Posts Tagged ‘Sex’

15-Year-Old Beaten and Gang Raped for 2 Hours After Homecoming Dance

October 27, 2009

I just heard about a story out of Richmond, CA that really made my blood boil. On Saturday, a 15-year-old girl was beaten and gang raped for 2 hours after she left her school’s homecoming dance. After leaving the Richmond High School homecoming dance around 9:30 P.M. to get a ride home with her father, the girl ended up meeting up with some kids on the school campus who were drinking.

Richomnd Police Lieutenant Mark Gagan told reporters, “The series of events that occurred over the next two and a half hours got more severe and more vicious to where she was ultimately gang raped, beaten and her injuries were so severe that she had to be sent to the hospital in a helicopter.”  The victim is still in the hospital, currently in stable condition.

There’s been some controversy over whether or not the school is safe.  After being asked by reporters if he thought the school was safe, one male student said, “No it’s not. Not at night time.”  Charles Ramsey, a Richmond school board member disagreed, saying, “It is a safe school, 95 percent of the students here perform well, do what they’re expected to do, but do we have a part of the campus element here that is out of control?  Yes.  We do understand and are not putting our head in the sand around the fact that Richmond has a lot of issues and problems in terms of safety.”

The school district spokesman, Marin Trujillo said, “There’s just so much control that one can do after that, once they leave the sidewalk we can’t follow them home,” regarding the safety of the homecoming dance.

Since the attack, 2 arrests have been made: a 15-year-old student, as well as a 19-year-old former student, Manuel Ortega, who was caught as he tried to flee the scene of the crime.

Gagan said that police arrived as the 2+ hour-long rape was still taking place, and that “we’re looking at four to seven active participants of sexual assault and extremely violent felonies.  We’re also suspecting there were up to a dozen people who witnessed what had happened and their involvement is unknown.”

The 15-year-old male was arrested after being pulled from class for questioning.  Another student was pulled out of class for questioning, but was released.

What I’d like to know is how the heck could 12 people stand by and watch this happen?  What kind of sick twisted person wouldn’t call the police!  The people who joined in and raped and attacked this girl need to be arrested and locked up for the rest of their lives.  I would argue that they should probably be given the death penalty, considering how heinous of a crime this was, but the death penalty isn’t an option in rape cases any more.  But they should certainly be locked up for the rest of their lives.  A crime this heinous and disgusting deserves a harsh punishment.

And while those who watched may not be charged with any crime (depending on whether or not they cheered it on, they could possibly be charged as conspirators or accomplices in the crime), they need to take a look at themselves and ask, “What the heck is wrong with me?”  How could you sit by and let something like this happen to a 15-year-old girl!  What’s wrong with you!

It’s stories like these that make me begin to lose hope in humanity. When 4-7 people gang rape a girl, and 12 people sit around and watch, there’s something wrong with what’s going through our children’s heads.  I don’t know what, but something needs to be done.  Sitting by and watching something like this is unacceptable, and the people who watched this rape are should have to live with a whole lot of guilt for the rest of their lives.  I hope they realize how despicable it was for them to just sit by and watch.

And I hope the other attackers are caught and arrested.  My thoughts and prayers are with the victim of this attack – hopefully she recovers soon, but I have no doubt that she will be mentally scarred for years to come.

UPDATE: Somebody from Newsy, a video news website asked me to embed their story covering the gang rape:

more about “Newsy | Girl Gang Raped While Others …“, posted with vodpod 

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican

The Porn Industry Wants a Bailout Now

January 8, 2009

Folks, this is why I opposed the bailouts.  I predicted this (not this EXACTLY – I don’t think ANYBODY predicted this exactly) – I predicted that after we began handing bailouts to financial institutions and auto makers, that everybody and his mother would ask for a bailout.  Well, yesterday, that pretty much happened: Hustler publisher Larry Flynt and Girls Gone Wild CEO Joe Francis that they plan on requesting that Congress allocate $5 billion for a bailout … a bailout of, you guessed it … the adult entertainment industry.

In a joint request sent to Congress, Flynt and Francis said that they want $5 billion “Just to see us through hard times.  Congress seems willing to help shore up our nation’s most important businesses, we feel we deserve the same consideration.  In difficult economic times, Americans turn to entertainment for relief.  More and more, the kind of entertainment they turn to is adult entertainment. … We should be delivering [the request] by the end of today to our congressmen and [Secretary of the Treasury Henry] Paulson asking for this $5 billion dollar bailout.”

Owen Moogan, a spokesman for Flynt told reportes, “The take here is that everyone and their mother want to be bailed out from the banks to the big three [hey - he just stole my line!].  The porn industry has been hurt by the downturn like everyone else and they are going to ask for the $5 billion.  Is it the most serious thing in the world?  Is it going to make the lives of Americans better if it happens?  It is not for them to determine.”

