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.
Kevin McCullough MEGA PING!!
I'm glad I don't live in the cesspit of California.
there is only on explanation, the judges are all a bunch of perverts themselves. and need to be run out of town on a rail.
Yet more proof of my theory about lawyers and judges. They promote crime, no question. They reward it so they can benefit, its like a giant extortion scheme where the sucker agrees to be taken.
Which cesspit do you live in?
Sounds almost as if the most liberal court in the land is on board with Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky: oral sex is not sexual relations.
The not quite as bad cesspit of Washington State...I'm a CA escapee, however.
Unbelievable.
And in some of the special programs brought into the schools under the "tolerance" mantle, there are forms that students are signing which can be used in court against them which imply consent.
Unfortunately this is not the slightest bit unbelievable. The courts are why we are where we are as a society. We pine for the old days of ridding them out on a rail tar and feathered or hanging them for their corruption.
Where are the sons of liberty when we need them the most. Why we as a society just tolerate this stuff i will never know, but we certainly don't deserve the liberty we have if we are unable to muster enough protest to drive these black robbed idiots out of office.
I guess it's true now by judicial fiat--eatin' ain't cheatin'!
Dont fret, the liberty we have today is not deserved at all judged by this societies behavior. It will go away soon enough, actually its an aberration in terms of human history and we see why if we look at things honestly.
***And in some of the special programs brought into the schools under the "tolerance" mantle, there are forms that students are signing which can be used in court against them which imply consent.***
Alia, I'm totally flummoxed by that statement. Since when is a signature by a minor legal? I'm guessing it means signatures by their parents giving consent to sex ed w/o their knowing just what their kids are being taught.
Clinton Logic...It all depends on what the definition of "is" is.
I know what you mean. But ever since laws allowing minors to have an abortion, in CA, sans parent notification -- a whole host of "under age" consents have been given their head. Besides, many of those forms that parents sign at the start of the school year in CA, actually do cover the "consent issue" -- handing off rights to the schools who by proxy and law grant caveat underage "rights". It's been a problem for a long time. Parents, usually, really have no idea what rights of their own (and their child) they are signing away when they sign those start-of-school forms AND the sex-ed forms.
I can't believe it took until reply #7. That was my first thought as well.
Thanks to the impeached #42 for saying "It all depends on what the meaning of the word is is."
No kidding! It's astonishing how far that state has regressed since the baby boomer hippies moved there in the 60s. 50 years and right down the tubes! Says a little something for liberalism!
Ever wonder why the state and fedreal legislatures are made up primarily of lawyers????
It is a self-propelled profession. The more laws you make, the more work you have. This is a very good idea when you are billing from $100 - $10,000 an hour eh?
Groan!
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.