May 10, 2009

Mark:

The last 7 days have seen much debate on the issue of Holocaust Denial Groups on Facebook.  There has been a lot of focus on the issues of free speech, open discussion of controversial issues and Facebook Terms Of Service(TOS).

While I have made it clear that I would like to see these groups removed, I have done a poor job in articulating why. I attempted to take a short-sighted, back door “lawyer’s approach” with Facebook by alleging that Holocaust Denial was illegal in other countries and, therefore, a violation of Facebook TOS.  While at the time, these were legitimate issues, I should have focused on the real issue.  The issue of the proliferation of Facebook groups that promote hatred of religious and ethnics groups and the hate speech those groups perpetrate. While you may have your doubts, I submit that this includes those who promote the fringe revisionist theory of Holocaust Denial.

The Holocaust Denial movement  is nothing more than a pretext to allow the preaching of hatred against Jews and to recruit other like minded individuals to do the same.  Allowing these groups to flourish on Facebook under the guise of “open discussion”  does nothing more than help spread their  message of hate.  Is this the kind of open discussion that Facebook wants to encourage?  Is this really where you want to draw your line?

It is undisputed that as a collective , Holocaust Deniers are overwhelmingly antisemitic.  One cannot be separated from the other.   They use a fringe, discredited historical theory as a pretext and rallying point to perpetrate and promote their message of hate using Facebook as  recruiting ground.   By allowing these groups whether they number 1 or 1000, Facebook is not promoting open discussion of  a controversial issue.  It is  promoting and encouraging hatred towards ethnic and religious groups, nothing more.

By claiming open discussion as the rationale for allowing these groups to exist, Facebook is playing games with semantics.  Facebook is taking form over substance to protect their imaginary subjective corporate line in the sand they have drawn.

If Facebook is serious about encouraging open discourse on controversial subjects,  let’s start with Facebook itself.  Let’s talk about the controversial decision to allow Holocaust Denial groups.  Let’s talk about transparency.  Sending out canned email answers or spouting canned corporate-speak in an interview is not transparent.  I would like to see transparency on the specifics of how Facebook went about arriving at this controversial decision.  I would like you to address the following questions:

In a CNN interview,   Facebook representative Barry Schnitt stated:

“It’s a difficult decision to make. We have a lot of internal debate and we bring in experts to talk about it,” Schnitt said. “Just being offensive or objectionable doesn’t get it taken off Facebook. We want it [the site] to be a place where people can discuss all kinds of ideas, including controversial ones.”

Mark, I would like to know who at Facebook was involved in the “internal debate”  that resulted in the decision that Holocaust Denial does not constitute hate speech.  Were you involved?  Do you offer any input in these types of discussions?  How does Facebook define “internal debate”? How many people were involved?  What was their expertise to discuss this issue?  Did they bring their personal beliefs to the table?   What safeguards were employed to ensure objectivity in a decision that is innately subjective?  Were attorneys consulted that have experience in such matters or was it general counsel?  Do you agree that something can be legal but still constitute hate speech?  Was the final decision yours?  Did the buck stop with you?

I would also like to know what experts were consulted on this issue.  Were any Holocaust Denial experts consulted?  Were any experts on antisemitism consulted?   Were any hate speech experts in general  consulted?  If so, I would appreciate it if you would identify these experts spoken of by Barry Schnitt in his CNN interview.

Finally, Mark, in an interview for the CNET blog “Technically Incorrect”, Barry Schnitt stated:

“One thing to consider that someone actually mentioned in the thread was the idea that there may be a benefit to having these ideas discussed in the open. Would we rather Holocaust denial was discussed behind closed doors or quietly propagated by anonymous sources? Or would we rather it was discussed in the open on Facebook where people’s real names and their photo is associated with it for their friends, peers, and colleagues to see?”

Is this an official corporate statement from Facebook on how Holocaust Denial should be addressed in society?  What kind of open discussion was Mr. Schnitt talking about?   How was he defining  “open discussion”?  How does Facebook define “open discussion”?  What experts did Facebook consult in coming to the conclusion that “open discussion” was the most appropriate way to deal with this subject?   Are you aware of the Jewish/Holocaust historical significance of such a statement Mark?   I sent an email to Facebook asking for clarification of his statement but received no response other than the canned ,”we received your email”.

Mark, I hope you will take the time to respond to these important questions and issues, not just with regards to the Holocaust Denial issue, but with regards to transparency in how Facebook subjectively comes to these types of decisions in general.

Sincerely

Brian Cuban

©2009 Brian Cuban

Enjoy this piece?  Be sure to join the Cuban Revolution Fan Club and/or subscribe to my newsletter to stay abreast of future posts and live celebrity interviews on The Revolution Rant

Is it now “hip” to be tramp?

As I’m sure you’ve heard, Barbie turned 50.  That 10-inch, perfectly proportioned, blond bombshell of a doll is now packing an AARP card.  The latest to surface from Mattelwood, Barbie’s hometown, reports that the celebrity toy celebrated this milestone in a way most uncharacteristic of her wholesome past – she has tatted herself into the ranks of the lower “backy-tat” mainstream.  Yes, Barbie is tramp-stamped.  And now, single handedly, Barbie is transforming the urban tramp tat definition of the wild and sexually promiscuous to speak to the masses of the cool and hip – not to mention the wholesome as well.

As we all know, Barbie is no tramp!  Or is she?  Has age made her throw caution to the wind?  Unable to get permission from Mattel? to interview Barbie about her foray into the body stamped masses, I took the question to the people – my eclectic group of Facebook friends.  I asked about personal tramp stories and what they think of Barbie’s inclusion in the tramp sorority.  Ultimately, I wanted to know…now that Barbie is “stamping it,” is it cool to be a “stamp tramp”?