According to Flynt, “People are too depressed to be sexually active.  This is very unhealthy as a nation.  Americans can do without cars and such but they cannot do without sex. … With all this economic misery and people losing all that money, sex is the farthest thing from their mind.  It’s time for congress to rejuvenate the sexual appetite of America.  The only way they can do this is by supporting the adult industry and doing it quickly.”

But Francis and Flynt admit that they really don’t even need a bailout.  While DVD sales/rentals have fallen by 22% in the past year, the number of people visiting adult websites has grown.

Francis told CNN, “The popularity of adult entertainment in America has grown steadily for the past half century.  Its emergence into the mainstream of popular culture suggests that the US government should actively support the adult industry’s survival and growth, just as it feels the need to support any other industry cherished by the American people.”

Folks, this is asinine.  I opposed bailouts of institutions that were legitimately in a position of going under.  I ESPECIALLY oppose the bailout of an industry that is 1) not failing and 2) COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY to the survival of the American economy.

If any Congressman does not throw away this request within about 30 seconds of reading it, I will have lost all respect for that Congressman (unless he decides to keep it to cheer himself/herself up because of the pure hilarity of the concept).

But I think we all owe Flynt and Francis a big thank you.  Thank you for showing Americans how STUPID these bailouts are!  Why shouldn’t the adult entertainment industry get a bailout if the auto industry did?  Are we now discriminating?  Instead of deciding who does and doesn’t deserve a bailout, Congress should simply STOP giving bailouts and give BACK the half-wasted tax dollars of the American people.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Obama Disagrees with the Ban on the Death Penalty for Child Rapists

June 25, 2008

Today, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty is an unconstitutional crime for child rapists.  Barack Obama came forward and said that although he normally disagrees with the death penalty, he disagrees with the Court’s ruling here.

Obama told reporters, “I have said repeatedly I think the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances, for the most egregious of crimes.  I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime, and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well defined circumstances, the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that does not violate our Constitution.  Had the Supreme Court said, ‘We want to constrain the ability of states to do this, to make sure it’s done in a careful and appropriate way,’ that would have been one thing.  But it basically had a blanket prohibition.”

Again, this came as a surprise to me, since he has said before that the death penalty “does little to deter crime.”  He has, however, said that some crimes are “so beyond the pale [that] the ultimate punishment” is due.  Obama has been an advocate for preventing wrongful convictions and wrongful death sentences.  And I agree with him there – although I support the death penalty (ultimately, I’d just lock murderers up for life, but we don’t have prison room), we  need to make sure that we’re not killing up innocent people (or even sending innocent people to jail).

I do commend Obama for coming out against this ruling, since I’m sure that it’s going to make a lot of Democrats a little displeased with him.  I know that McCain opposes today’s ruling, but I’m going to try to find some quotes on it.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Supreme Court Bans Dealth Penalty for Child Rape

June 25, 2008

Well, today the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, decided that the death penalty cannot be given as a punishment for raping a child (this had already been decided years ago for rape of an adult). Here are some excerpts from the case, Kennedy v. Louisiana, with my comments below:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

KENNEDY v. LOUISIANA

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 07–343. Argued April 16, 2008—Decided June 25, 2008

Louisiana charged petitioner with the aggravated rape of his then-8-­year-old stepdaughter. He was convicted and sentenced to death un­der a state statute authorizing capital punishment for the rape of a child under 12. The State Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting peti­tioner’s reliance on Coker v. Georgia, 433 U. S. 584, which barred the use of the death penalty as punishment for the rape of an adult woman but left open the question which, if any, other non homicide crimes can be punished by death consistent with the Eighth Amend­ment. Reasoning that children are a class in need of special protec­tion, the state court held child rape to be unique in terms of the harm it inflicts upon the victim and society and concluded that, short of first-degree murder, there is no crime more deserving of death. The court acknowledged that petitioner would be the first person executed since the state law was amended to authorize the death penalty for child rape in 1995, and that Louisiana is in the minority of jurisdic­tions authorizing death for that crime. However, emphasizing that four more States had capitalized child rape since 1995 and at least eight others had authorized death for other non homicide crimes, as well as that, under Roper v. Simmons, 543 U. S. 551, and Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304, it is the direction of change rather than the numerical count that is significant, the court held petitioner’s death sentence to be constitutional.

Held: The Eighth Amendment bars Louisiana from imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim’s death. Pp. 8–36.

