Journal nocomment's Journal: ugh! he's out of jail already 19
He was taken in yesterday. Charged with 288 (oral copulation of a minor) and then put away on $50,000 bond (I think that means she had to pay $5000...?). The (ex) mother-in-law bailed him out a couple hours later.
ARRRGH! I know that's how the bail system works, but I wanted him to sit there.
Will he hang himself? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the evidence supports it, (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the evidence supports it (meaning multiple person testimony corroborates the charges), he'll probably get sentenced to six years per offense. Unless he has $100,000 for a good lawyer.
Yeah, probably. He should be put away for far longer. In WA, he wouldn't even get that much. Probably less than a year under the sentencing alternatives for family members known as SSOSA.
It's incredibly sick.
And I am really pissed off because it is now clear that last week my county elected a new sheriff [lovickforsheriff.com] who has consistently voted in favor of letting sex offenders off the hook, when he was in the state legislature.
"Hell in a handbasket" rarely has as much impact as when our society refuses to serve just
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SSOSA only works if the defendant chooses to plead guilty. I know two guys who did not take that plea and did 5 and 8 years respectively.
Yeah, but in this case, he apparently is pleading guilty.
It's just a way for prosecutors to avoid going to trial. What they SAY is the don't want to risk losing the conviction, so they give a lower sentence in exchange for a plea, because it might be hard to get the child to testify against someone he knows. But I would rather risk not have any conviction than have him only sentenced for a few months, because if he is in public he is a danger, and these sentences are the equivalent of a long vacation. T
Look at it this way ... (Score:2)
At least, that's the way I've seen it work out IRL. There's also something VERY satisfying about walking up to the perp when he's in a restaurant and interrupting his attempt to hook a mom with kids by going - very loudly - "AT LEAST I'M NOT SITTING IN
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I care a lot more about protecting society from predators than I do about making predators feel bad. YMMV."
You certainly won't find me disagreeing with that. However, we have to look at a few things from a long-term perspective:
While its true that taking a baseball bat to someone who's molested your kid might give you immediate satisfaction AND it "gets the perp off the streets",it also shows your kid that "an eye for an eye" and "vigilante justice" are the way to go, rather than being able to depend
Re: (Score:2)
While its true that taking a baseball bat to someone who's molested your kid might give you immediate satisfaction AND it "gets the perp off the streets",it also shows your kid that "an eye for an eye" and "vigilante justice" are the way to go, rather than being able to depend on society, through its laws and law enforcement, to protect them.
I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about our government providing justice.
However, on the other hand, if government routinely fails to provide justice, there's something to be said with teaching your child that you can't always rely on government, and that if it fails to do its job to protect you and your family, then it falls on you to do it. I am not advocating vigilante justice, just noting that it can teach a valuable lesson, too, especially if we keep going in the direction where government
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that you should teach your child that vigilante justice is wrong and that all justice should be provided by the government (implication: by the government, or not at all) is preposterous to me, since I believe the government has the authority to provide justice only because the people themselves have that right and employ the government as an agent to implement it for them.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that you should teach your child that vigilante justice is wrong and that all justice should be provided by the government (implication: by the government, or not at all) is preposterous to me, since I believe the government has the authority to provide justice only because the people themselves have that right and employ the government as an agent to implement it for them.
Exactly. However, I think "vigilante justice" should be conducted only when necessary, because laws only work if we have respect for them. If we don't respect them, they will not work, and there's no point in having the government. But I think we should have it.
However, the same goes the other way: if government won't respect the laws, or its obligation to provide justice, then the same result happens.
Re: (Score:2)
"Hm. I do. Convict sexual predators and put them in jail for a very long time. Pretty simple."
Simple, but damned expensive. Now if you were to suggest that we decriminalize drugs, and put the money saved by not locking up non-dangerous offenders towards keeping sexual predators in jail, I could see a lot of people agreeing with that.
It would be a win-win situation all around. Fewer people in jails, more court time for serious cases like sexual predators, more tax revenues from" sin taxes", less revenue
Re: (Score:2)
And your rant about drug decriminalization is completely irreelevant too, being a completely separate subject. Not that I disagree with it necessarily, but it is entirely beside the point.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to disagree. There is always a point at which cost becomes relevant. In this case, the cost may be well, well below that point: i.e., effectively fighting sexual predators is well worth the cost. But some people might argue that the cost is well above that point: that while it might put some sexual predators out of commission, entirely too much money is being spent doing it and it would actually be better for society if, shudder, the money were saved and put to something else and people just had t
Re: (Score:2)
I have to disagree. There is always a point at which cost becomes relevant. In this case, the cost may be well, well below that point: i.e., effectively fighting sexual predators is well worth the cost. But some people might argue that the cost is well above that point: that while it might put some sexual predators out of commission, entirely too much money is being spent doing it and it would actually be better for society if, shudder, the money were saved and put to something else and people just had to be really, really careful (say, everybody choosing to be armed or something).
I do not agree. If we decide that preventing sex predators from running lose is too expensive, our society has failed, and we should scrap it and start over.
Re: (Score:2)
There are ALWAYS going to be limited resources. Politics is the art of the posible. Yes, put predators in jail. However, the only way to do that is to free up $$$ - because lets face it, the world last month said "No" to US debt.
So you have to come up with the money somewhere. My solution frees up the necessary funds, as well as treating minor drug offences as what they really are - a social issue.
"If we decide that preventing sex predators from running lose is too expensive, our society has failed, an
Re: (Score:1)
Worry not. (Score:2)
Oh he will, it just won't happen today.