Ergo, Louisiana’s combination of statutory death penalty for child rapists, plus possible castration, makes pleading to life in prison a very enticing proposition. The people, who don’t have to have a child molester among them, win. The perp, who isn’t castrated or fried, wins. The child, who doesn’t have to testify about “bad touching”, wins.

What disturbs me more than his incredible tale is the purpose it aims to serve: convincing the rest of us that first-time rapists of children should be “given another chance.” Sorry, you stupid asshole, if you rape a child, you should be out of chances forever.

As PatHMV eloquently stated, child molestation trials are tragically difficult, usually because you don’t have the kind of indisputable physical evidence one sometimes sees with adult stranger rapes. That having been said, when a child molester can be nailed to the wall with evidence, I personally would like to see them tortured to death, and then eaten by dogs. The castration would ideally take place in a rabid animal’s mouth, with no anesthesia to the baby-raper. I guess it’s “barbaric” of me to desire the suffering of monsters who maim and kill helpless children. So be it.
Squeegee, what do you think is the appropriate punishment for a person (male or female) who brutally rapes a child for the first time? What if it was your child?
Never mind. It’s only other people’s children whose rape is a mere “first offense.”
You stupid fucking idiot. Think of what you’re saying. Even the most irredeemable criminals in prison despise child molesters,and dole out the punishment they so richly deserve. You can’t even grasp a rock-bottom truth that the worst among us can understand with perfect clarity. What does that say about you?

Lewd&Lascivious’s last blog post..Dang.

The bottom line is plea agreements. And no, that’s not a bad thing. When somebody’s been molesting a 6 year old girl, that can be hard to prove. If the bastard’s not caught in the act, and there’s no DNA evidence, then the only evidence will often be the testimony of the young, scared 6 year old witness. Often the trial takes place a year, even two years after the arrest, which itself may be months or more after the last act of molestation. How many 8 year olds do you know who can testify accurately about things that happened to them when they were 6? How many 6 year olds make really good witnesses? Plus, kids are so suggestible, only very careful interviews by very well-trained investigators will produce solid cases against that kind of monster.

Even when the investigation has been done well, and the kid can remember what happened, she is likely to have an extreme fear of being confronted by the filth in the courtroom. The parents, whose main concern is their own child, not the other children the bastard may abuse in the future, are often very reluctant to force their children to relive the abuse on the witness stand.

So it’s entirely common for a prosecutor to offer a lesser charge or a lesser jail term in return for a guilty plea which avoids further traumatizing the children.

There are also, of course, the perverts who have been caught very early, when “all” they’ve done is fondle a 13-year-old or something. Our society is not going to give life in prison to somebody for that, for better or worse.

Finally, of course, there are a LOT of people who are labelled as “sex offenders” these days who are not, actually, pedophiles. The 22 year old with the 16 year old girlfriend may be a slimeball, but not, psychologically speaking, a pedophile. Yet if he gets busted for having sex with her, he will have to register as a sex offender.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=child+molestation+%22Douglas+County%2C+Washington%22+1993+waterville

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=child+molestation+%22Douglas+County%2C+Washington%22+1993

No scrap of evidence for my assertion that you’re a liar, huh? Let me see: analysis of the Rules of Evidence, inconsistencies in your own story, my legal education, and even a google search for that which would surely have come up… yeah, you’re a liar.

I’m three weeks away from being an attorney, Squeegee. I would strongly suggest that you try to pick a fight with a less knowledgeable person, because you’re going to go down in flames.

I’m also an extremely active member of the Federalist Society. So take all of your blather about the proper interpretation of the Constitution elsewhere.

First of all, it’s “endorphins,” not “endorfins.” The hormone does not result in the creation of external flippers.

Second, the link between testosterone and rape is extraordinarly well-documented. First, I’ll steer you this way: http://books.google.com/books?id=cP_nACGAMWQC&pg=RA1-PA408&lpg=RA1-PA408&dq=testosterone+rape&source=web&ots=1WoEMeD3wR&sig=xWne9HCQa_K4SKeJGAEdhKZkzNc&hl=en

Third, you’re either a liar or the most immoral of creatures. If you knew that your verdict was bad, why did you not approach the prosecutor at the end? Why did you not cry out to the media to protest this injustice? Why, if you KNEW a man to be innocent, did you not do a thing to help him?

C.S. Lewis presented us with a famous trilemma: liar, lunatic, or Lord. I present you with a dilemma: liar or the most immoral creature alive, who, too afraid to help another, let him be condemned.

Here are the Washington State Rule of Evidence:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.list&group=ga&set=ER

They closely mirror the FRE. Evidence may only be excluded if:
1. Not relevant (i.e. has no bearing on a material element of a crime; does not tell us whether it was more or less probable than without the evidence).
2. More prejudicial than helpful. Exculpatory evidence would not fit this description.
3. Evidence about the character of a witness that does not go to his general reputation for truthfulness.
4. Hearsay. (Hearsay is an out-of-court assertion presented for the truth of the matter asserted.) It is excluded because the jury cannot evaluate the demeanor of the person making the assertion; the opposing counsel cannot cross-examine him; and there is generally no means for evaluating the veracity of the statement.
5. Past sexual conduct of a rape victim. (This is deemed to be more prejudicial than helpful, and is so excluded.)

Pray tell, Squeegee boy, why did a judge exclude this evidence if he thought it was that exculpatory? I mean, he isn’t the little puppet of the prosecution….. Or was he in cahoots with the prosecution? If so, why did he tell y’all this fantastic “evidence”?

Fourth, get a clue about the meaning of the Equal Protection clause and abortion jurisprudence (that elucidated by both sides). Not even Antonin Scalia believes that the Constitution prohibits abortion; he thinks, correctly, that it is an issue reserved to each state. The Equal Protection clause simply cannot apply to it, as men and women are not similarly-situated, and, therefore, no Eq. Prot. requirement is triggered.

Pregnancy is not considered, by itself, to be an Equal Protection issue, as not all women are pregnant at all times. As not all men are sex offenders at all times, a punishment which specifically targets men does not violate the XIV Amendment. Even if it were to violate the Amendment, it would be permissible if “substantially related to an important governmental interest.” Babe, reducing child rape is an important governmental interest, and the link between testosterone and rape is well-documented.

Anyway, that is beside the point… why not tell us what wonderfully enlightening evidence was excluded? Is it because the presence of someone with a clue frightens you and you can’t back up your little fantasy tale?

Sam Pierce’s last blog post..Is McCain trying to woo Democrats?

It seems you might choose to protect the rights of a child molester over protecting children from molestation by previous offenders. I agree that child molesters should not be given a break for being female, but certainly an offender regardless of gender could be prevented from ever repeating his or her offense. That is of course if prevention of recurring child rapes ever trumped protecting the rapists.

Sam Pierce’s last blog post..Is McCain trying to woo Democrats?

Wow, I bring up some points and you’ve got out your blade ready to castrate me. Nice to meet you, too, Bromo. I think you need to grow up and get some life experience, friend. If you think that taking away testosterone takes away the “desire” to rape and molest, you’ve got a lot to learn. It takes away the ability to get an erection. Unnatural sexual desire is a combination of psychology and chemical addiction to pleasure-causing chemicals in the blood stream, such as endorfins.

You’ve also made some assinine assumptions about me that are 180 degrees off. I am a staunch conservative, I am ABSOLUTELY pro-life, and I’m pro-life even in the case of rape or incest, because I don’t believe a baby should be murdered because of the sins of the parent(s). I think the emotional suffering of a rape victim should not be compounded with the guilt of killing an innocent baby. I believe in the prosecution and potential death penalty for serial abortionists, once the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, which by the way is unconstitutional for PRECISELY the same reason your genital mutilation fetish law is unconstitutional. It does not pass the “equal protection under the law test.” You, know, its not just my idea, but that little scrap of paper we call the U.S. Constitution guarantees equal protection to both men and women, various racial groups, etc. It prevents laws from applying to some classes of people and not others. Imagine that!

You should know, your cheap insults are really uncalled for, Bromo. You say that I favor sexual mutilation of women–WRONG! You call me a liar, but yet you have no evidence to prove that. Once again, grow up and get some life experience. Maybe you’ve never seen it on TV, but in my experience in the real world on the jury at this real trial in 1993 in Douglas County, Washington in the courthouse in the county seat of Waterville (sorry I don’t remember the exact date or the guy’s name but the crime occurred in an even tinier town of Mansfield) this is what occurred as I told it. I’m sure you could look it up in the public record as there aren’t a whole lot of child molestation / child rape cases in this rural area. In this rural area for some reason the judge, prosecutor, and defender spilled their guts about the evidence that wasn’t presented. You say it doesn’t happen this way, but it did. Of course motions were filed to admit the evidence, but you’re incorrect that motions are only filed by the defense. The motions to admit were filed by the defender. The prosecutor filed the supression motion, because he knew he’d never get a conviction with this other evidence presented. We were forced to leave the courtroom numerous times throughout the trial while they argued these motions, so we knew nothing of the details until the trial was over. Either side can move to supress evidence, not just the defense. As far as an appeal goes, I already said that I don’t know what happened to the guy after that. Maybe it was overturned by an appellate judge, but this conviction never should have happened. It was a manipulation of the judicial system in a pro-prosecution community. I was very much pro-prosecution myself, so why would I be bringing this up, unless something terrible happened in that jury room? I was on the jury that convicted so why would I be upset about my vote to convict only minutes after convicting him, unless the story occurred as I said?

As far as reducing testosterone goes, fine. Cut off their testicles, take away their testosterone. Hell, chop off their hands, feet and ears too. Then everyone that sees them will know they are sex offenders. You won’t even need a sign, and potential victims could easily run away. These amputees surely won’t be able to re-offend. And then let all female sex-offenders go to counseling and be returned to society, because without significant levels of testosterone (yes, even women have testosterone), there is nothing to fear from them–unless of course they are a mother of their own children who hears voices telling them to drown the children in the bathtub or a nearby stream. But I’ll bet you don’t believe that happens either, because it takes testosterone to get violent, doesn’t it?

Honestly, this isn’t even a men vs. women issue for me, but rather one of reason and constitutionality. The only other point I’m making is that your approach sounds like the angry-mob solution. It sounds like cruel and unusual punishment that has the potential to maim a wrongfully convicted so-called first offender. If it wasn’t such a permanent and cruel method, I’d probably be in favor of it. Of course the true sex offenders have done horrific things to women, children, and occasionally other men. They must be severely punished. I’m all for giving the death penalty to 2nd timers, but I don’t agree with anyone being sexually mutilated, and I don’t agree with applying extreme and permanent (such as burning, beheading, boiling in oil, or tearing out their heart and lungs) punishment to first time offenders. To me, the whole castration thing sounds too much like the head and hand choppers of the wacked-out middle east. So what part of my argument is unreasonable?

Then the judge said, “Now we want to tell you the evidence that you were not allowed to consider.” The judge continued to reveal mind-blowing evidence that proved to every single one of us beyond a shadow of a doubt that we had just sent an innocent man to prison.

I can tell you that you’re lying. Sorry, it doesn’t work like that.

If there is “mind-blowing” evidence that the guy is innocent, his defence attorney would have made a motion to admit it. If it could not be admitted, or if the judge refused, he would have had an interlocutory appeal. If the evidence is that amazing, the trial judge’s decision would have been reversed on appeal.

Even if that didn’t happen, the judge wouldn’t tell y’all afterwards. Huge confidentiality issues there. Issues about cross-examination, hearsay, and the like.

By the way, it’s usually the DEFENCE that gets evidence tossed out. Remember, he has a Fifth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him, while the prosecution has no corresponding right to put all the witnesess on.

I’m calling b.s. on your lying self.

I presume you are pro-choice. After all, the government can’t make men pregnant, so it has no right to force women to be pregnant, right?

I assume that you are also okay with women crippling men so that they are not stronger and therefore able to abuse other women, right?

Does everything between the sexes need to be equal, at any cost?

You’re missing the point. Chemical castration reduces the testosterone in a man’s blood, which makes him much, much, MUCH less likely to molest and rape.

You snark about mutiliating bodies misses the POINT, which is to remove the desire to do this. A clitoris, in case you didn’t know, does not cause women to rape people. It does not produce testosterone. It’s presence or absence does not make it any more or less possible for a woman to rape. If her body is producing too much testosterone, then her ovaries would be to blame.

Now, I take it that you’re an apologist for female genital mutiliation, but, from my perspective, I see no reason to allow some child molestors to keep molesting, simply because it is not feasible to stop them all.