Posted on 10/20/2005 10:10:46 AM PDT by SmithL
Here's a hint: rapists are sick, evil scum and no amount of prison time automatically transforms them into decent people.
If you do what Mr. Wolfhawk's done, as far as I'm concerned you have no rights at all and your continued existence is due solely to the kind forbearance of others.
Well, I guess it's OK then.
read before you post - i specifically asked if more information was available - you repsonded that the girls were teenagers (thus making him a cjild rapist) - I simply pointed out that 19 and 19 were also teenage (thus simply "rape")
I also specifcally stated that rape/sodomy was "bad enough" - if thats not enough for you to understand that I do not condone the behaviour, thats YOUR problem.
So, if you have any information on the father's crimes, I would be grateful if you would share it with us . . .
Fine. Is this same county working with the state to pass life sentences to people convicted of rape and sodomy?
I agree with that statement. It is one of my pet peeves when the news states that a "teenager" committed a crime and then states the perp is 18 or 19. By law, 18 and 19 is an adult, and I feel they should be identified as such. When I heat "teenager", I think 13 - 17, not adult (18,19).
Unbelievable that people like these two are allowed to procreate.
BINGO
This is NOT good news. For one thing, this man deserves an opportunity to father HIS child. Secondly, what right does the government have to take children away in circumstances like this???
So YOU want to be the one who decides who can and can't reproduce, even though GOD Himself doesn't play by YOUR rules?
This is the scariest attitude I've seen in some time. Sad.
If the two teenage girls were actually minor teenage girls, why wasn't he charged with charges that indicate the victims were minors? Don't those type of convictions have longer sentences?
I think both parents are whackjobs, but the media is curiously vague on the prior crimes which is often an indication they are being dishonest (or more dishonest than usual).
One wonders why?
Apparently Daddy Dearest is unemployed also.
Seems the only thing he is good as is getting women pregnant. He has several children and stepchildren.
Well none of that prevents someone from having the right to bear children. It is a right that belongs to us because we're human, not because we meet some socioeconomic standard of another
I said also.
So in addition to being a known sex offender of minor children he is unemployed. He also likes to deal in alias names and invented Indian Tribes.
Listen defend them all you want. I don't care. My heart and soul is with the poor child.
Well your heart and soul may be with the child, but that is HIS child, not yours. It's a very liberal stance to want to take people's children, things, positions, away just because they don't feel like those people are "living up to" some false standard
So it's a false standard to expect someone to not molest children and to hold a job if intent is to procreate more children??? Its a false standard to expect a father to support the children he brings into the world?????
Who's the conservative here??????
The truth of the matter is, more important to me than precisely wearing the conservative label, is to have personal rights defended against government's regulation and attempts to "standardize" (though I do believe that is a conservative principle, for the record)
Everyone has the right to bear children. That right should not be altered, otherwise, you're communist China
I agree that those would be excellent standards. Unfortunately, under our Constitution, we cannot set those standards as a prerequisite to bearing children. I believe this is one of those cases in which both alternatives stink. Certainly, I do not like to see this man (not the woman, either, from what I have read about her) raising children, I am deeply troubled that the government can take a child without a crime having been committed against said child.
I don't think you can argue convincingly that either solution, letting them keep the baby or taking it, is ideal. We have the Constitution versus the potential welfare of a child.
Well said.
Thanks for posting that. This here's the crux of the matter.
We still live in the United States of America. It's still a more-or-less free country. There is no "allow". If you want to licence people to have children, the Peoples' Republic of China is a more fitting place for you. If you want to impose sentencing above and beyond what was imposed by the trial court, as authorised by the legislature at the time the crime was committed, I regret to inform that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is defunct.
If you think that rape of various sorts is not punished severely enough, take it up with your state legislature. I happen to agree. Until the legislature gets around to fixing the matter, though, we have to do the best we can with imposing the maximum penalties currently available.
The practice of inventing new penalties after the original sentence has been completed is abhominable. That someone was convicted of a heinous crime is no excuse for the State to arrogate to itself power which has not been properly delegated to it. This supposed 'cure' is worse than the disease.
The rule of law is the foundation of civilisation. Your efforts to undermine it imperil us all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.