In his Dec. 31 article, “Supreme copout: twisted justification for guns,” Hiroaki Sato makes an unprincipled argument when he suggests that U.S. Supreme Court justices should allow their personal experience of victimization to factor into their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
Emotion has no place in the courtroom. The United States is a society based on the rule of law, not the rule of men. Is Sato suggesting that justice would be served if James Holmes (the 23-year-old student accused of shooting 12 people to death in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater last July) were to face a jury consisting of family members of his alleged victims?
Unable to view this article?
This could be due to a conflict with your ad-blocking or security software.
Please add japantimes.co.jp and piano.io to your list of allowed sites.
If this does not resolve the issue or you are unable to add the domains to your allowlist, please see out this support page.
We humbly apologize for the inconvenience.
With your current subscription plan you can comment on stories. However, before writing your first comment, please create a display name in the Profile section of your subscriber account page.