Posted on 03/11/2006 3:24:52 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Look for William Jefferson Clinton to move to California soon. One of his favorite sexual activities is being given a wink and a nod by that state's highest court.
You know ... the naughty kind of wink and nod that does nothing to protect your children, but certainly assuages the guilt of the judges' own moral code. And in doing so, it bends the reasoning of what should be a body that protects our citizens into one that targets them.
On Wednesday, the California Supreme Court voted 6 to 1 to not force those convicted of having oral sex with underage kids to register as sex offenders with the state. The majority judges said that the law was "too harsh and unfair." Yes, I'm sure that the problem with such enforcement is the resolute "unfairness" of punishing those who know it is a crime and yet do it anyway. How terrible.
The judges justified their conclusion by citing the fact that under the state laws of California people convicted of having actual sexual intercourse with those who are 16 and 17 years of age are not forced to register as a sex offender. Their argument claims a lack of equal protection under the law.
So help me understand something. Because the laws are all screwed up about the sentencing of a crime that is even worse than the one that is committed, therefore we have to let those who commit serious crimes off easy? For some reason, there is an aversion to tough punishment in the liberal courts today.
There was a time when those who broke God's moral laws were marked by society. The scarlet letter emblazoned, people went about their lives, but they were shunned, kept very much at arm's length from the whole of society.
In World War II, girls who slept with the Nazis in the occupied territories had their heads shaved upon liberation to identify them as weak, dangerous and even traitors to the homelands. In 2006, the sex-offender registration is a poor substitute for identifying the degenerates among us, yet it is the best system we have.
I'd personally much rather see those who have sex with children be dragged to the public square, have their crimes announced to society, and publicly executed. Their filth lives on in the minds of the victims whom they molest and that is all the life they deserve at that point.
But not in California.
Not in California's Supreme Court. Here, the brightest minds the California legal system can produce – who assumingly have children and families of their own – are the ones that see the danger, look it straight in the face, and utter the words "harsh" and "unfair." Now, the judges who should be the "most respected" (insert guffaw here) are telling the citizens in their state that those convicted of having sex with children isn't something the rest of the state should have the right to know about if someone is only convicted of stripping the minor and placing their mouth in contact with the child's genitals.
Forget whatever any other laws on the books say, shouldn't that act in and of itself earn you a ticket to utter disdain? And by winking at the crime – for which the person in the case before them only served 120 days – aren't they further perpetuating the likelihood that it will happen again?
The judges do make a good point: What on earth is wrong with the Legislature in California – and why isn't it an equally damnable crime for an adult to have sexual intercourse with a minor? Why aren't they already punished to the fullest extent of the law? Why aren't the perverts who crave such activity given the death penalty?
Wait, don't answer ... I already hear the judges mouthing the words ...
"Too harsh," and "unfair."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McCullough's first hardback title, "The MuscleHead Revolution," is now available for pre-order. Kevin is heard daily in New York City, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware and New Jersey on WMCA 570/970 from 2-5 p.m., and he blogs at muscleheadrevolution.com.
The jig is up, trublu. Have mom turn herself in; her smut-peddlin' days are over. She can bring her shawl but leave the knitting needles at home.
It is with great sadness that I have come to this conclusion.
Thank you for bringing this up in this thread.
Your post is sensible ("why make punishment for oral sex more stringent that sexual intercourse"). While it makes sense to address this issue, legislatively, the point remains that the legislative bodies are indeed incrementally working to lower the age of consensual sex laws in CA.
I still have the press copy of a case that went on in SFrancisco Courts in the middish 90s: A man in his 30s marrying and having sex with a 12 year old girl. SF DA's office argued for full prosecution of the man under the law. However, it didn't happen and because the opposing lawyer made the case that since the Man and the Girl were Pakistani, and the girl's parents consented to the marriage, he was guilty of no crime. Verdict: Not guilty.
The opposing lawyer argued the multi-culturalist line: "We need to respect other cultures."