1. The Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause “draw[s] its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101. The standard for extreme cruelty “itself remains the same, but its applicability must change as the basic mores of society change.” Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238, 382. Under the precept of justice that punishment is to be graduated and proportioned to the crime, informed by evolving standards, capital punishment must “be limited to those offenders who commit ‘a narrow category of the most serious crimes’ and whose extreme culpability makes them ‘the most deserving of execution.’ ” Roper, supra, at 568. Applying this princi­ple, the Court held in Roper and Atkins that the execution of juve­niles and mentally retarded persons violates the Eighth Amendment because the offender has a diminished personal responsibility for the crime. The Court also has found the death penalty disproportionate to the crime itself where the crime did not result, or was not intended to result, in the victim’s death. See, e.g., Coker, supra; Enmund v. Florida, 458 U. S. 782. In making its determination, the Court is guided by “objective indicia of society’s standards, as expressed in legislative enactments and state practice with respect to executions.” Roper, supra, at 563. Consensus is not dispositive, however. Whether the death penalty is disproportionate to the crime also de­pends on the standards elaborated by controlling precedents and on the Court’s own understanding and interpretation of the Eighth Amendment’s text, history, meaning, and purpose. Pp. 8–10.

2. A review of the authorities informed by contemporary norms, in­cluding the history of the death penalty for this and other non homi­cide crimes, current state statutes and new enactments, and the number of executions since 1964, demonstrates a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape. Pp. 11–23.

 

(a) The Court follows the approach of cases in which objective in­dicia of consensus demonstrated an opinion against the death penalty for juveniles, see Roper, supra, mentally retarded offenders, see At­kins, supra, and vicarious felony murderers, see Enmund, supra. Thirty-seven jurisdictions—36 States plus the Federal Government—currently impose capital punishment, but only six States authorize it for child rape. In 45 jurisdictions, by contrast, petitioner could not be executed for child rape of any kind. That number surpasses the 30 States in Atkins and Roper and the 42 in Enmund that prohibited the death penalty under the circumstances those cases considered. Pp. 11–15.

 

(b) Respondent’s argument that Coker’s general discussion con­trasting murder and rape, 433 U. S., at 598, has been interpreted too expansively, leading some States to conclude that Coker applies to child rape when in fact it does not, is unsound. Coker’s holding was narrower than some of its language read in isolation indicates. The Coker plurality framed the question as whether, “with respect to rape of an adult woman,” the death penalty is disproportionate punishment, id., at 592, and it repeated the phrase “adult woman” or “adult female” eight times in discussing the crime or the victim. The distinction between adult and child rape was not merely rhetorical; it was central to Coker’s reasoning, including its analysis of legislative consensus. See, e.g., id., at 595–596. There is little evidence to sup­port respondent’s contention that state legislatures have understood Coker to state a broad rule that covers minor victims, and state courts have uniformly concluded that Coker did not address that crime. Accordingly, the small number of States that have enactedthe death penalty for child rape is relevant to determining whether there is a consensus against capital punishment for the rape of a child. Pp. 15–20.

 

(c) A consistent direction of change in support of the death pen­alty for child rape might counterbalance an otherwise weak demon­stration of consensus, see, e.g., Atkins, 536 U. S., at 315, but no show­ing of consistent change has been made here. That five States may have had pending legislation authorizing death for child rape is not dispositive because it is not this Court’s practice, nor is it sound, to find contemporary norms based on legislation proposed but not yet enacted. Indeed, since the parties submitted their briefs, the legisla­tion in at least two of the five States has failed. Further, evidence that, in the last 13 years, six new death penalty statutes have been enacted, three in the last two years, is not as significant as the data in Atkins, where 18 States between 1986 and 2001 had enacted legis­lation prohibiting the execution of mentally retarded persons. See id., at 314–315. Respondent argues that this case is like Roper be­cause, there, only five States had shifted their positions between1989 and 2005, one less State than here. See 543 U. S., at 565. But the Roper Court emphasized that the slow pace of abolition was coun­terbalanced by the total number of States that had recognized the impropriety of executing juvenile offenders. See id., at 566–567. Here, the fact that only six States have made child rape a capital of­fense is not an indication of a trend or change in direction comparable to the one in Roper. The evidence bears a closer resemblance to that in Enmund, where the Court found a national consensus against death for vicarious felony murder despite eight jurisdictions having authorized it. See 458 U. S., at 789, 792. Pp. 20–22.

 

(d) Execution statistics also confirm that there is a social consen­sus against the death penalty for child rape. Nine States have per­mitted capital punishment for adult or child rape for some length of time between the Court’s 1972 Furman decision and today; yet no in­dividual has been executed for the rape of an adult or child since1964, and no execution for any other non homicide offense has been conducted since 1963. Louisiana is the only State since 1964 that has sentenced an individual to death for child rape, and petitioner and another man so sentenced are the only individuals now on death row in the United States for non homicide offenses. Pp. 22–23.

3. Informed by its own precedents and its understanding of the Constitution and the rights it secures, the Court concludes, in its in­dependent judgment, that the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the crime of child rape. Pp. 23–35.

