in return? Our Constitution guarantees the protection against cruel and unusual punishment, a cornerstone of our justice system. But what about those who commit such acts themselves? If someone is willing to inflict unspeakable pain and suffering on others, should they not forfeit their right to be shielded from similar treatment? This is not to advocate for a tit-for-tat justice system but rather to question whether our current laws adequately address the most serious of crimes.
While the core principles of our laws should remain intact, there is a pressing need for reform to address the realities of our modern world. The Founding Fathers, with all their wisdom, could not have foreseen the challenges we face today. If they were here, they would likely advocate for laws that reflect the times we live in—laws that ensure justice is served, not just in theory, but in practice. It is time to bring our legal system into the 21st century, to ensure that those who commit the most heinous of crimes are met with punishments that truly fit their actions. Only then can we hope to create a society where justice is not just an ideal, but a reality.
