1. It’s called ‘the law,’ you ignoramuses. In Ohio, Miranda Smith, a true sicko, was charged with rape involving a two-year-old child, Her conviction was reversed by The Ohio Supreme Court after an appeals court had upheld the trial court. The grounds for the reversal was that her (disgusting and horrible) conduct, which she admitted to, “only” constituted gross sexual imposition under Ohio law. Gross sexual imposition is a lesser charge, and might result in less punishment, though not if the sentencing judge has his head screwed on right.
What did the woman do? Oh, Smith had her two-year-old son insert a ‘sex toy” into her vagina, took a video of the act and sent it to her boyfriend. (Now there’s something you don’t see every day.) How the trial and appeals court allowed a conviction for rape to stand, I’ll never know. The statute defines what the child was made to do as a sex act, but its should be obvious that one can’t be charged with raping oneself. Whatever it was that this mother did to her child, it wasn’t rape. “The state asks us to … conclude that Ohio law requires only an act of insertion and that it does not matter whether it is the victim or the defendant who does the inserting. In other words, the state is essentially asking us to rewrite R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) to make the statute fit the facts of this case. We cannot do that, though.” Oh, I can think of at least one SCOTUS justice who would probably argue that doing exactly that is what “feels” just. Naturally, the “Think of the children! mob” went bonkers. Consider these arguments from activists:
It’s this focus on the language of the law rather than the impact the crime had on the child that troubles those who advocate for rape and sex crime survivors.
Amy Dudley is the director of the only accredited rape crisis center in Montgomery and Preble counties, the YWCA Dayton’s Center for Survivors of Sexual Violence. She said the fact that a defendant’s arguments seemed to matter more in this supreme court case than the long-term impact to the child is why laws need to change.
“If we can say that a 2-year-old was complicit in (Smith’s) sexual conduct, what does that say for older survivors?” Dudley said, after reviewing the case and watching oral arguments.
YWCA Dayton’s CSSV focuses on adult survivors, but Dudley said research supports the fact that child sex crime survivors feel effects far into adulthood, and having to relive trauma or come to terms with it later in life can cause even more issues than the initial abuse.
“They’re becoming these unhealthy adults with mental health issues and other issues that sometimes aren’t addressed,” Dudley said. “(For adult survivors) if the law wasn’t there to protect this child in this case, when will it?”
Seeing a person’s sentence minimized in a crime of this type is something that could have impacts on the entire process of helping survivors, Dudley said. That’s why it’s important that the justice system turn toward a “survivor focus” while giving everyone involved the rights they are owed.
This is the kind of “justice” the ascendant mindset of the totalitarian woke would inflict on us. The actual law doesn’t matter, what matters is giving people what they are “owed,” whether the law used to do it applies or not.
2. Proving that something good can come out of the worst Ethics Train Wrecks. The crack-brained idea that Mike Pence could stop the official election of Joe Biden was never going to work even if Pence had been foolish enough to try it, but at least now Congress is motivated to clean up the obscure and badly drafted Electoral Count Act of 1887. A bipartisan group of Senators and another group of Democrats are working to rewrite the law, and has released draft legislative text.
The new bill would clarify that the Vice President has no power to reject a state’s electors (that part needed no clarification) and ensure that state legislatures cannot appoint electors after Election Day in an effort to overturn their state’s election results, another tactic that would have never stood up under judicial scrutiny. States would get additional time to complete legitimate recounts and litigation; there would be a guarantee of time to allow limited judicial review to ensure that the electors appointed by a state reflect the popular vote results in the state; specific and narrow grounds for objections to electors or electoral votes would be enumerated; and would raise the requirements for Congress to consider objections without broad support by both chambers of Congress. Good, good, all good.
The vagueness of the law allowed some of Trump’s incompetent lawyers and advisors to assure him that trying various stunts to stall the election of Biden were legal (there was no way to “overturn the election,” despite the dishonest Democratic/ MSM narrative. I guarantee that Trump never read the 1887 Act himself: he relied on a bunch of irresponsible yo-yos. He’s accountable, no question. But this wasn’t Trump’s plot, just as the riot at the Capitol wasn’t his doing. Badly drafted laws cause mischief. This one should have been overhauled long ago.
3. They just can’t play it straight. From a mostly fair story about the above, the Times had to stick in this: “Ms. Cheney and Mr. Kinzinger are the only Republican members of the special House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, which left more than 150 police officers injured and resulted in several deaths.” Thus it continues to press the false narrative that the riot “resulted in several deaths.” The riot resulted, as in “caused,” exactly one death, and that was Ashlii Babbitt, who was shot by a police officer under circumstances that had their colors been reversed, would have had a different kind of riot in D.C. A Senate report on the Jan. 6 riot found that six other people died “in connection” with the riot, which is meaningless. One died of a stroke, One died of an overdose. One died of a heart attack. Five police officers who dealt with the mob died after the riots; none of their deaths can be attributed to the events of the day. “Connected” is a weasel word designed to permit deception. “Caused” is false.
4. This isn’t accurate either. From the same story: “Republican National Committee voted to censure two members of the party, Representatives Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, in a resolution that described the events of Jan. 6 as “legitimate political discourse.” That is referring to this part of the resolution censoring the two virulent anti-Trumpers:
WHEREAS , Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger are participating in a Democrat – led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse , and they are both utilizing their past professed political affiliation to mask Democrat abuse of prosecutorial power for partisan purposes ,
There is little doubt that the Jan 6 Commission is chilling dissent and seeking to persecute many who were not engaged in violent rioting. The resolution does not call the riot “legitimate political discourse.” Trump’s speech to the gathered protesters was “legitimate political discourse” (though irresponsible, unpresidential and stupid) and the Commission is trying to criminalize it as well as those who came to D.C. to protest the election.
5. And today’s dispatch from The Great Stupid...The University of Washington Information Technology Department’s new IT Inclusive Language Guide has these highlights:
- “Blackout date,” “black list,” “blackbox,” and “black hat hacker” are forbidden because they are negative. “White list,” and “white hat hacker,” among other uses of “white” to denote “good” are similarly banned. The politically correct alternatives for “black list” and “white list” sare “deny lists” and “allow lists.”
- Grandfathering” or “grandfather clause” are banned because “grandfather clause” originated in the American South in the 1890s as a way to defy the 15th Amendment and prevent black Americans from voting.
- “First class” is also verboten, because it “implies that this particular value is the best quality or in the highest grade, and thus others under this group are second-class or lower class. Using cultural hierarchies in people-people relationships to denote relationships between things is a form of classism, which is prejudice against or in favor of people belonging to a particular social class.”