(a) The Court’s own judgment should be brought to bear on the death penalty’s acceptability under the Eighth Amendment. See, e.g., Coker, supra, at 597. Rape’s permanent and devastating impact on a child suggests moral grounds for questioning a rule barring capi­tal punishment simply because the crime did not result in the vic­tim’s death, but it does not follow that death is a proportionate pen­alty for child rape. The constitutional prohibition against excessive or cruel and unusual punishments mandates that punishment “be exercised within the limits of civilized standards.” Trop, 356 U. S., at 99–100. Evolving standards of decency counsel the Court to be most hesitant before allowing extension of the death penalty, especially where no life was taken in the commission of the crime. See, e.g., Coker, 433 U. S., at 597–598; Enmund, 458 U. S., at 797. Consistent with those evolving standards and the teachings of its precedents, the Court concludes that there is a distinction between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and non homicide crimes against in­dividuals, even including child rape, on the other. The latter crimes may be devastating in their harm, as here, but “in terms of moral de­pravity and of the injury to the person and to the public,” they cannot compare to murder in their “severity and irrevocability,” id, at 598. The Court finds significant the substantial number of executions that would be allowed for child rape under respondent’s approach. Al­though narrowing aggravators might be used to ensure the death penalty’s restrained application in this context, as they are in the context of capital murder, all such standards have the potential to re­sult in some inconsistency of application. The Court, for example, has acknowledged that the requirement of general rules to ensure consistency of treatment, see, e.g., Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U. S. 420, and the insistence that capital sentencing be individualized, see, e.g., Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280, have resulted in tension and imprecision. This approach might be sound with respect to capi­tal murder but it should not be introduced into the justice system where death has not occurred. The Court has spent more than 32years developing a foundational jurisprudence for capital murder to guide the States and juries in imposing the death penalty. Beginning the same process for crimes for which no one has been executed in more than 40 years would require experimentation in an area where a failed experiment would result in the execution of individuals un­deserving of death. Pp. 24–30.

(b) The Court’s decision is consistent with the justifications of­fered for the death penalty, retribution and deterrence, see, e.g., Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 183. Among the factors for deter­mining whether retribution is served, the Court must look to whether the death penalty balances the wrong to the victim in non homicide cases. Cf. Roper, supra, at 571. It is not at all evident that the child rape victim’s hurt is lessened when the law permits the perpetrator’s death, given that capital cases require a long-term commitment by those testifying for the prosecution. Society’s desire to inflict death for child rape by enlisting the child victim to assist it over the course of years in asking for capital punishment forces a moral choice on the child, who is not of mature age to make that choice. There are also relevant systemic concerns in prosecuting child rape, including the documented problem of unreliable, induced, and even imagined child testimony, which creates a “special risk of wrongful execution” in some cases. Cf. Atkins, supra, at 321. As to deterrence, the evidence suggests that the death penalty may not result in more effective en­forcement, but may add to the risk of non reporting of child rape out of fear of negative consequences for the perpetrator, especially if he isa family member. And, by in effect making the punishment for child rape and murder equivalent, a State may remove a strong incentive for the rapist not to kill his victim. Pp. 30–35.

4. The concern that the Court’s holding will effectively block fur­ther development of a consensus favoring the death penalty for child rape overlooks the principle that the Eighth Amendment is defined by “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,” Trop, 356 U. S., at 101. Confirmed by the Court’s repeated, consistent rulings, this principle requires that resort to capital punishment be restrained, limited in its instances of applica­tion, and reserved for the worst of crimes, those that, in the case of crimes against individuals, take the victim’s life. P. 36.

957 So. 2d 757, reversed and remanded.

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined.

And here are some of the opinions:

Justisce Kennedy, issuing the opinion of the Court, with Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joining.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 07–343

PATRICK KENNEDY, PETITIONER v. LOUISIANA

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

[June 25, 2008]

JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.

The National Government and, beyond it, the separate States are bound by the proscriptive mandates of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and all persons within those respective jurisdic­tions may invoke its protection. See Amdts. 8 and 14, §1; Robinson v. California, 370 U. S. 660 (1962). Patrick Kennedy, the petitioner here, seeks to set aside his death sentence under the Eighth Amendment. He was charged by the respondent, the State of Louisiana, with the aggra­vated rape of his then-8-year-old stepdaughter. After a jury trial petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death under a state statute authorizing capital punishment for the rape of a child under 12 years of age. See La. Stat. Ann. §14:42 (West 1997 and Supp. 1998). This case pre­sents the question whether the Constitution bars respon­dent from imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in death of the victim. We hold the Eighth Amendment prohibits the death penalty for this offense. The Louisiana statute is unconstitutional.

V

Our determination that there is a consensus against the death penalty for child rape raises the question whether the Court’s own institutional position and its holding will have the effect of blocking further or later consensus in favor of the penalty from developing. The Court, it will be argued, by the act of addressing the constitutionality of the death penalty, intrudes upon the consensus-making process. By imposing a negative restraint, the argument runs, the Court makes it more difficult for consensus to change or emerge. The Court, according to the criticism, itself becomes enmeshed in the process, part judge and part the maker of that which it judges.

These concerns overlook the meaning and full substance of the established proposition that the Eighth Amendment is defined by “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Trop, 356 U. S., at 101 (plurality opinion). Confirmed by repeated, consistent rulings of this Court, this principle requires that use of the death penalty be restrained. The rule of evolving stan­dards of decency with specific marks on the way to full progress and mature judgment means that resort to the penalty must be reserved for the worst of crimes and limited in its instances of application. In most cases jus­tice is not better served by terminating the life of the perpetrator rather than confining him and preserving the possibility that he and the system will find ways to allow him to understand the enormity of his offense. Difficulties in administering the penalty to ensure against its arbi­trary and capricious application require adherence to a rule reserving its use, at this stage of evolving standards and in cases of crimes against individuals, for crimes that take the life of the victim.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Louisiana up­holding the capital sentence is reversed. This case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

 

Alito filed the dissenting opinion, with Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas joining:

 

 

 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

No. 07–343

PATRICK KENNEDY, PETITIONER v. LOUISIANA

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

[June 25, 2008]

JUSTICE ALITO, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SCALIA, and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting.

The Court today holds that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of raping a child. This is so, according to the Court, no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many chil­dren the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted, and no matter how heinous the perpe­trator’s prior criminal record may be. The Court provides two reasons for this sweeping conclusion: First, the Court claims to have identified “a national consensus” that the death penalty is never acceptable for the rape of a child; second, the Court concludes, based on its “independent judgment,” that imposing the death penalty for child rape is inconsistent with “‘the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.’” Ante, at 8, 15, 16 (citation omitted). Because neither of these justifi­cations is sound, I respectfully dissent.

III

In summary, the Court holds that the Eighth Amend­ment categorically rules out the death penalty in even the most extreme cases of child rape even though: (1) This holding is not supported by the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment; (2) neither Coker nor any other prior precedent commands this result; (3) there are no reliable “objective indicia” of a “national consensus” in support of the Court’s position; (4) sustaining the constitutionality of the state law before us would not “extend” or “expand” the death penalty; (5) this Court has previously rejected the proposition that the Eighth Amendment is a one-way ratchet that prohibits legislatures from adopting new capital punishment statutes to meet new problems; (6) the worst child rapists exhibit the epitome of moral depravity; and (7) child rape inflicts grievous injury on victims and on society in general.

The party attacking the constitutionality of a state statute bears the “heavy burden” of establishing that the law is unconstitutional. Gregg, 428 U. S., at 175 (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and STEVENS, JJ.). That bur­den has not been discharged here, and I would therefore affirm the decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court.

The party attacking the constitutionality of a state statute bears the “heavy burden” of establishing that the law is unconstitutional. Gregg, 428 U. S., at 175 (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and STEVENS, JJ.). That bur­den has not been discharged here, and I would therefore affirm the decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court.

 

 

No. 07–343

PATRICK KENNEDY, PETITIONER v. LOUISIANA

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

[June 25, 2008]

JUSTICE ALITO, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SCALIA, and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting.

The Court today holds that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of raping a child. This is so, according to the Court, no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many chil­dren the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted, and no matter how heinous the perpe­trator’s prior criminal record may be. The Court provides two reasons for this sweeping conclusion: First, the Court claims to have identified “a national consensus” that the death penalty is never acceptable for the rape of a child; second, the Court concludes, based on its “independent judgment,” that imposing the death penalty for child rape is inconsistent with “‘the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.’” Ante, at 8, 15, 16 (citation omitted). Because neither of these justifi­cations is sound, I respectfully dissent.

III

In summary, the Court holds that the Eighth Amend­ment categorically rules out the death penalty in even the most extreme cases of child rape even though: (1) This holding is not supported by the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment; (2) neither Coker nor any other prior precedent commands this result; (3) there are no reliable “objective indicia” of a “national consensus” in support of the Court’s position; (4) sustaining the constitutionality of the state law before us would not “extend” or “expand” the death penalty; (5) this Court has previously rejected the proposition that the Eighth Amendment is a one-way ratchet that prohibits legislatures from adopting new capital punishment statutes to meet new problems; (6) the worst child rapists exhibit the epitome of moral depravity; and (7) child rape inflicts grievous injury on victims and on society in general.

The party attacking the constitutionality of a state statute bears the “heavy burden” of establishing that the law is unconstitutional. Gregg, 428 U. S., at 175 (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and STEVENS, JJ.). That bur­den has not been discharged here, and I would therefore affirm the decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court.

The party attacking the constitutionality of a state statute bears the “heavy burden” of establishing that the law is unconstitutional. Gregg, 428 U. S., at 175 (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and STEVENS, JJ.). That bur­den has not been discharged here, and I would therefore affirm the decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court.

