Last week, I blogged bout how horrendous it is that child molesters are treated leniently by judges and by parole boards. Many of you wonder why that is. I don’t wonder – it’s because the liberal world view of those in those positions of power concludes that such perpetrators are ultimately not responsible for their behavior, because they have a disease. Those with a disease are, of course, offered compassion. Since they conclude that this can’t be a choice or an impulse not resisted or pure evil, then it must be a disease. Therefore, they believe that incarceration is useless and cruel and the real way to protect us is to put them in therapy (another liberal enclave).
The Catholic Church never turned its child molesters over to the police. They put them in spiritual rehab again and again and again. It’s the same mentality: these people are not evil; they are not criminals. They are sick and need comfort and direction.
And what about the children who were raped, beaten and murdered? Well, they say, the best way to insure that no more children are hurt is rehab therapy and spiritual guidance.
That is all complete BS. These people are evil.
There is an organization called NAMBLA – the North American Man/Boy Love Association – and they march in parades and have websites and meetings geared to promoting the “healthy reality” that kids are sexual and have a right to their sexuality, and the only reason it has been criminalized is that society is uptight.
Molesters in various forms are quite open, as their world view is that they are healthy and we are not.
Since it is not politically correct to judge any more, many folks in our society (and in positions of power) include child/adult sex as a normal variant of human sexuality (as they do sex with animals and consenting sex with extreme violence and/or near-death experiences).
As we keep dumbing down our notions of right and wrong, you will see more and more of this stuff normalized in our society.
Pretty soon we’ll hear Nero on his violin.TrackBack URI
People in San Diego are understandably enraged and confused: a convicted sex offender (who, in the past, had beaten and raped young girls and got only five years in prison) was let out on parole…to rape and kill a young woman again.
In another part of the country, Gary Becker, the fifty two year old former mayor of Racine, Wisconsin had faced up to more than twenty seven years in prison after pleading guilty to child enticement and attempted sexual assault of a child. What did he get? His sentence was three years in prison.
The judge in the case, Stephen Simanek, said (brace yourself) that he had been prepared to sentence Becker to probation – PROBATION!! – but was alarmed to discover that Becker had purchased girls’ underwear two weeks prior to sentencing.
So, instead of probation or 27 years, he got 3 years (with the potential to get out in 1 1/2 years for good behavior – probably because there are no girls to rape in prison).
In my opinion, any judge who gives less than the permitted maximum should lose the bench.
In my opinion, any Board of Parole that lets a convicted sex offender out before their maximum time is served should lose their position.
It’s a rare thing – in fact, I have NEVER read of a case of rape/molestation/murder of a child done by someone who had no previous record, so letting them out under any circumstances automatically condemns one or more children to rape and/or death. Great comment for a civilization to make, right?TrackBack URI
I remember when the Unabomber was caught. There was an uproar of indignation concerning the fact that it was his brother who “ratted” him out. When his brother saw the published ramblings of the serial murderer known as the “Unabomber,” he recognized the sentiments, mentality, and writing style of his brother, and informed the police. If memory serves me right, The Los Angeles Times had either an editorial or an op-ed piece castigating the brother for essentially “turning on blood.”
That was a morally repugnant point of view. Protecting the innocent against evil is the responsibility of every human being, regardless of the “job description” of the evildoer – in this case, a sibling.
Fortunately, in England, a wife of twenty years understood her responsibility to others (in this case, children), and set aside emotional pain and potential embarrassment. She set out to trap her husband, whom she suspected of being a pedophile. Apparently, her husband chatted with teenagers as he groomed them for sex.
The wife pretended to be a 14 year old girl, and caught him in the act. She was in the neighboring living room while he was in his study sweating over a hot computer, setting “her” up for a meeting to have sex. He also used a webcam to carry out sex acts and send the videos over the Internet. Our plucky wife watched this in absolute disgust and horror.
She then contacted police who seized his computer. She didn’t march into his study to confront him, cry, or threaten. Like a good citizen, she just turned it all over to the authorities. GOOD FOR HER!
He only received three years of community service and was banned indefinitely from having access in person or online to children under the age of 18. He also had to register as a sex offender, and, oh yes, she divorced him.
“I did the right thing, and I don’t regret it. Now I just need some time to think and put this all behind me,” she said to a reporter.
She should have gotten a medal.TrackBack URI
Y’know, I really don’t know why I am so upset about Roman Polanski. I mean, he’s the director of such notable films as Rosemary’s Baby, Chinatown, and The Pianist. When one is a “respected” artist, shouldn’t we allow for certain…shall we say…”proclivities” that maybe aren’t what the average schmo should get away with? After all…he’s a movie director!
What’s the big deal about telling a very pretty little 13 year old girl that he could make her a star – i.e., a model for the French Edition of Vogue magazine? How narrow-minded can you be to imagine that taking pictures of the naked 13 year old girl in a hot tub, plying her with glass after glass of champagne and popping her a few Quaaludes (ostensibly, he said, to cure her asthma), and then showing her what a real man can do without Viagra is a problem? And what’s wrong with the fact that he cautioned her to never tell her mother about their “little secret?” It just makes the whole scenario more…intimate.
