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.
Well Mister, you are obviously as brilliant as I am. And I hope everyone checks out your way cool homepage!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/~arrowhead1952/
DOUBLE Groan!
The bad judges are never weeded out and remain on the bench forever or move up to seats they never should occupy. The power of the people is worthless in these cases. Try, for instance, to mount a campaign to throw out partisan judges on a state appellate court unless they commit murder on the courthouse steps. It's impossible.
We tried it here in Florida to try to remove at least one or two of the partisan liberal appellate court judges involved in the twisting of law in the Bush/Gore recount to no avail.
The sheeple just go in and vote "yes" for retention because they know nothing about the judges behind the names on the ballot.......and some of them are lucky they found the polling place at all.
Leni
And why am I in this handbasket?
That's about right. If there's no rational basis for the law, it gets tossed. If or when California decides that an adult who has intercourse with a 16-year-old should be subject to mandatory lifetime registration, *then* CA can subject an adult who gets a BJ from a 16-year-old to mandatory registration. As the law stands now, it makes no sense whatsoever to have mandatory registration for oral sex but not for actual intercourse.
For some reason, there is an aversion to tough punishment in the liberal courts today.
The CA Supreme Court is hardly a liberal court, and sex offender registration has nothing to do with punishment. This guy's clueless.
Thanks. If I have time this AM, I'll post an article from the local paper today. Another local and liberal pastor blasted the president from his pulpit.
Has he inspired you to create one yourself?? ;^)
I just posted that article.
It may now be legal technically-but try floating that idea to the wife.Warning;death or serious injury may result.
And the incessant, relentless march toward legal child rape continues...
"I guess it's true now by judicial fiat--eatin' ain't cheatin'"
Had this discussion with my sister after viewing her kissing my 3 month old on her body parts. She still does this to babies and does child care. So its ongoing occurrence. She guffawed the act and laugh to embarrass me for such "uppity" behavior (as did my husband) and I told her that she would no longer be welcome in my house nor would I ever trust her to care for my children and that I would tell everyone I know what she does to their children.
This started a rift with my husband that ended in divorce.
My sister and I still do not speak, my husband deceased. Guess I should have called the child protective service and the police dept, but seems that this is now legal. Well, glad my children are grown up. Hope the culprit gets e-coli and dies.
I can't believe that judge thinks it is ok to do oral sex on a child. Guess he thinks mouths touching sex organs is illegal even if it's a child or parents gave consent by letting the person baby sit and change their diapers.
Sickos!!! PS, she takes photos of naked babies too and Guffaws that too. I have a sick mind according to her, my husband and others. It's ok to take photos of naked babies too.
Sorry, long vent, but favorite of mine.
Paging Bill O'Reilly...
SAN FRANCISCO -- California's justices overturned state law requiring adults 21 years or older who are convicted of having oral sex with 16- and 17-year-olds to automatically register as a sex offender for life.
The California Supreme Court, ruling 6-1, said the law, first adopted in 1947, was unconstitutional. The majority said that the law was too harsh or unfair because adults 21 or older who are convicted of having sex with minors ages 16 and 17 are not automatically required to register as sex offenders.
The justices pointed out that lawmakers declined to treat both categories of offenders equally three times in the last 10 years. The court noted that, because the law did not treat the two categories of sex offenders similarly, the law violated both state and federal equal protection rights.
"Mandatory lifetime registration of all persons who, like defendant here, were convicted of voluntary oral copulation with a minor of the age of 16 or 17, but not of someone convicted of voluntary sexual intercourse with a minor of the same age, violates the equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions," Justice Joyce Kennard wrote for the majority.
Adults who have sexual activity with children under 16 are required to register. The state maintains a public database with personal information of registered sex offenders.
The justices, however, left intact a provision granting trial judges the discretion to demand registration for both categories of adult sex offenders -- those that have oral sex or intercourse with minors ages 16 and 17.
The case was brought by Vincent Hofsheier, of Santa Cruz County, who was convicted in 2003 of having oral sex with a 16-year-old girl when he was 22. He was sentenced to 120 days in jail.
Neither his attorney, Paul Couenhoven, nor the California Attorney General's office returned calls for comment.
Justice Marvin Baxter was the lone dissent.