 

 

 

So, there we have it – the Court goes easy on criminals again. Personally, I’d like to see the death penalty NEVER used, since this would be the worst punishment for criminals (but we should cut down on all the amenities of prisons – they’re getting a little too nice), but then we have prisons being overcrowded and prisoners are let go, so the next best thing is to be like Texas and fry everybody who deserves it. Honestly, this was probably less humane for the rapists, because they sure are going to get it in prison.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

 

San Francisco Movement to Dedicate the George W. Bush Sewage Plant Chooses the Motto, “Out of Many Anus”

April 4, 2008

A movement calling itself the Presidential Memorial Commisison of San Francisco is pushing to rename the Oceanside Wastewater Treatment Facility, the George W. Bush Sewage Plant.

Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco

Here’s an exceprt from the website (www.presidentialmemorial.org):

Seal

An Enduring Legacy

As we near the end of George W Bush’s presidency, we think it is important to select a fitting monument to this president’s work. On matters ranging from foreign relations to fiscal and environmental stewardship, no other president in American history has accomplished so much in such a short time. To honor George W Bush for his eight years of honorable public service, the Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco is sponsoring a ballot initiative this November in San Francisco. It reads…

“Should the City and County of San Francisco rename the Oceanside Wastewater Treatment Facility the George W. Bush Sewage Plant?”

We believe this is an appropriate honor for a truly unique president. If you think so too, join this grassroots movement to rename this important and iconic landmark in his honor.

 

So, this is interesting, and in my opinion, very unpatriotic.  I don’t care if you want to criticize the President.  I don’t care if you want to name a sewage treatment plant after him, but at the point that you change the MOTTO OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to “E PLURIBUS ANUS,” “OUT OF MANY ANUS,” I have a problem with that.  And why is there no outrage over this?  If I put up a picture of 2 gay guys smiling together with the phrase “out of many anus” I’m sure that I would have people screaming and hollering at me, and I’m only pointing out the simple fact that homosexuals can’t engage in proper sexual intercourse.  Here, you have a bunch of liberals changing the national motto like nothing else.

And look at their “Bord of Directors”:

Board of Directors
T. Wayne Pickering
Chairman

Peaches Christ
Entertainer, Gender Illusionist

Chicken John
Showman, Mayoral Candidate

Tangie Rumors
Retired Sex Worker

Sister Porn Again
Businessman

Sister Selma Soul
Community Organizer

 

I hope that this ballot initiative fails. I wouldn’t have as much of a problem with it if they weren’t dishonoring the whole nation (I’d still think it’s ridiculous, but it is free speech), but the fact that they are using the nation’s motto and changing it to a mockery is ridiculous and un-American.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Texas 14-Year-Old Kills Newborn in Toilet

April 3, 2008

Here’s a story from Baytown, Texas: In Cedar Bayou Junior High School, a 14-year-old 8th grader gave birth to a “near full-term” baby this yesterday morning and then tried to flush him/her (the sex has not been released at this point) down the toilet, killing the infant.

Lieutenant Eric Freed of the Baytown Police Department told reporters, “We understand that the baby was alive when it was born and that the girl attempted to flush the child down the toilet.  The child died as a result of these actions.”  A girl walked into the bathroom and heard the baby crying, but when she had gotten to the nurse and the principal, the child was already dead (KPRC Local 2 News).

Apparently, people didn’t even know that the girl was pregnant.  “According to everyone I talked to, no one knew that she was pregnant. … The staff handled it beautifully.  I can’t tell you they weren’t upset because they were.  Everyone was upset.  It’s a very upsetting situation.  It’s a sad situation,” Kathy Clausen a representative from the Goose Creek Independent School District told reporters.

Police have said that the father is not yet known.

Police have also said that this case is being treated as a homicide, but investigators are making sure that the death was not an accident.

This case comes after another 14-year-old secretly gave birth to a baby earlier this week.

This case just saddens me, angers me, and shocks me.  Did the girl NOT think that somebody would find out about this?

And what are these girls doing?  I don’t mean to be vulgar, but if a 14-year-old girl can’t keep her legs together, she’s nothing but a whore.  And to go and MURDER your OWN CHILD because you can’t accept the consequences of your actions shows that you are not MATURE enough to be having sex!  (Not that I’m saying that even if she would have given birth to it and kept it that she wouldn’t have some serious problems).  What is it with American teenagers and sex!  Like I said in a previous post, there have been FIFTH graders caught having sex.  That’s barely even POSSIBLE!  5th graders don’t even have to properly developed body parts to engage in sex!

And where are the parents in this case?  Some blame has to be placed on them, at least for not talking to the girl about sex and not getting pregnant.  Like I’ve said in these posts: https://inkslwc.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/3rd-graders-plot-to-harm-teacher-cant-be-charged-with-a-crime/ and https://inkslwc.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/murderous-3rd-graders-bullies-and-punishing-minors/ the kids of today are heading for DISASTER!

This girl, assuming that this wasn’t an accident, and I don’t see how it could be, needs to be arrested and prosecuted with 1st degree murder, and in my mind given the death penalty.  There’s no reason that this girl should not know what she did was murder, and frankly, she needs to be made an example of so that teenagers in the future DON’T do this (and yes, the law allows for somebody to be made an example of).  Frankly, ANYBODY who commits infanticide should be given the death penalty.  Otherwise we’ll wind up like Cuba.  Cuba claims one of the lowest infant mortality rates, but that’s because they don’t include infanticide cases in infant mortality rates.

