[Graybeard58]

On what possible political philosophy can democrats stand in opposing getting tough on monsters who molest little children?

One of the many reasons I have never voted for a democrat in my life and never will.

[Graybeard58]

Ping

[goldstategop]

The Democrats see nothing wrong with kiddie perverts or any other criminal for that matter. They're the victims of society.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Kuksool]

Trial lawyers and defense attorney contributions.

[EagleUSA]

Libs -- the criminal's best friends. Understatement.

[rocksblues]

Democrats believe that they should be the ones to introduce laws as they are in charge. So they vote against anything that makes sense because they didn't introduce it.

[Pondman88]

Sure-so an 18 year old who has a 15 year old girlfriend. lock him up and throw away the key.

[Pondman88]

Just be careful when you hug your daughters and grandaughters!!!

[sgtbono2002]

Personally I vote for castration. Especially for those men who have incestuous relations.

So often child molesters are convicted and sentenced while parents who have molested their own children are given a pass. Sometimes even given joint custody so they can molest again. They are all monsters ,but a parent whop molests their own child is too sick to live IMO.

[RC2]

OK............I can understand the Democrats. Sentence all these guys to live in Vermont if they feel so sorry for them.

[techcor]

On what possible political philosophy can democrats stand in opposing getting tough on monsters who molest little children?

They are just trying to protect their base. Now if you let the molesters vote from within prison, the Dems just might get on board.

[VRWCmember]

They are probably holding out for an exception for the mental health of the pedophile.

[Brilliant]

This is one of the few things that I think should be federalized. Child molesters commit their crimes in one state, get a slap on the wrist, and then move to another state to commit more crimes. Congress should make child molestation a federal crime, with a high sentence.

Another advantage of doing that is that it would absolutely drive the libs nuts that the conservatives were using their own invention--federal preemption--to increase criminal penalties on what were previously state crimes. It might even prompt the Dems to make an about face and embrace federalism. For example, I can envision the Vermont lawmakers complaining that the US government was interfering with their internal affairs. It would be delightful to be able to respond the way they have for the last 70 years every time the feds took over what was previously a state function: "Tough."

[Myrddin]

On what possible political philosophy can democrats stand in opposing getting tough on monsters who molest little children?

Perhaps some of the sitting legislators don't like the prospect of going to jail for that long.

[MaestroLC]

GOP needs to take a page from the Dem strategy book and say that Dems are for child molesters by going against this law.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Mandatory minimum sentences are idiotic and Stalinist, no matter how "noble" the cause. This is why we have judges - if we don't like the way they rule in certain cases, it is our obligation to replace them.

[stm]

A dhimmicrat's best friend:

[NorthFlaRebel]

Another Republican bill proposes a minimum 25-year sentence for using the Internet to try to entice children 12 and under into having sex. It would impose a 10-year sentence if victims are between the ages of 13 and 15. In both cases, a second offense would carry a life sentence.

While on its face this sounds fine, I wonder if the bill diferentiates between a child who was "enticed into sex", whatever that means, or a child who was a willing participant? The "under 12" part is fine, but the waters start getting muddy when we are talking about 14 and 15-year olds who do in deed use the net to seek out sexual encounters. Another problem with mandatory minimums in "sex crimes" is that there are many acts no reasonable person would consider a "sex crime" that are labeled as such under the lasw of various States(unlawfull restraint of a minor is a great example).

And here is a question nobody is really asking: Why were the laws originally written with "low" mandatory minimums? Was it because the authors of the laws did not see such crimes as bad enough to carry 25-year mandatory sentences under all circumstances? Was it because they didn't want a judges hands tied in cases that certainly do not add up to being a sex crime? What was the reasoning? They had something in mind when they decided on 10 years instead of 25 years. What was it?

[Arrowhead1952]

Looks like the demonRAT party is following the lead of their hero - Justice Ruth Gizzy.

IIRC, she wanted the age of consent to be lowered to 12.

[nutmeg]

Connecticut ping!

Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.

[tertiary01]

In their secular view of the world Democrats see perps and victims as equally culpable.(And in need of interventions on YOUR tax dime).