Unhonor. Nonhonor. Dishonor. The last one makes most sense, and yet just doesn't convey the true feelings I have right now on the unhonorable U.S. District Judge Susan Illston.
Our government is made up by three separate, but equal parts- the Executive Branch, The Legislative Branch... and the commonly Stupid Branch, also know as the Judicial Branch. It is suppose to be a equal system of checks and balances, provided to maintain a equal divide in the power of the government... and intended to keep one branch from becoming complete asses who believe they have the authority to do whatever they wish.
We've seen it in the past, where someone belonging to one branch decided that they should not only be allowed to do their job, but they should be allowed to do the job of everyone else too. Edward Cashmen tried it when he ignored sentencing guidelines and handed out a month or so of vacation to a child rapist. He's even come out defending himself, saying as he pats himself on the back, that it changed things. Well, Mr Cashman, had you done your job rather than attempting to allow child rapist go free because you didn't think they deserved jail... well we wouldn't have had to change anything. We shouldn't have to change laws, just because you don't feel like following the ones already in place. Get Over It you overpaid scum ball. Had the media not ran with this, had people from all over the world not stood up and demanded justice for this child.... you would have let him walk. Cashman wasn't trying to do anything other than what he felt was best, not according to the law... but according to his own air headed ideas.
And now, now we have yet another judge standing up saying that the laws in place aren't worth following.
What always gets me, what really boils my blood is when I hear about how someone has already paid their dept to society... especially when it comes to the fact that they have been convicted of raping, molesting, or abusing a child. Because, honestly- for as long as that child lives... so does the dept. Your guilt doesn't vanish the day you are released from prison, or the moment you get your Certificate of Completion" from your PO officer. Oh, you may have served your time... but by no means is the real dept really paid off.
Let's see, perhaps had the "poor sexual deviant" not forced his sick and demented desires onto some innocent party... he wouldn't have to worry about the fact that years later society wants to be kept safe from him. You see, this isn't punishing the offender... it's not additional sentencing. This isn't even about him. This is about protecting society. Providing them with the constitutional right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It's hard to be pursuing happiness, when you have to worry about whether the pedophile next to the school is going to be raping your child.
For those that don't like the laws, here's a grand idea- keep your freaking hands to your self. Don't think jail is for you? Don't like the idea of Parole? Not into ankle bracelets and restrictions on how close to school you can live? Then it's best not to be brutalizing any children for you own sexual gratification.
Voters approved this measure, because they wish to see it as law. They have every right to desire that the legal system steps up to the plate and protects their children from known dangers... some half wit judge deciding that a child's life isn't as important as a sex offenders right to live next door to their potential victims is just bullshit.
But, then I'm just calling it as I see it.
Categories: predators, molesters,
Our government is made up by three separate, but equal parts- the Executive Branch, The Legislative Branch... and the commonly Stupid Branch, also know as the Judicial Branch. It is suppose to be a equal system of checks and balances, provided to maintain a equal divide in the power of the government... and intended to keep one branch from becoming complete asses who believe they have the authority to do whatever they wish.
We've seen it in the past, where someone belonging to one branch decided that they should not only be allowed to do their job, but they should be allowed to do the job of everyone else too. Edward Cashmen tried it when he ignored sentencing guidelines and handed out a month or so of vacation to a child rapist. He's even come out defending himself, saying as he pats himself on the back, that it changed things. Well, Mr Cashman, had you done your job rather than attempting to allow child rapist go free because you didn't think they deserved jail... well we wouldn't have had to change anything. We shouldn't have to change laws, just because you don't feel like following the ones already in place. Get Over It you overpaid scum ball. Had the media not ran with this, had people from all over the world not stood up and demanded justice for this child.... you would have let him walk. Cashman wasn't trying to do anything other than what he felt was best, not according to the law... but according to his own air headed ideas.
And now, now we have yet another judge standing up saying that the laws in place aren't worth following.
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked enforcement of key provisions of a ballot measure designed to crack down on sex offenders, ruling the law was unconstitutional just a day after voters overwhelmingly approved it.
"Jessica's Law" prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park, effectively banning parolees from many California communities. It also requires lifetime satellite tracking for some paroled sex criminals upon their release from prison.
What always gets me, what really boils my blood is when I hear about how someone has already paid their dept to society... especially when it comes to the fact that they have been convicted of raping, molesting, or abusing a child. Because, honestly- for as long as that child lives... so does the dept. Your guilt doesn't vanish the day you are released from prison, or the moment you get your Certificate of Completion" from your PO officer. Oh, you may have served your time... but by no means is the real dept really paid off.
State law already sets limits on where sex offenders can live, but the new rules would make it even harder to find homes for offenders released from prison. Most parolees already are prohibited from living within a quarter-mile of a school, with a half-mile restriction imposed on high-risk sex offenders.
The scope of the initiative largely hinged on whether it would apply retroactively to the state's roughly 90,000 registered sex offenders.
The proposition, according to the lawsuit, effectively banishes the plaintiff "from his home and community for a crime he committed, and paid his debt for, long ago."
Let's see, perhaps had the "poor sexual deviant" not forced his sick and demented desires onto some innocent party... he wouldn't have to worry about the fact that years later society wants to be kept safe from him. You see, this isn't punishing the offender... it's not additional sentencing. This isn't even about him. This is about protecting society. Providing them with the constitutional right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It's hard to be pursuing happiness, when you have to worry about whether the pedophile next to the school is going to be raping your child.
For those that don't like the laws, here's a grand idea- keep your freaking hands to your self. Don't think jail is for you? Don't like the idea of Parole? Not into ankle bracelets and restrictions on how close to school you can live? Then it's best not to be brutalizing any children for you own sexual gratification.
Voters approved this measure, because they wish to see it as law. They have every right to desire that the legal system steps up to the plate and protects their children from known dangers... some half wit judge deciding that a child's life isn't as important as a sex offenders right to live next door to their potential victims is just bullshit.
But, then I'm just calling it as I see it.
Categories: predators, molesters,
Comments
I live in California and I am really upset about this decision as well. This sex offender has a high-profile attorney from the Bay area. Funny thing if you read more about this story you will note that one of the issues being brought forward is that the plaintiff believes that the law should only apply to persons sentenced after the law was enacted. What I want to know is how can our vote count when someone can go and hire a high-profile attorney and have the people's voice silenced?