Cameron Diaz was (almost) right? Rape is legal!
Bill O'Reilly of Fox news is now reporting about a case involving a Judge from Ohio named John Connor who gave absolutely no jail time to man accused of child rape. Andrew Selva, despite admitting to 20 counts of rape involving two boys, one twelve and the other only five years old, the "honorable" Judge Connor sentenced him to one year of house arrest. It is hard to argue that punishment fits the crime. Fortunately, some in Ohio are attempting to unseat the Democrat Judge .
This story comes only a month after a similar story involving a Vermont Judge. Judge Cashman, appointed by Republican Governor Sneeling of Vermont argued that punishment was not necessary, and was a believer in the leftist idea of "restorative justice".
Here in California we have seen some frightening recent developments as well. California Conservative recently reported on a California Supreme court decision which essentially claimed that oral sex with children is not an agregious enough act to label someone a sex-offender. The near unanimous decision sends a dangerous message of legitimizing these actions.
Yet, while Judges were busy decriminalizing the rape of children, California Democrat Assemblyman Mark Leno took a more direct approach. Leno recently argued on the floor of the legislature against making the possession of child-pornography a felony. Leno argues that people should be able to possess up to 24 peices of child-pornography without facing felony prosecution (though it seems unlikely that the California Supreme court would uphold any punishment). Leno introduced an Amendment to a bill that would make this allowance.
The San Francisco Chronicle claimed that the ensuing outrage by Republicans against Leno as an affront to decency, writing in support of Leno's amendment. While supporting the essential legalization of child-pornography, The Chronicle couldn't avoid showing their true agenda, being disingenuous in regards to previous, completely unrelated comments by Bill O'Reilly about Military presence in SF. While Leno and The Chronicle believe that "personal use" of child pornography is acceptable, they fails to realize the simple concept of supply and demand. As demand for child-porn increases (which legalization would do), supply will increase in order to meet the demand. The passage of Leno's amendment would undoubtedly lead to an increase in production of child-pornography.
So, in summary:
1. A Democrat Ohio Judge feels that 20 counts of raping two pre-teen boys deserves no punishment.
2. A Vermont Judge feels that punishment for a child rapist is not in the best interest of children, citing a far-left idea.
3. The liberal California Supreme court does not think that engaging in oral sex with children makes someone a sex-offender.
4. California Assemblyman, Democrat Mark Leno, thinks everyone should be able to have child-pornography without penalty.
5. The agenda driven San Francisco Chronicle (don't believe that statement? Check out Marooned in Marin for examples) believes that child-porn is a right
With all of this in mind, it would appear as though Cameron Diaz was close to accurate in her statement. Child rape seems to be more and more acceptable, at least to many Democrats. Diaz simply got the party's mixed up. A simple mistake to make. Yet, while there seems to be a concerted effort to allow sex with children by these judges and politicians, the Bush Administration, at least, is doing something to protect children.