To: wagglebee
"Tune in occasionally to The OReilly Factor to keep track of Bills segments on Jessicas law a measure designed to impose mandatory 25-year sentences on first-time child molesters."
I agree with most of the article. What I am concerned with is a one strike and you are in jail for 25 years.
Is is unheard of for either law enforcement or the judiciary to make a mistake? What if you are set up, having sexually assulted no one, and you are in for a mandatory term that might last for the rest of your life?
17 posted on
08/05/2006 9:57:07 AM PDT by
Frank T
To: Frank T
21 posted on
08/05/2006 10:00:38 AM PDT by
null and void
(Bipartisanship: when the Stupid Party & the Evil Party agree on something that is both stupid & evil)
To: Frank T
What I am concerned with is a one strike and you are in jail for 25 years. Particularly in this day and age when women falsely accuse men of abusing children as part of their strategy to win custody rights or deny visitation rights.
I have no sympathy for true child molesters but if one day daddy is made to change the diapers and the next day daddy is arrested for touching their child's privates (how are you going to do a good job of cleaning the child if you aren't wiping them in sensitive areas?), I don't see where that justifies an automatic 25 at San Quentin.
27 posted on
08/05/2006 10:08:42 AM PDT by
Tall_Texan
(I wish a political party would come along that thinks like I do.)
To: Frank T
The sentences for child molesters is too light. Usually their history has been first molesting building to murder.
Even with mistakes made in wrong convictions, it is better for society to have the wrongly convicted go through appeals that for one child to be murdered. By the way 25 yrs. is usually not really 25 yrs.
If a husband chooses the wrong woman to marry, that is still not important enough to lessen sentences of first time offenders. Sorry, if that sounds cold blooded.
40 posted on
08/05/2006 10:23:27 AM PDT by
bubbleb
To: Frank T
Is is unheard of for either law enforcement or the judiciary to make a mistake? What if you are set up, having sexually assulted no one, and you are in for a mandatory term that might last for the rest of your life?Applied logically, that is the arguement used against the death penalty, and pretty much any and every single sentence for first time offenders.
Its an arguement used quite often, to prevent all jail terms from being raised and to grant lower terms to first time offenders.
Keep in mind, that sexual offences have the highest recidivism rate of any crime.
57 posted on
08/05/2006 10:41:27 AM PDT by
Sonny M
("oderint dum metuant")
To: Frank T
Mandatory minimums are a scary thing.
193 posted on
08/05/2006 7:23:54 PM PDT by
stands2reason
(ANAGRAM for the day: Socialist twaddle == Tact is disallowed)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson