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.
Do we really need California???? You have to blame the voters for putting up with this crap.
Full Disclosure: This was probably done to please the NAMBLA crowd. Between this and the Lawrence decision by the supremes, the drift is clear.
They will probably try to find some way to continue blaming Catholic priests, while pushing ever harder for gay scoutmasters...
Bingo.
I had a stepfather. That was horrible. My mom refused to believe the things he did. He didn't ever get to the point of actually pawing over me, but he threatened, insuated, intimidated, and used this as a means of running me off so he and my mother could be "all alone." I gladly left, after it became obvious that my mother would not believe me. She made her choice.
Perhaps you made yours?
And nobody could take your authority away unless you cooperated in some way. Sorry to say this, but I think it's the truth.
I survived, but I was older than 14, luckily.
Message to mothers out there - don't assume that because the man you make your children's stepfather loves you he loves your children. Statistics prove this is usually not the case. Do not surrender any part of your childrearing authority, especially over daughters, to him until he PROVES to you he will be a father and not a horny guy.
Remember Woody Allen.
Any chance we'll see Darth Vader Ginsburg (ACLU'er who favors lowering the age of consent to 12) moving to California when she retires?
I mean, Look at her. How much chance is there that anyone experienced would want her?
What will this do to anti-porn statutes in California? If an underage BJ is OK, why should it be illegal to film it or sell the films that state?
Isn't it interesting that in the Bible, nothing good is said about lawyers too. That profession was singled out and shown for what it is. Sure there are a few good ones but I'd bet you could count them on one hand.
ping
Ehh, Camden?
That big sucking sound you hear is Kalafornia.
Under the law, an offender is any offender, including a minor of the same age; therefore the "offending" teen in a consensual act with another teen of the same age becomes a criminal, with a permanent registration as a sex offender. That was not what the legislature intended, when the law was written, but it is now how the law has been used, and the court, rightly in my view, said the law is to broad.
I don't think any parent wants to make a criminal of their own child, or that child's friend, when the "offending" act was consenual, between the two of them.
Change the law to insure you get the paedophile.
what is so amazing is that people willingly believe this article. a similar article was posted a few days ago. one freeper, who read the actual court decision, said that the court did not strike down the law that makes the behavior a crime and sets a punishment for it. the court decision only addresses registration, not punishment or criminality.
i'm not saying i agree with the decision, but i think it is wrong for writers of newspaper articles to distort things and mislead people.
WarEagle:
Thanks for your reply. Yes, my problem, trusting my husband with my daughter. Huge mistake. Turned out he was looking for legal proof that I was unfit mother to get better settlement in divorce and avoid child support by getting custody with our children. He used my daughter against me buying her things, cars, rent, plastic surgery (she was too young for plastic surgery, had much of it done over several times). She offered to "kick me out" and she would run the house and children for him. He is deceased now. Hindsight is always 100%.
Hope you can learn to forgive your mother. Most of the time, are your best friend, but use common sense, if she is bad for you then you can learn to live without her.
To be included in or removed from the HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA PINGLIST, please FreepMail either DBeers or DirtyHarryY2K.
The only problem with California is all the Californicators that live there!
"its for the kids"
A minor doing oral sex should not be judged and sentenced in same way as an adult or person over 16 years, consent or no consent.
It's still lewd and lascivious behavior, even for adults (or isn't it??) Does one have to register as sex offender for lewd and lascivious behavior, or exposure to children or for "mooning"? My neighbor was giving me the finger mooning me, did oral sex (not me) (on surveillance camera) dropped his towel in front of me w/o clothing. I was told this was sexual misconduct or harrassment or at least lewd and lascivious behavior, exposing oneself in public.
We didn't get to court or police, I was told later (too late to file) Neighbor has moved.
Please, don't tell me there is movement to legalize pedophilia using this "rights of child" argument. Guess I have read and told by police dept that porn photo of child is illegal, but porn of naked adults is ok on pc. Don't know about just naked legality. Should still be lewd and lascivious (but only illegal if it is in person).
Laws are wierd indeed. Judges deciding themselves what is fair and too harsh. Fair? nothing is fair.
You can be MY sister anytime! (pat on your back)
"It takes a brave person to stand up to their enemies, but a braver one to stand up to their friends.."(Dumbledor)
In your case, very brave indeed!
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.