Look for William Jefferson Clinton to move to California soon. One of his favorite sexual activities is being given a wink and a nod by that state's highest court.
You know ... the naughty kind of wink and nod that does nothing to protect your children, but certainly assuages the guilt of the judges' own moral code. And in doing so, it bends the reasoning of what should be a body that protects our citizens into one that targets them.
On Wednesday, the California Supreme Court voted 6 to 1 to not force those convicted of having oral sex with underage kids to register as sex offenders with the state. The majority judges said that the law was "too harsh and unfair." Yes, I'm sure that the problem with such enforcement is the resolute "unfairness" of punishing those who know it is a crime and yet do it anyway. How terrible.
The judges justified their conclusion by citing the fact that under the state laws of California people convicted of having actual sexual intercourse with those who are 16 and 17 years of age are not forced to register as a sex offender. Their argument claims a lack of equal protection under the law.
So help me understand something. Because the laws are all screwed up about the sentencing of a crime that is even worse than the one that is committed, therefore we have to let those who commit serious crimes off easy? For some reason, there is an aversion to tough punishment in the liberal courts today.
There was a time when those who broke God's moral laws were marked by society. The scarlet letter emblazoned, people went about their lives, but they were shunned, kept very much at arm's length from the whole of society.
In World War II, girls who slept with the Nazis in the occupied territories had their heads shaved upon liberation to identify them as weak, dangerous and even traitors to the homelands. In 2006, the sex-offender registration is a poor substitute for identifying the degenerates among us, yet it is the best system we have.
I'd personally much rather see those who have sex with children be dragged to the public square, have their crimes announced to society, and publicly executed. Their filth lives on in the minds of the victims whom they molest and that is all the life they deserve at that point.
But not in California.
Not in California's Supreme Court. Here, the brightest minds the California legal system can produce – who assumingly have children and families of their own – are the ones that see the danger, look it straight in the face, and utter the words "harsh" and "unfair." Now, the judges who should be the "most respected" (insert guffaw here) are telling the citizens in their state that those convicted of having sex with children isn't something the rest of the state should have the right to know about if someone is only convicted of stripping the minor and placing their mouth in contact with the child's genitals.
Forget whatever any other laws on the books say, shouldn't that act in and of itself earn you a ticket to utter disdain? And by winking at the crime – for which the person in the case before them only served 120 days – aren't they further perpetuating the likelihood that it will happen again?
The judges do make a good point: What on earth is wrong with the Legislature in California – and why isn't it an equally damnable crime for an adult to have sexual intercourse with a minor? Why aren't they already punished to the fullest extent of the law? Why aren't the perverts who crave such activity given the death penalty?
Wait, don't answer ... I already hear the judges mouthing the words ...
"Too harsh," and "unfair."