Meanwhile, over in gay land of the SF Bay Area, Adult predators to places like Thailand were bringing back very young boys they'd "adopted". Talk was that the adoption laws were very onerous and problematic. What emerged were two issues out of the bowels of SF: Lower the age of consent, gay "marriage."
Life in SF-land is life in a fishbowl. You get to see and hear how all things fit together as opposed to just seeing snippets of this and that over time.
Yegads! UNfrigginbelieveable.
16 and 17 are not legally consenting adults but it's not quite accurate to describe them as 'kids'.
This case involved Consensual oral sex between a 16 yr old girl and a 22 yr old man. Under California law such an offense would not require registration under Megan's law if it had been 'normal intercourse', but oral copulation in the exact same circumstances required registration. That is the basis of this case. It does not affect forcible sex, rape, incest, molestation or any other offenses.
It ONLY affects cases where consensual oral sex was treated differently under the law than consensual intercourse. This was an equal protection case, and by most legal experts was considered the proper decision.
I am NOT advocating relations between 22 yr olds and 16 year olds, but the legal arguments and decision in this case appear sound.
We'll toss 'em on their ears, just like we did with Rose Bird...
OOPS! The California Repubelickin Paltry fell in love with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Oh well. Time for another iniative they'll probably ignore. Ain't democracy grand?
You are exactly right.
This reminds me of a story in the Bible. Remember when David slept with Basheba and had Uriah killed. He wouldn't sit over in judgement over his son Amnon or Absalom because of his guilt in adultery and pre-meditated murder.
me too.
"your sister was right. You have a dirty mind. No one else (surely not my own mother) looked at it as a sexual thing."
Yes, and you are just the kind of father I would not want for my children. My sister did other things, not just to my child (like undress child in her care, boy, and pretend sex with him), another time I walked in on her my 2 year old was naked in the bathroom and my sister had been slapping her behind with loud pops. Her little behind was so red you could feel the heat and my daughter was screaming at the top of her voice. Noone in the family was saying a word. To top it off when I asked her not to do either the slapping on naked behind but also the bottom licking, she refused. That was enough for me.). So would you like this kind of treatment for your child, 2 years old. If so, then you shouldn't have children.
So for you, mind not "realistic" enough to ferret out perverts.
My sister did other things
Where do you think Monica Lewinsky came from?----(the 'cesspit' of Kalifornicator)
"a mother snapping a naked pic of her baby? "
But often, we don't see or hear the whole story. My sister accused my uncles, stepfather, any man she knew, in her teen years of molesting her and I saw her letting men do wierd things to her bottom. She had a history.
As for naked baby photos, my daughter had a tantrum when my sister showed her the naked picture of her she had taken. I did not know she had it. The problem was asking permission and finding out how I felt about it. I knew my sister was a pervert, but did not really face it in a timely manner. I needed someone to care for my daughter and trusted that my sister was best person. Not so! I felt other things she had done was one time stupid. Not so!
But seems it was ok with you! So where and when do you draw the line before it does damage? Not easy to be a parent. Better safe than sorry! My daughter is a basket case today, but very bright, not married. Pretty certain it had something to do with my mal adjusted sister's treatment of her.Maybe not entire cause, but a good beginning.
Have good day! Keep your naked photos close to your heart unless you can get a lot of money for them.
I have no desire to mouth the private parts of my or any other children--I don't know why any sane person would desire to do that. I used to gnaw on my kids' chubby legs and horse kiss their tummies, but when it comes to private parts they were taught as soon as they could hold a bar of soap that it was their job to wash those--no one else touches them without their permission (and only after they are married, hopefully).
"chubby legs and horse kiss their tummies, but when it comes to private parts they were taught as soon as they could "
Sounds ok to me. Bet your grandkids really love you. My dad did those things too. I would think that men, would have control. Reason mothers should usually have custody of their children and be more diligent about sex education of their children at early age.
Thanks for the insight.
I guess I needed a reason to quit this website...
Oh wait...It's FR!!!!!!
We spent a lotta time on oral sex years ago!!
Sorry...gonzo
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.