"As any teenager or adult knows, intercourse is distinct from oral copulation, involving a wholly different sexual act that, unlike oral copulation, may result in pregnancy and the birth of a child," he wrote. "Given this significant difference in the potential real-life consequences of the two acts, the Legislature reasonably could decide that different registration schemes for the two groups of offenders are appropriate as a matter of public policy."
The case is People v. Hofsheier, S124636.
" I did not have sex with that woman."
Oral sex is not sex?
IS depends on what the meaning of "IS," is.
Now eye candy will become mounth candy, as it already has in the highest echelons of the Demwit suck off community. Who do these judges have under their desks?
Now some men in the future will arrive home early at times, to catch their wives not having sex with the postman?
This is really a laugh!
Oral sex is sex, and if you do it, accept it for what it is, don't pretend like the Dims do that , " This is not sex."
"NOT SEX" CAN GET YOU DEAD either from STD, HIV or the bullet from the gun of a persons spouse in Texas.
Now that homosexuality has been legitimized (practically worshipped in some quarters), the next step is the normalization of pedophillia. This will be harder as it will make the "its for the kids" crowd look like hypocrites (although, technically, it's still for the kids), but don't think a little thing like that will deter them. The most creative minds in the gay, lesbian, and ultra-left community have been plotting their strategy on this for decades.
Of course, this will all be for naught when California substitutes the Sharia for secular law.
... "But ever since laws allowing minors to have an abortion, in CA, sans parent notification -- a whole host of "under age" consents have been..........
Sad to say with this law, my daughter had six abortions and today cannot have children and has none.Wonder what the numbers are in this situation. Again, underage "rights" without informing parents. Great isn't it. Step father knew about it and I wonder how he participated?? No wonder today's children are so wild. Parents are being undermined by teachers, step parents, "do-good neighborhood organizations, neighbors such as Childhelpusa who don't give a damn what happens in long run. It sets a precident at an early age and undermines the parents rights. Daughter til this day is wild and defies authority. Possible she would have been this way anyway but she needed a mother to guide her instead of the school and step father(athiest) who claimed they didn't want to hurt my feelings as though I was an imbicileand my values were not as important as my daughter's values at age of 14. It amazes me how many people like to steal authority from the rightful person. Her step father then moved her to Childhelpusa and that is another story of child abuse that needs to be investigated. My daughter was a run away and I believed it was her choice, turned out, it was not her choice. These people were telling her what was best for her and what to say while they trafficked her.
We wonder about child trafficking?? Well it is happening right in your rich, politically correct neighborhood and schools. No body wants to look at it, just like the priests? Why is it we think, and judges support, (it's too harsh) it is ok to molest children?? take them away from parents and dump in family groups that abuse and molest them.
Truth is I would have sued their "asses". By the time I found out my daughter was 50 years old and mentally ill. Am still considering going to authorities for her current mental illness.
That being said, I have heard of cases where an 18 year old was tagged a sex offender for having relations with his 16 or 17-year old girlfriend. That IS a travesty and should stop without exempting the over-20 crowd.
Here's what a real newspaper says.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20060306-1700-ca-sexoffenderregistration.html
The California Supreme Court, ruling 6-1, said the law, first adopted in 1947, was unconstitutional. The majority said that the law was too harsh or unfair because adults 21 or older who are convicted of having sex with minors ages 16 and 17 are not automatically required to register as sex offenders.
The justices pointed out that lawmakers declined to treat both categories of offenders equally three times in the last 10 years. The court noted that, because the law did not treat the two categories of sex offenders similarly, the law violated both state and federal equal protection rights.
“Mandatory lifetime registration of all persons who, like defendant here, were convicted of voluntary oral copulation with a minor of the age of 16 or 17, but not of someone convicted of voluntary sexual intercourse with a minor of the same age, violates the equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions,” Justice Joyce Kennard wrote for the majority.
Adults who have sexual activity with children under 16 are required to register. The state maintains a public database with personal information of registered sex offenders.
The justices, however, left intact a provision granting trial judges the discretion to demand registration for both categories of adult sex offenders – those that have oral sex or intercourse with minors ages 16 and 17.
Arrow,
After I picked my eyeballs up off the floor from the lead picture on your homepage (and you KNOW what I'm talking about!), I noticed the disclaimer at the bottom...shouldn't that read "In CASE LIBS..."
Cheers!
You are right. Why else would these judges make such a demented decision? We need protection from scores of judges, not just those in California.
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.