Guest Column: Murder of baby fails to draw serious sentence

Over the years, I've noticed a sickening phenomenon in our society - the downgrading of human life, especially the most vulnerable of all, little children.

We have seen many cases across the nation of young infants, newborns in several instances, being murdered by various methods, and a common thread runs through all of them - slap on the wrist penalties. I am not aware in any of these cases of sentences of the death penalty or even life imprisonment.

Last week a Reno woman was sentenced to 5 1/2 years in prison for the death of a three-month-old baby. The infant had been killed "as a result of battering, shaking or both," and died from bleeding around the brain.

Brutality cases involving dogs and cats receive more attention and frequently greater penalties than murders of little babies do, which says our society today values the lives of animals more than our own children.

When two young adults in Winnemucca a few years ago took their newborn infant out in the desert and ran over it with a pickup truck, the sympathy ran towards the murderers, not the unfortunate little baby. They also received almost no penalties, in spite of the horrific, premeditated murder of a human being.

But perhaps that's where I've gone astray. Today, the president of the United States is on record as being opposed to legislation to outlaw "partial birth" abortion - in spite of the fact everyone knows so well that this is infanticide, pure and simple. Of course, no politician would act in such a way unless certain that such a move would not hurt him in the public arena - meaning a large section of the American people, while frowning on such things, really don't give a damn about the killing of babies.

It's only a natural step from accepting the murdering of the unborn, even completely "viable" fetuses, to accepting the murder of newborns. And if the methods of killing the child is less than the sterile environment of the abortionist "doctor," well, so what, the end result is the same. And if it's OK to kill babies in abortion clinics, why should we get so worked up about it if somebody shakes and batters a 3-month-old enough to cause bleeding in its brain, resulting in its death?

That seems to be the logic behind the sentencing of Ayanna Thompson, who, in spite of being prosecuted on first-degree murder charges, will be eligible for parole in 5 1/2 years, thanks to former Sparks city attorney and now Judge Steve Elliott. Perhaps such absurdly light sentences help explain why Elliott has ranked at the bottom of surveys on local judges.

But token penalties for murdering babies is now standard across the country and Elliott fits right in with his peers, who, highly educated lawyers all, seem to believe some human beings are less valuable, less human than others, and the deaths of which is consequently less of a crime. This also explains the rationale behind so called "hate crimes" legislation, where crimes against certain privileged groups are penalized more severely than the exact same crime perpetrated against the common herd. In today's legal community, "equal protection of the law" is a quaint, antiquated phrase from yesteryear.

Recently, Peter Singer of Australia was given a tenured position at a leading Ivy League school, in spite of writing a book advocating allowing parents the right to murder infants who for various reasons are an inconvenience to them.

The irony is Singer is an animal rights fanatic, an author of several influential books giving animals a sacred and untouchable status he denies to human children. That this man with his value system completely backwards is now drawing a high dollar government paycheck, untouchable in a tenured position, influencing by his teaching thousands, is a sad commentary, and certainly does not bode well for the future.

In the Reno case, another interesting side note is the murderer was the lesbian "partner" of the baby's mother. In spite of them both being female, they told the police they were the baby's "parents." "Domestic partner" abuse is disproportionate among lesbians, and this case certainly raises the issue of adoption of children by homosexual so-called "partners." Will the adopted children of homosexuals be raised in some sort of stable home, or will abuse currently common among the adults be redirected to the luckless children in such unnatural so called "families?" In heterosexual relationships, abuse is most common amongst stepchildren by their non-biological parent(s). Would this not likely be enhanced when you add in the inherent instability of homosexuals?

The last few decades have witnessed a major increase in crimes directed towards young children, and with the criminal justice system handing out non-deterrent type sentences, expect little change in the future. In a society that has accepted the idea of abortion on demand, knowing full well what abortion truly is, why should we expect the human value of life, especially a child's life, to be held in high regard?

The only consolation I have in this is a reminder of the Great Lawgiver himself, the final Judge. "And Jesus called a little child unto him, and stated 'But whoso shall offend one of these little ones, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."