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.
We humbly apologize for the inconvenience.