Tag Archives: Judge

UK judge releases 16-year old rapist who rapes again eight days later

Story from the UK Telegraph.

Excerpt:

The 16-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was given a three-year community order in June for the rape of a seven-year-old boy in Tameside, Greater Manchester.

The sentence, handed down by Judge Adrian Smith who had been told of the teenager’s other sexual assaults, was seen as unduly lenient by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), who launched a legal challenge.

Eight days later, the teenager saw the five-year-old playing in the street near his home, lured him to his bedroom and repeatedly abused him. The father of the victim said yesterday: “Our son was abused not only by this lad, but also in effect by the British legal system that was supposed to protect him.

“I always thought people who commit serious offences like rape automatically go to prison – yet this boy was allowed to go free.”

[…]Judge Smith reached his decision although the boy had carried out a sex attack at the age of 13. The teenager was acquitted of that offence in 2007, but he later admitted inciting a six-year-old boy to engage in sexual activity.

The judge was also aware that the teenager had admitted engaging in sexual activity with a younger boy in the school lavatories, and in sentencing he also took into consideration three episodes of consensual sex with a fellow pupil.

I’m just finishing off Theodore Dalrymple’s “Life At The Bottom”, which is all about how secularism and socialism in the UK has destroyed the society completely. It’s ironic that I happened upon this story because I just finished the chapter on criminologists. Criminologists in the UK basically think that crime is just a legitimate way of expression frustration with one’s station in life. Crime isn’t really the fault of the criminal – crime is actually the fault of society because it makes these criminals feel badly.

Why did 77% of young unmarried women vote for Obama in 2008?

Consider this analysis from a left-wing site of the 2008 election.

Excerpt:

On Tuesday, the nation made history. It made history in electing the first African American president; it made history in building a bigger margin for the first female Speaker of the House; it made history in delivering the biggest Democratic margin since 1964; it made history in sending a record number of people to the polls and the highest percentage turnout since the 1960 election.

[…]But one thing is immediately clear. Unmarried women played a pivotal role in making this history and in changing this nation. They delivered a stunning 70 to 29 percent margin to Barack Obama and delivered similarly strong margins in races for Congress and the U.S. Senate. Although unmarried women have voted Democratic consistently since marital status has been was tracked, this election represents the highest margin recorded and a 16-point net gain at the Presidential level from 2004.

In particular, note the chart that shows that younger unmarried women voted 77-22 for Obama. 77-22 for Obama. This is actually in keeping with my previous post on this topic, which documented how women have continuously voted for bigger and bigger government since they started voting. The problem with big government policies is that they drain money from the family which is then redistributed outside of the family.

To have a strong family, you need more than just money. You need independence so that you can keep your vision distinct and separate from the vision of the government. If a family depends on the government, then they are beholden to the government’s values. The government can even overrule conscience rights and religious liberty. Keeping the family strong and separate from government is especially important for Christian parents who have a specific goal of passing on their faith to their children.

Here are just a few of the things I thought of that help make a marriage strong: (there are many more)

  • low taxes so the household has more money to spend on the things we need for our plan
  • access to low cost energy provided by domestic energy production by private firms
  • access to low cost, high quality consumer goods through increased free trade
  • the ability to choose homeschooling or private schools (and the more school choice, the better)
  • the ability to fund a retirement plan that covers the family – not anyone else
  • the ability to purchase a health care plan that covers the family – not anyone else
  • the ability to own firearms for protection of the home and the family
  • the ability to pass Christian convictions on to children without interference from the state
  • the ability to speak and act as a Christian in public without reprisals from secular left special interest groups
  • low threat of being the victim of criminal activity
  • low threat of being bankrupted by the costs of divorce court
  • low threat of being arrested on a false domestic violence charge (e.g. – verbal abuse)
  • low threat of never seeing your children because of loss of custody after a divorce
  • low threat of being imprisoned due to failure to pay alimony and child support after a job loss

It seems to me that a vote for Obama is a vote against all of these things. So then why did unmarried women (especially Christian women) vote for him? It seems as thought they are less interested in marriage and family and more interested in having the government provide incentives for anti-child, anti-family behaviors like pre-marital sex, contraceptives, abortions, welfare for single mothers, divorce courts, government coercion of husbands, state-run day-care, government-run schools, in-vitro fertilization, etc. I don’t mind if people need these things, but they should pay for it themselves. but I don’t see why unmarried women should favor family money being spent on government programs that help other people to avoid the cost and consequences of their own decisions.

UK set to release 30 high-risk terrorists in order to appease future terrorists

The Times of India reports. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

Up to 30 “high-risk” terrorists — including some of the most dangerous men in Britain —are due to be released from jail in the next year.

More are being freed in the wake of a ruling by Britain’s most senior judges that long sentences for terrorist crimes could “inflame” rather than deter extremism.

An analysis of appeal court cases shows that of the 26 terrorism cases it has heard, 25 have led to men with terrorism convictions having their sentences reduced. Others are being released because they serve only part of their term.

Think of the signals being sent to British intelligence when convicted terrorists are released early. And think of the signals being sent to the CIA when their operatives are similarly threatened here in the USA. What is happening here is that terrorists are becoming emboldened and law enforcement is becoming deterred from catching criminals. Why work hard when it accomplishes nothing?

Share