Stuff like this MUST be stopped, or we’re going to see future generations just crash and burn.  I really hate to think about what America will become when today’s teenagers, and even my generation are the ones in power.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

3rd Graders Plot to Harm Teacher; Can’t Be Charged With a Crime

April 1, 2008

So I was just watching FOX News, and apparently in Waycross, Georgia, there were 9 3rd graders who plotted to kill their teacher.  The 8- and 9-year-olds from Center Elementary School plotted to kill their male teacher because he yelled at a girl for standing on her chair.

The plot was discovered when another girl saw a steak knife in a girl’s backpack and told teachers.  The girl was talked to and spilled the plot.  Each student had a roll to play in the plot, one of which was to clean up the blood.  All the students have been talked to and suspended.  Other parents are pushing for expulsion of the 9 students.

Although it’s not certain, I’d say that these kids would’ve tried to kill the teacher, not just injure him.

Now, here’s the insane part: under Georgia law, kids under 13 cannot be charged with a crime, so the most that could happen to them is expulsion and then spending time in a juvenile facility up until they’re 18.  So a 12-year-old can kill somebody and not be charged?  Like a 12-year-old doesn’t know that murder is wrong.

And here’s proof that the kids knew what they were doing was wrong: They HID the knives and other plot components (gloves, duct tape, hand cuffs, etc…) in their backpacks.  They didn’t just carry them in.  They didn’t BROADCAST their plot – they kept it SECRET.  They KNEW what they were doing is wrong.  If it were up to me, I’d never have had this law and would charge the kids with conspiracy to commit murder or conspiracy to commit assault with a deadly weapon.

What would the teacher have done if 9 of these kids ganged up on him?  Sure he could’ve taken on 1, 2, 3, or even 4 of them, but if NINE gang up on him, what’s he going to do?  Shoot them?  It’s not like he’d be allowed to have a gun in the classroom (although I’d say he should at least be allowed to have a TASER after this – especially if the kids are only suspended and not expelled).

These laws that protect children because they’re children are just plain stupid.  Once you reach the age of 8 or 9, there are certain things that you know not to do.  They know that murder and rape are wrong (and believe me – these kids know what sex is too – I remember last year 2 5th graders were caught having sex.  How can 5th graders even HAVE sex?  It’s nearly physically impossible).  Do they know that all things are wrong?  No – they probably don’t know anything about fraud or perjury, but they know basics like murder, assault, robbery, etc….

This law needs to be overturned so that when things like this happen in the future, kids can be punished (and these kids wouldn’t because you can’t pass an ex post facto law).

All I have to say is, this is one of the many reasons I’ll never be a teacher.  I know I’m going to take a lot of heat for this post, so let the hateful comments begin.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

FOX 2 News Reports on Lincoln Park’s Hustler Strip Club Scandal

March 20, 2008

Here’s a news video that aired just last night (it should be noted that the reporter said that the council wanted to take back the settlement, but in fact the council voted down to take back the settlement [https://inkslwc.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/some-on-lincoln-park-council-try-to-right-the-wrong-of-strip-club-opening-they-were-defeated/] and that’s what is keeping this controversy going):

So, as she said, a recall movement has been started, but unfortunately, we have to wait until May (6 months after their terms started) to recall them – a stupid law, but perhaps the makers of the law figured the politicians wouldn’t screw up that soon in office – well, they were wrong.

Let us all continue to pray that this problem will be rectified as soon as possible.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Some on Lincoln Park Council Try to Right the Wrong of Strip Club Opening; They Were Defeated

March 18, 2008

I am more ashamed now of Lincoln Park than I ever have been in the past week (how many more times will I say this).  Judge Nancy Edmunds has agreed to the settlement that our attorney proposed, so the legal process for the Hustler Club is complete.

I would like to commend Councilmen Thomas Murphy and Michael Myers for bringing forth a “Resolution to Reject the Settlement Agreement between Papalas LLC & City of Lincoln Park and that a motion to the Federal Judge Nancy Edmunds set aside this order,” and I would like to commend Councilwoman Valerie Brady for voting with the pair.

I am deeply ashamed of Thomas McPartlin, Mark Kandes, and Mayor Vaslo.  I am even more ashamed of Councilman Mario Disanto, who I thought would side with Murphy, Myers, and Brady.

I am DISGUSTED by Attorney Ed Zelenak and City Manager Steve Duchane (who doesn’t even live in Lincoln Park!) (and attorney Tamm – I’m not sure who they were talking about, and I couldn’t find a written copy of another attorney’s name – I was not at the meeting – I’m still up at Central Michigan, but I am contemplating coming home if this thing continues) for not having the city’s best interest at hand, but the plaintiff, the strip club.  I am even more disgusted at Zelenak’s comment to Myers saying, “Councilman, I realize that you’re new to counsel….”