Go figure…the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office filed charges against Roman Polanski for this “innocuous” behavior – gee, it must have been a slow legal day. After pleading guilty to having sex with a 13 year old child, working out a plea bargain, and then paying off the girl’s family, Roman Polanski fled the United States in 1977. The American authorities (just stubborn, I guess) issued an international search request in 2005. Swiss authorities arrested him Saturday at the Zurich airport.
How terribly inconvenient for the film world. Polanski had traveled to Switzerland to collect a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Zurich Film Festival, and by going to Switzerland, he finally got arrested for his “lifetime guilt.” Actress Debra Winger, President of the film festival’s jury, was terribly upset, poor thing: “The festival has been unfairly exploited to secure Polanski’s arrest over a case that is all but dead. Despite the philistine nature of the collusion that has now occurred, we came to honor Roman Polanski as a great artist. We hope today this latest order will be dropped; it is based on a three decade old case that is all but dead except for a minor technicality.”
There are so many people around the world who were equally as astonished as I was that such an important film director should be treated so disrespectfully. Jack Lang, a former French culture minister said, “While Mr. Polanski had committed a ‘grave crime,’ he is a great creator and artist, and there’s a sentiment here that pursuing someone for a crime committed 30 years ago…is unreasonable…a kind of judicial lynching.” I’m not sure what Mr. Lang’s notion of what consequences a “great creator and artist” should have had, had he not eluded sentencing three decades ago. And it certainly isn’t the fault of the American judicial system that a country such as France would give him sanctuary.
Apparently, 100 or so entertainment industry professionals created a petition for Mr. Polanski’s release, saying “Filmmakers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision.” It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend him.
After all, with all the stress of hiding in France to avoid criminal punishment for what is ultimately the drugging and raping of a little girl, he still managed to get the Best Director Oscar in 2003 for “The Pianist.” In spite of the clarity of his “wrongdoings,” the Zurich festival director is experiencing “great consternation and shock,” adding, “We are unable to judge the legal background surrounding the arrest.”
Let’s go through this again: the man drugged and raped a child. The man drugged and raped a child, and then fled the United States to avoid jail time. The man drugged and raped a child, and the fled the United States to avoid jail time, and has been for 30 years treated like the patron saint for the arts by a world that is growing more and more morally corrupt by the moment.
There is hardly a more sympathetic creature on the face of the earth than Roman Polanski. He was born in Paris, moved to Poland with his Jewish family when still a toddler (shortly before World War II). His mother died in a Nazi concentration camp, but Polanski avoided capture and spent his youth in Poland before moving to the United States. His wife, Sharon Tate, was 8 months’ pregnant with their child when she was brutally murdered by the Manson family. When you look at his ability to make movies, after these grossly horrendous experiences, it seems logical that you should forgive a little drugging and a little raping of a young girl. NOT.
In my opinion, all those who have participated in any way in the making or distributing of Polanski’s movies for the last 30 years should be considered accessories after the fact, and part of a conspiracy to protect a child rapist. Polanski’s movies should be boycotted by every decent American, as well as the movies of those who acted in or contributed to any of Polanski’s movies in the last 30 years.
The man is an animal and a coward. He’s an animal because of what he did to a child; he’s a coward because he didn’t take his punishment like a man with character.
I am thoroughly disgusted by the world’s film community for supporting him just because he makes good movies. I understand that Hitler was a good painter…Maybe we shouldn’t have closed in on and bombed his bunker because good painters are a treasure.
There’s word that both the Polish and French governments are going to try to get Obama to “pardon” him. I can’t believe Obama would agree to such a request while looking into the eyes of his two little girls. Can you?
Amoral is the word of the day – it means no moral compass whatsoever. And that’s what we are seeing around the world in those who have come out to sympathize with and support Roman Polanski, child rapist. His heinous act and three decades of freedom avoiding an appropriate sentence don’t mean anything to amoral people. It’s all about the game of movies. God bless the Swiss arrest and the intent of the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office to bring him back to face justice.
Someone in Hollywood is already, I am sure, scripting up for the movie of Polanski’s life, and to be sure, he will be presented to the Vatican for consideration of sainthood, because he is big box office.TrackBack URI
When President Obama spoke to school children last week, he gave the kind of speech I would have given: he emphasized that personal responsibility is the ticket to a life of success and a strong country. He mentioned that all the equipment, books, and desks were all well and good, but useful only if students took the responsibility to work hard at their studies.
I wish our courts (and the rest of the President’s agenda) followed that concept of personal responsibility. Not so.
An Indiana court has ruled that a pizza shop must pay for a 340 pound employee’s weight loss surgery in order to ensure the success of another operation for a back injury he suffered at work when he was accidentally struck in the back by a freezer door. I wonder how much his girth was responsible for the accident. I don’t wonder how much his girth is responsible for the fact that the surgery for his back won’t be undertaken until he reduces his weight first – no kidding! But making the pizza shop employer responsible for paying for that weight loss surgery is not in keeping with the President’s message of personal responsibility.
