"And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God"
-- Micah 6:8

"The duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict."
-- American Bar Association Standard 3-1.2(c)

"There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
--Pope Benedict XVI, June 2004

Thursday, June 01, 2006

2 Strikes and You're Dead

Child molesters will need to think twice about practicing their perversion in South Carolina, the legislature of which has just passed a law which would "allow for the execution of anyone convicted more than once of raping a child younger than 11."

That friend of freaks, fruitcakes, and child molesters, the ACLU, will no doubt be heard from shortly arguing against the constitutionality of the law.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

You are truly a sick man, Mr. McKenna.

Faithmy said...

If it were my kids, just once would get you executed.

BananaJunior said...

Brilliant, Watson. So now we won't be hearing any stories from child survivors of molestation - because there won't be any child survivors of molestation - because now the perv will know that he absolutely dare not leave a witness.

There needs to be a graduation in law. Attempted murder needs to be punished less severely than murder, theft less than murder, and so on, otherwise if you end up pumping up everything to the death penalty a guy caught littering just might go on a murder spree, hey, why not? There needs to be logical reason here.

I guess it's okay. We can kill the murderer of a child ... twice!

Tom, I double-dog dare you to explain to me why I'm wrong.

Anonymous said...

Doesn't this go against Coker v. Georgia?

Faithmy said...

So in your world, a child molestor thinking goes like this "if I am caught, I will be put to death, so I will commit a LARGER and more obvious crime that also carries the death penalty in order to avoid the death penalty." Is that YOUR thinking too, or are you just assuming molestors cant think in a straight line?

Anonymous said...

Me, I'm thinking about all of those fraudulent recovered memory child abuse prosecutions from the '80s. Janet Reno was a major advocate of them down in Florida. I've googled, but many of the articles do not appear to be online. Child molestation is very dicey because the victims are unreliable witnesses and are open to manipulation by therapists, parents, lawyers, etc. Of course that doesn't matter when the whole point is to make headlines and whip the voters into a hysteria...
Once again, I am just sickened by Mr. McKenna's unseemly, visceral excitement over this.

Faithmy said...

That is odd--he didnt even use one exclamation point. I think you are really starting to get a little to drawn into the fantasy world of what you imagine Mr McKennas delight to be. Therapy might be beneficial.

Anonymous said...

Let me answer my own question about wether this goes against Coker:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=433&page=584

Yes.Yes it does.

Anonymous said...

This probably does go against Coker. Since Tom spends his life making legal arguments to lay people he doesn’t bother to distinguish Coker, which is too bad, because I was looking forward to someone doing that. To date, nobody has. Perhaps Virginia thought that with two new justices on the court, our laws protecting people from cruel punishment would be overturned, but since the court has steadfastly supported the rights of criminal defendants this term (with Justice Alito reversing an unpreserved error in Zender today), this probably won’t be happening.

See, if Tom were a better lawyer he would have provided a legal rationale, rather than just calling people that might disagree with him in the future “fruitcakes.”

But, for s//ts and giggles, let me try and distinguish Coker. Coker involved the rape of an adult woman. Much of Coker depending on a statistical analysis of what, post-Furman, states considered to warrant the death penalty. Virginia may simply be deciding that it wants to tip the balance one way or the other.

But what can I say? It is a felony to for a straight couple to have consensual oral sex in Virginia. Because the prosecutors in Virginia are liberal and soft on crime they REFUSE to enforce this very clear law because they don’t care about the children.

Faithmy said...

Anonhole--FIRST, South Carolina--not Virignia. Try to keep up. Secondly, you seem overly concerned about oral sex in Virginia. Maybe finding a friend to talk out your feelings with would help you get over whatever it is that is making your brain skip.

Anonymous said...

Faith, considering that the above poster was referring to Tom’s state, and Tom’s endorsement of a propose statutes (and complete disregard for another), it makes sense to me. Your comments would be somewhat more persuasive, if you would comment on the actual statutes or cases being discussed.

Faithmy said...

I read Toms post a couple of times, and nowhere does he state that he wants VA to pass a law like that. Can you read? Or are you so determined to be an ass that you just assume what everybody else means?

Anonymous said...

"Child molesters will need to think twice about practicing their perversion in South Carolina, the legislature of which has just passed a law which would "allow for the execution of anyone convicted more than once of raping a child younger than 11."

That friend of freaks, fruitcakes, and child molesters, the ACLU, will no doubt be heard from shortly arguing against the constitutionality of the law."


From the tone of the above my guess is that Tom wouldn't mind if this law passed in Virginia. From an emotional standpoint I wouldn't either since I was molested when I was a kid but the reason we have laws is to make sure that my emotions count for spit.

Anonymous said...

Wouldn’t it be easier to just change the constitution to explicitly allow for the execution of people who either molest children or engage in consensual sodomy. Unfortunately most Americans are more concerned about amending the constitution to prohibit states from recognizing gay marriage, so it seems that the people have spoken, and Coker is the law, and Tom is a member of a loud but vocal minority and does not represent the people.

Faithmy said...

Who says Tom is trying to represent "the people"?