Somewhere in the planetary system of your sick reasoning, an infernal eclipse took place—something that allowed you to view the empirical evidence in front of you, and ignore it outright; some twisted, out-of-phase synapse inside you said that a child is the one legally liable to make good on the checks written by perverts, killers, and baby rapers. How in the world did you ever attain that robe? What kind of demonic, seething vacuum is running the show in that bloated, arrogant head of yours? Are you even human?
How in the world can the dangerous turns of a convicted child molester cross your desk—high risk mind you—and yet you find more benevolence toward the violator than you do towards the violated? He killed the same boy that he molested wth your apparent blessing—in retroactive thanksgiving towards you and your judicial liberalism, Judge. And for good measure, he beat the rest of that little boy’s family to death, and abused his sister just for kicks. All because you let him go—judge.
6 thoughts on “Time For The Right Kind Of Therapy”
Comments are closed.
I had to rant to my poor cat Ozzy, who eventually yawned and wandered off to kill a fly before I could make a response.
Then I went to the MSN homepage so I could read an article on the case.
And then I had this really long comment in mind, but I think I might use it as a post instead, because goodness knows we’re all getting tired of reading about my past romantic pursuits. I’d like to get something clear: the criminal Duncan, committed this crime while he was out on probation, facillitated by the judge who allowed him bail, correct? If that’s correct, then I’m assuming we’re all outraged because why on earth was a person with his sort of criminal history even allowed bail?
Am I on the right track? Ok. Now, I’m just curious about what “liberalism” and “conservatism” have anything to do with the judge’s indescribable lack of good judgement. Not to mention how these crimes now occurred because of him and he is now solely to blame: how did that happen? The well-intentioned Therapist is apparently forgetting the dude who actually uhh…committed the crimes in order to…I’m not quite sure.
I am typing this in the expectation that it will be taken for granted that obviously I believe the judge seems to have lost more than a few marbles, and I am curious as to his history of past judgements. There have been similar cases in Canada where a judge has allowed convicts mind-bogglingly light sentences in proportion to the crime, and calls made for something to be done about it (especially if it seems to be a trend for that judge). I don’t know if the judge is legally culpable under US law, but certainly in all other areas the mere fact that he facillitated this raises ire.
But unless one is a family member of the victims, I rarely excuse faulty logic that springs from righteous anger.
If I’ve got any facts about the case wrong, feel free to correct.
The operative word with “liberalism” is the “judicial ” modifer which includes social philosophy of a liberal type. It impacts how jurists deal with their cases.
Generally speaking the political and social forms of liberalism and conservatism coincide with each other. It takes a long time here for this sort of case to be built and prosecuted, so when a judge lets a convicted molester to easily return to the street, you often find a string of further crimes that follow from this sort of person. This is a known and researched fact.
I highlighted this post, because I join in the disgust and anger that this is allowed to happen over and over again.
The judges are never held accountable, and this adds to peoples ire. There are things about this type of case that deeply insult ones sense of justice. And the intent is that judges uphold their part of doing their part to keep proven criminals off the streets.
That is how I see it. I don’t know what a rant does except to relieve some of the pressure by expressing ones belief that there is a final judgment to bring true justice, rather than the terrible heaviness of thinking people like Duncun get away with so much evil.
The law could do something.
And what we wonder is: why doesn’t it?
Arethusa,
I in no way intended to exculpate the animal from his crime. But it was the actions of the judge that facilitated the rest of the story.
Mary Suratt was hanged for less in the assassination of Lincoln.
-T
Now there’s one esoteric piece of history- I had to look that one up and-sure enough-
“So Mary Suratt was hooded and publicly hanged along with the others.”
Evil Republicans
Ilona, that’s all well and good but since The Therapist didn’t even know who the judge was again, I ask, how does any of that come into play? I just didn’t see that explained, modifiers taken into effect or not. Maybe I was suppose to assume something…
I see the matter of the judge’s impaired thinking faculties, as far as this case goes, completely separate unless some sort of connection can be made with it and “judicial liberal” philosophy of whatever interpretation.
Therapist, to the best of my knowledge assigning complete blame, and showing instances of facilitation are two completely different things. And I, for one, am glad not to be living in the days of Lincoln.
I took my time answering because I wanted to distill it, and say it simply. The reason the judge is culpable is this: the entire system of jurisprudence is supposed to protect society from unchecked evil, and to try to distribute justice. If a judge has th einformation of the prosecution before him, and the history of past offences that would suggest a person is a danger to society, expecially the life and limb of innocent people, then that judge has a duty to incarcerate the criminal to safeguard the society. It is in the judges capbility to decide leniency or strictness, but if that person is likely to return to crime, it is the judges fault for unleashing them on helpless victims.
I think that differences in crimes are pertinent. Child molesters of this type are known recidivists and resistant to all known therapy and rehabilitation. They are a menace to society when loose. Judges ought to know that and act accordingly. It isn’t the same as someone shoplifting, or many other crimes.
Further, our society is guilty of not making a difference and for enabling our system to let these criminals run loose and wreck havoc on untold numbers of lives.
We are left unprotected by such irresponsible judges in the face of atavistic criminals.