Being a child in America is dangerous. And it seems there are few who will come to their defense.
First there was Judge Cashman of Vermont, who originally sentenced a confessed child rapist to 60 days in jail. After much public outcry, the judge relented and ending up giving a three year sentence on this man who repeated molested a child over for nearly ten years. What happened to the punishment is to fit the crime?
Last week a judge in Ohio followed suit and sentenced a confessed child rapist to five years probation. This confessed child molester repeated abused a five year old and a eleven year old boy.
The only thing worse than these judges actions is that lack of response by the church. It's as Bill O'Rielly said, "If a guy confessed to raping two women, would he be sentence to probation in this country? That wouldn't happen. But if it did, every women's group and media outlet would demand the judge's removal."
I'm convinced Bill is right about this. The leaders in our church; the Bishops, General Board of Church & Society, the Women's Division; have all spoken out against the war in Iraq. Each pointing to the taking of innocent lives. Now whether or not they were right when they made those statements isn't the point. The point is, where are they when innocent lives are being destroyed in our own country and justice is abandoned for political correctness? Whatever happened to "what you do to the least of these you do unto me"? (Matthew 25:31-46)
The children of our land who are abused must be numbered among "the least of these" and I hear no voices from our church coming to their defense. Until we are willing to protect our children from predators, we dare not think we will be among those who the King commends on the judgment day.
Great point, great post!
Posted by: ste | March 23, 2006 at 01:54 PM
Perhaps mandatory sentencing for certain sex crimes would help. We could take sentencing options out of the hands of judges.
Posted by: John | March 24, 2006 at 06:37 AM
Good post and also a good point John. I like the idea of mandatory sentencing for certain sex crimes.
Sheesh. Does this guy not watch Law and Order SVU? He'd see what these guys can do. And I've seen what these guys can do to a child.
Posted by: Greg Hazelrig | March 24, 2006 at 07:55 AM
The problem with mandatory sentencing for sex offenders is that you end up with 18 year old guys who slept with their 17 year old girl friends, getting charged by the parents and then sent to prison for 10 years and have their name sent to all the neighbors as a "sex offender" for the rest of their lives...
Posted by: daniel | March 24, 2006 at 08:22 AM
I don't know of any mandatory sentencing laws that would throw an 18 yr. old in jail for having sex with her 17 yr. old boyfriend. Every "Jessica Law" that I'm aware of apply to children 12 & under.
Posted by: John B | March 24, 2006 at 08:31 AM
ah yes, my post was intentionally exaggerated to drive home my point: the whole reason for having a judge is because each situation is unique and the judge (in THEORY) will be able to do what is most Just in any given situation in a way that a broad mandatory sentencing law cannot. The problem comes when judges themselves prove to be unjust...
Posted by: daniel | March 24, 2006 at 10:41 PM