I would like to thank the council for agreeing to going to an outside for an attorney to review this settlement agreement.

This needs to be overturned immediately!

I now regret the way I voted in November – the people who voted against rescinding the settlement didn’t deserve my vote in hindsight, and I now would have voted for Michael Myers.

Videos of the meeting are available here: http://lincolnparkforums.com/index.php and disussion here: http://lincolnparkforums.com/showthread.php?t=16295.

I pray that the citizens of Lincoln Park express outrage over this.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Geraldine Ferraro Steps Down from Clinton’s Campaign

March 16, 2008

OK, so Geraldine Ferraro (former Congresswoman and Vice Presidential candidate with Walter Mondale; also former member of Senator Clinton’s Presidential election finance committee), in an interview with the Daily Breeze (Torrance, California) last week, said, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.  And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position.  He happens to be very lucky to be who he is.  And the country is caught up in the concept.”  Ferraro also accused the “sexist media” of attacking Clinton too much.

Now, here’s my thoughts on her comments.  Were they out of line?  Yes.  Were they partially correct?  Yes, but because of different reasons than what were behind her comments.  I think that originally (this means back before Iowa), Obama’s race helped him in the media (just like the media helped McCain in New Hampshire once he became the leader in ONE poll.  The media jumped and said – “OH MY GOSH!  HE’S BACK IN IT!!!!!”  And that’s what got him back in the race.  Without the media pouncing on a single poll, he never would’ve become the nominee.  Without the media jumping on Huckabee for doing so well in the debates, he never would’ve won Iowa or even been a contender in South Carolina.).  The point is – the media helps everybody (normally – Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Alan Keyes would be exceptions), and it was Obama’s race and charisma that got the media’s attention.

So, was it his race that got him this far?  Partially, but if he were white, it would have been some other quality.  And I would say that his charisma has helped him out MUCH more than his race ever could.

OK, so Ferraro, in response to a lot of  media attention on her, told the Daily Breeze, “Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says, ‘Let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world,’ you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up.  Racism works in two different directions.  I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white.  How’s that?”

She also told  FOX News, “I got up and the question was asked, ‘Why do you think Barack Obama is in the place he is today’ as the party’s delegate front-runner?  I said in large measure, because he is black.  I said, Let me also say in 1984 — and if I have said it once, I have said it 20, 60, 100 times — in 1984, if my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would never have been the nominee for vice president.”

David Axelrod, the top strategist for the Obama campaign, said that Clinton should sever any ties that she has with Ferraro, saying, “When you wink and nod at offensive statements, you’re really sending a signal to your supporters that anything goes.”  He said that Ferraro’s comment, plus Clinton’s “own inexplicable unwillingness” to deny that Obama is a Muslim, was part of “an insidious pattern that needs to be addressed.”

Senator Obama said that Ferraro’s statements were “patently absurd.”

He told the Allentown Morning Call that “I don’t think Geraldine Ferraro’s comments have any place in our politics or in the Democratic Party.  They are divisive.  I think anybody who understands the history of this country knows they are patently absurd.  And I would expect that the same way those comments don’t have a place in my campaign, they shouldn’t have a place in Sen. Clinton’s, either.

Now, I find this kinda funny.  Axelrod wants Clinton to immediately disassociate from Ferraro, but it took Obama how many years to disassociate from his pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright?

Senator Clinton issued a statement to the Associated Press saying that “It is regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides, because we’ve both had that experience, say things that kind of veer off into the personal.  We ought to keep this on the issues.  There are differences between us.  There are differences between our approaches on health care, on energy, on our experience, on our results that we’ve produced for people.  That’s what this campaign should be about.”

Senator Obama later said, “I think that her comments were … ridiculous. … I think they were wrong-headed.  I think they are not borne out by our history or by the facts.  The notion that it is a great advantage to me, an African-American named Barack Obama, in pursuit of the presidency I think is not a view that has been commonly shared by the general public.  Divisions of race, gender, of region are precisely what has inhibited us from moving effectively forward to solve big problems like health care, energy, the war on terror.

On Wednesday, Ferraro sent her letter of resignation to Senator Clinton, saying, “I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign.  The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you.  I won’t let that happen.”

She then told CNN that the Clinton campaign did not ask her to resign and that her and Clinton are still on good terms.  She said that she was “absolutely not” sorry for what she said, and that “I am who I am and I will continue to speak up.”  She went on to criticize Obama and his campaign for attempting to keep her from exercising her First Amendment rights.

So, to summarize, I think that Ferraro was out of line (but what she said was partially true), but there is a HUGE double standard in the fact that Ferraro was so criticized by the Obama campaign who has up until recently ignored Reverend Wright’s comments.

I think both candidates need to put this behind them, or the infighting is going to tear down their party more (big shame).

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 287 other followers

%d bloggers like this: