Judicial activism

I wouldn't get down on the whole society over this one stupid judge in a very liberal, small State.

 

There have been sick people in this world doing sick things since The Fall in the Garden of Eden. As Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun.

 

Well, heavens to betsy! Punishment doesn't work!?! It may not change the behavior, but removing the child molestor from society (like forever!) certainly keeps him from molesting other children.

 

Ah, yes: Vermont
I really really love the Green Mountain State.

Hey, CMG: I heard Sean Hannity droning on and on and on and on about this. However, I do not recall Rush talking about it, but I could be wrong.

Regards to you,
BiR

 

My wife says, "Punishment might not work, but castration would".

However, I'm thinking that 60 days in jail just might be a death sentence for him when he's released.

 

Who cares if punishment works?! Well, OK, it would be nice. But, ultimately, you do wrong, you get punished. Period.

However, if Vermont does not impeach this judge for imposing his will above the law they DESERVE what they allow!

 

FTR,

I can't PM you....

 

BiR, Are you saying that you agree with the decision?


FTR, This guys liberalism has led him so far astray that not only does he no longer get the right answers... he doesn't even ask the right questions. What objective does he have in mind when he says punishment doesn't work? Probably the rehabilitation of the criminal. But that can never work as the sole or even primary objective of a criminal system. A criminal system must seek justice first and always then prevention.

If a person can be changed then great... that is a form of prevention (though rehabilitation programs broadly have poor success rates with violent criminals and sexual deviants). But if they can't be changed, you don't give up and say they should be freed. You keep them to protect society from them.

 

Punishment does work while its being carried out. It prevents that criminal from engaging in more crime against civil society.

 

Texas style justice:

I was called for jury duty in the punishment phase for an admitted child rapist. A 38 year old man had repeatedly raped his 8 year old step-daughter. He pled guilty but requested probation. Of course the DA said no, so they had to empanel a jury to determine punishment.

He got 75 years. The DA had offered 20.

 

Not sole, but why not primary?

But if the prevention works, then there would be no need of justice - or am I misunderstanding you?

 

I'd like to get confirmation of the story of the OP. The link in the OP is to a registered site. Also, the site is a financial investment site. I don't know about you, but I typically don't get my judicial news from financial sites. Furthermore, the link is to a EDITORIAL on the site, not a news story. An editorial is simply commentary/opinion, and not intended to be factual. Hence, for any of us to comment on a commentary sans factual data may unintentionally put us in the the position of having engaged in rumor and gossip.

Can anyone provide a link to this story existing elsewhere?

 

Not sole, but why not primary? </font>[/QUOTE] Because it isn't the legitimate rights of the criminal that have been violated. It is the rights of the victim... and potential victims.

The primary objective of the system must be to protect... and rehabilitation programs are generally based on humanistic idealism. They have been widely ineffective.

But if the prevention works, then there would be no need of justice - or am I misunderstanding you? </font>[/QUOTE]That's a null statement.

If there is no crime then there is no need for the threat of punishment. When discussing rehabilitation efforts, punishment will be necessary until 100% effectiveness is seen in these programs... which I suspect will be never. But even then it may be the right thing to do. Criminals don't just owe society a promise to never do it again, they owe society a payment for what they have already done.

Yes. Justice is necessary.

 

I have no knowledge as to whether this is a legit source or not. It was linked from a GOPUSA newsletter I get by email.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jan/06010511.html

 

Look for the Congress in Vermont to initiate articles of impeachment against this judge. On FNC last night, there was quite a discussion about this with one of the Congresswomen (I believe it was) from that state - the citizens are outraged. Also, hopefully, this will help Jessica's Law to pass in that state. In addition, the decision of this judge is under appeal, from what I understood.

 

I don't doubt the validity of the publication, but of note is that we were all commenting on it based not on a news article, but an opinion piece. We should as Christians properly discern between news and opinion. That's all I was getting at. Since my original post, folks have posted supporting links, for which I'm thankful, since I had not heard of this incident until stumbling upon this thread.

I'm trying to find out one detail, though. The defendant in this case did not qualify for sex-offender treatment. I'm cutious as to what the prerequisites are for sex-offender treatment. There seems to be some detail missing, and I'm guessing that it is that missing detail that qualified the defendant to serve 60 days instead of several years.

 

There was a time when rape warranted the death penalty. Sad that it was not exacted in this case since the life of this child has been destroyed.