Posted on 08/05/2006 9:37:49 AM PDT by wagglebee
In the nearly ten years since Jon Benet Ramsey’s death, I’ve spent little time pondering the identity of that little girl’s murderer. I’ve known the answer to that question for years. And so have you. But one time several years ago - during the height of the media coverage of the case - I did hear one interesting assertion about the parents of Jon Benet Ramsey; namely, that there was absolutely no evidence they had ever sexually abused their little girl.
When I heard the assertion that there was “absolutely no evidence” of sexual abuse of Jon Benet Ramsey, I immediately recalled a picture of the little girl when she was around the age of four. She was wearing a brightly colored strapless dress that matched her brightly colored lipstick. Her makeup was as heavy as that of any hooker or drag queen in San Francisco.
This begs a fundamental question: Are we sexually abusing our little girls when we dress them up to look like prostitutes? Of course, I would submit that we are.
Fortunately, when the Ramsey case broke it was very unusual to see a couple dressing a small child like a hooker. Unfortunately, today it is commonplace. An episode I witnessed the other day illustrates just how little parents seem to think before allowing their little girls to dress and carry themselves in an entirely-too-adult fashion.
On my daily jog though my neighborhood I ran by the house of a man I know fairly well. His garage door was open and music was blaring out of a jam box inside - in fact, the music was so loud it was barely recognizable. But I could tell the song was “These boots are made for walking,” which was popularized by Nancy Sinatra in the 1960s. His two grandchildren were dancing in the driveway to the recent remake of the tune, sung by Jessica Simpson.
As my neighbor’s two grandchildren were standing in the driveway - while gyrating their hips like a couple of prostitutes - I noticed they were both wearing cutoff “Daisy Duke” style short and halter tops. The oldest girl looked like she was wearing mascara. She is 11 years old, by the way. Her younger sister is nine.
There is obviously something very wrong psychologically with the parent who actually dresses a four year old girl like a prostitute. There is also something wrong with the parent who allows a nine or even an eleven year old girl to dress herself like one – not to mention carry herself like one, too. It is not cute. It is simply crude and indecent.
But there is more to the equation than bad taste, here. In today’s world, people who do not make sure their little girls are dressed like little girls are exposing them to extreme danger.
Shortly after I finished my afternoon jog, I went to one of the numerous websites (http://www.mapsexoffenders.com/) that can be used to locate registered sex offenders. I wanted to know how far those two little girls – the ones dancing like hookers - were from the nearest convicted pedophile. The answer: about 500 yards.
Parents of small children (especially little girls) need to do the following things after finishing this short but important column:
Log on to the internet and find the nearest registered sex offenders in your neighborhood.
Make sure you voice your complaints to local retailers who sell sexually provocative clothes marketed for little girls.
Make a note of the names of the companies that manufacture inappropriate clothing for children next time you see these products. Write them and tell them exactly why you will never, ever buy their products.
Tune in occasionally to The O’Reilly Factor to keep track of Bill’s segments on Jessica’s law – a measure designed to impose mandatory 25-year sentences on first-time child molesters.
Make sure that your lawmakers know you will not support them unless they support Jessica’s Law. In other words, impose a simple ideological litmus test on all of your representatives.
I hope all of my readers will give serious consideration to the advice I have proffered today. Even if you reject some of my specific points, keep my general thesis in mind. Our little girls will be women far sooner than we would like. For the time being we should just let them be little girls.
The older brother was in Atlanta on the night of the crime. He has a rock solid alibi. It definitely wasn't him.
The DNA is in the database now, so hopefully it will be solved one day.
So Mike S. Adams claims that he perceives these girls as sexual objects?
Personally, I think the DA and police were the leaks to the media that allowed the brother to be slandered along with the rest of the family so as to cover up their own ineptitude and cast blame at easy targets.
I remember the case and how often stats were being thrown out like darts at the family, any evidence that could clear the family was deemed irrelevent, any thing that could condemnt then was front page.
If you remember, the media (through a leak which I personally think came from the DA) implied that evidence has been doctored or screwed with or maybe screwed with since the officers at the scene had not properly secured or searched the house or area giving the family and guests time to do things.
It was one of the most nasty insinuations I have ever seen in my life, and should have resulted in a lawsuit right then and there.
There are other factors, particularly the parents being rich and well-known, but the primary reason for the extensive coverage was the large number of photos and videos available of the young girl.
It DEFINES society at large.
My daughters and I all attempt to dress modestly. I am a married woman and I don't need to be tempting others to sin in thought. I'm going to eventually teach my son the ability to look away. Right now he is blissfully unaware of physical beauty. I don't think of myself as a prude. I just don't see point in dressing any other way. I am not attention starved! :o)
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism
And these are the figures:
Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide.
Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.
Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison –– 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.
If you are perfectly clear about shooting an old lady in the head, then I don't see what the confusion is about.
What if you get a divorce from your wife, or if her family has radically different politics than yours? You feel safe, then, with a one stike you're out type of system?
Don't be ignorant. Progressives have made a living out of turning the system against traditional type punishment. Like I and others have pointed out, there are enough man-haters out there to use this type of suggested legislation against politically incorrect men. Therefore, don't be a dope.
I see where you are coming from, I just disagree on the solution.
To me, just raise the standard on proof for a conviction for a first time offence it the sentence is going to be brutal.
In this case, make that sexual offence sentence as hard as possible, but apply it only with an extreme burden of proof as requirement, and have faith in the jury, with a harder requirement and harder burden, you can nail those pedophiles from the get go, and minimize the risk of innocent folks getting hit.
If you know this for a fact, why didn't you tell the police when she was still alive?
Remarks to the author are generally addressed to the poster of the article.
"Approximately 4,300 child molesters were released from prisons in 15 States in 1994. An estimated 3.3% of these 4,300 were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years of release from prison."
That's the exact opposite of what we always hear, isn't it? Yet no one ever wants to mention it, probably from fear of offending the lynch mob. Besides, there's no votes or TV ratings in telling people not to panic.
A lady on an email list I am on looked up someone on the national database and freaked when she found a church worker who visited her family on the list.
I can imagine that girls want to emulate their role models.
So do I, but it isn't as inappropriate as, say, letting little girls wear makeup or sexy clothes offstage (ie, elsewhere than the pageant).
We must remember that Patsy Ramsey herself was once a contestant, and she was familiar with the pageant scene; it's understandable that she didn't see anything wrong with it, and indeed considered it a respectable pursuit. I find it hard to fault her for it, though I would never do likewise.
And when some people cite the pageant life as evidence that Patsy murdered her own child, they're letting their bias override their reason.
Sadly, we'll never know after that criminally inept investigation.
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.