The man was obese before he was hired. If he hadn’t been hired because of his weight, that would have been discrimination, and would have been illegal. Employers are screwed no matter what they do to run a business and make a reasonable profit.
This is not the only such case. The most recent was in Oregon, where the state’s Supreme Court ruled on August 27 that the state workers’ compensation insurance must pay for gastric bypass surgery to ensure that a man’s knee replacement surgery was effective.
Businesses will definitely and understandably be much more careful about whom they hire. While they can’t not hire a fat person because he or she is fat, they are not obligated to hire the first person who shows up for the job, and they can and should come up with some other reason to protect themselves from unreasonable financial demands because they hired a person who eats more and moves less.
Obviously, this situation is anti-personal responsibility and anti-business. This ruling will have repercussions beyond obesity and weight-loss surgery. Employers will be wary of hiring people who have other conditions that expose them to workplace injury. Developmental and physical limitations of some applicants will likely keep potential employers from being as compassionate as they’ve been in the past.
This is really sad, because ultimately, it’s the individual with some challenges who will suffer.TrackBack URI
I am sick to my stomach and soul that Scotland freed the Lockerbie bomber on compassionate grounds, allowing the terminally ill creep to die in his homeland, Libya, and rejecting American pleas for justice in the attack that killed 270 people.
Abdel Baset al-Megrahi served ONLY eight years of his life sentence. Because he’s been diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer, Scottish Judge Secretary MacAskill felt that since “Mr. al-Megrahi now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power,” he should be set free to die in his own bed in Libya. The mass murderer was convicted in 2001 of taking part in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 on December 21, 1988 – just before Christmas. The airliner exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, and all 259 people aboard and 11 on the ground died when it crashed.
This evil man has been given three months to live, or so the doctors guess. He is being given the luxury of dying in his country, in his town, in his home and with his family. Is that appropriately compassionate? Well, my take is that this is definitely compassionate, but definitely NOT appropriate.
It is an appalling, disgusting, sickening decision made by misguided notions of compassion. Compassion for this man is an insult to all the victims. The compassion should be directed to the victims and the ongoing, permanent suffering of their families. This is misplaced compassion, misdirected compassion, and inappropriate compassion. All the families of the victims got the bits and pieces of their loved ones returned to them in a box. The same should happen to al-Meghari.
Why is this happening? As one wise man once said, “Follow the money…or the oil.” Libya’s leader, Moammar Gadhafi collected al-Megrahi on his private jet. Western energy companies (including Britain’s BP PLC) have moved into Libya in an attempt to tap the country’s vast oil and gas wealth. Gadhafi, as reported by FoxNews.com, has renounced terrorism, dismantled Libya’s secret nuclear program, and accepted his government’s responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing. He has paid compensation to the victim’s families. I don’t know why he wants this vile creature back in Libya to die. Perhaps it’s because there’s more to the story…
When al-Megrahi landed in Tripoli, more than 1,000 young Libyans gathered to welcome him, cheering and waving Libyan flags. You should know that large public gatherings are rare in Libya, and tightly controlled by the government (especially on the tarmac where Gadhafi’s private jet lands). For a country that is supposed to have turned its back on terrorism, protecting, nurturing and celebrating a terrorist murderer is perplexing. Perhaps it means that the roots of Libya are still firmly planted in extremist mentalities. Or maybe it means that, having bowed to economic and political pressure, Libya wished to flex a bicep at the expense of 270 victims and their innumerable family members and friends.
To have put al-Meghari on a plane and then to welcome him as a hero, allowing him to die in peace is, in my opinion, an insult to the values of all civilization which believes that life is precious. He forfeited the preciousness of his life when he thought it righteous to murder, killing men, women and children who didn’t mean him or anyone else any harm.
Shame on Scotland. Shame on Libya. Shame on Scotland again, for not inflicting a death penalty on an unrepentant mass murderer. We do not show the world that we value life when we impose minor consequences on those who devalue and steal lives.TrackBack URI
A Canadian court has lifted a 12 year old girl’s “grounding,” overturning her father’s punishment for disobeying his orders to stay off the Internet. The girl had taken her father to Quebec Superior Court after he refused to allow her to go on a school trip for chatting on websites he tried to block, and then posting inappropriate pictures of herself online using a friend’s computer.
Unbelievably, the judge, Justice Suzanne Tessier, decided the punishment was too severe, and basically severed this father’s parental authority. Unbelievable. Unbelievable.
Evidently, the girl’s Internet transgression was just the latest in a pattern of broken house rules.
Obviously, this situation should never have been accepted for adjudication. Obviously, this judge has taken leave of her common sense. Obviously, this judge should lose her position. Obviously, this is going to undermine parenting in Canada, and anywhere else such nonsense is permitted.
By the way, there’s a twist to this story – one which may explain the judge’s behavior. The court-appointed lawyer who represented this child is the same lawyer who has been involved in the child’s parents’ 10 year custody battle! If I were suspicious, I might wonder if this judge is a feminist type who identified with the mom as a co-oppressee and misused judicial power to support women – right or wrong. Not an accusation, you understand, but just an attempt at understanding the unacceptable.TrackBack URI