The personal stories I heard and thoughts on what a Tattoo Barbie means to today’s children in urban society are insightful.  Some may even surprise you.

LYNNE

Lynne is not your stereotypical female with a lower back tattoo.  I doubt there is anyone in this world that would put a “tramp” stamp on her.   She is a 46-year-old mother of two college age sons.  She has a Masters Degree in Reading and Language Arts.  She teaches 5th grade in a New Jersey Public School.

“My mom was married to my dad for close to 40 years. Shortly after he died, my mom wanted to get a tattoo.  She was 70 years old!  I almost died!  She wanted us to get identical ones.  She chose a symbol (from a shampoo bottle no less) that was circular and included a picture of nature, (we did endless nature walks together) water (we LOVE the ocean) and a sun.  We have always been close. I did not have the heart to turn her down so; of course, I said, “Let’s go!”

Inside I was panicking!  Where do I put this?  I’m an elementary school teacher for God sakes!  All I could think of was the lower back.  My mom put hers proudly on her ankle. We now have matching tats! It was a dirty secret to be shared with my husband (who did not know about this until I called him in pain!). He was quite surprised, and being a man, turned on as well.”

What would Lynne say to her children if one wanted a tattoo?

”Being a Mom and a Teacher, I would probably ask the standard, ‘Who, What, Where, When, and Why’ questions.

WHO are you doing this for?  If the answer is to please a girl or the ‘guys,’ then let’s stop right here. If the answer is for you, then let’s think about it. WHAT type of tattoo are you thinking of?  Does it reflect who you are or what you stand for? Is it something you can live with for a long time, if not forever?  WHERE are you planning to get it? Research at least 5 different tattoo places and if possible, talk to as many people as you can to see where they went and if the place was clean and reputable. (An amateur did my symbol tattoo, and the tattoo slightly scarred me. My mom’s turned out perfect!) WHEN do you want to do this? Think about it for at least 4-6 weeks. Sometimes we do things on a whim and regret it later.
This decision requires a commitment.   WHY are you doing this? Does it carry a special significance? Is it a decision that you will be proud of?  If you still want to get a tattoo after considering all of the information I have just given you, then go for it!”

Lynne had this to say to Tattoo Barbie:

”Dolls are made for children, and Barbie is a doll. Dolls should look as innocent and pure as children are. Putting a tattoo on a child’s toy scars the toy and takes away the innocence of a child. Children do not need an adult’s influence to cloud their world. There is plenty of time for that when they become adults.”

NIKKI

Nikki is a 22-year-old college student at Texas Christian University. Use the tramp stamp label with Nikki at your own risk!  Nikki was a member of the 2004 Olympic Judo team!  She has her back tat and is proud of it.  She is also capable of “stamping” into oblivion any guy that disparages her or her tat.

“I got my tattoo for making the 2004 Olympic team. The significance behind the tattoo is all the hard work I put in leading up to making the team. It is also kind of a tradition amongst the judo community. All Olympic team members get a tattoo signifying which team or teams they have made. In my case it was Athens. I came up with the Olympic rings and had my tattoo artist wrap the wreath in with the rings.

The stigma on the lower back tattoo does bother me because of what the title “tramp stamp” implies. To generalize and stereotype a person for having a marking on a location of the body is judgmental and ignorant.

I have heard that comment many times directed at others and myself.  It annoys me.  I would try and defend it giving reasons behind the tattoo and its significance. I have now learned that it does not matter what people think   I did it for myself. Comments like that are rude and inappropriate.

If people are really interested in knowing about what it is and why I got it they will ask or comment on it in another manner. Otherwise, simply dismiss them as ignorant.”

What does Nikki think of the “Barbie-Stamp” generation?

“I do not agree with the new Tattoo Barbie.  While I have a tattoo and decided on getting one as a young adult, I would never tell my 2 nieces and nephew and the kids I babysit for that it is okay to mark your body.  When they get old enough and they decide there is something so meaningful that they want to have it inked into their skin permanently, then so be it.

There is a reason you must be 18 to get a tattoo and making a product for children that condones body art should be banned.  It is sending a message not suitable for children. Barbie should remain ink free.”

KIRSTEN

Kirsten is a 36 year old stay at home mother of two in Dallas, Texas.

“From 24 to 26 years of age I was living in Tampa. I was going to a lot of bars and clubs. I never liked tattoos but “beautiful” people made them look good.  After two years of being a part of this scene, I got my belly button pierced. A few months later, a friend and I went back to the same piercing/tattoo parlor when we were drunk. We both got tattoos.

I had no forethought on the idea and picked one right off the wall.  It was a medium-sized blazing sun with red, orange, yellow and black.  I told the guy to put it on the small of my back because I thought it would look good in a bathing suit.  I woke up the next morning and couldn’t believe I did it. I talked myself into liking it for a while.  A few years later when I met my husband he dubbed it “my white trash tattoo.”

The name stuck and so did the stigma. I have had the tattoo for 10 years and have finally decided to get it removed.  To me it represents a cleansing of the past and putting my wayward 20s behind me.  It’s a small price to pay for the freedom from the stigma of the “tramp stamp.”

What would Kirsten tell her children if they wanted to get a tat?

“As long as they are of age I would say get one if (and only if) they’ve thought it through carefully and either designed one of their own or found one through some research that means something to them. ”

Does Kirsten think Barbie is a tramp?

“I was surprised when I saw the Tattoo Barbie (we have one) but I rather like it. I think it shows the sign of the times. It takes away a little of the stigma of having a tattoo for women. In other words, it’s not bad having Barbie back up the concept that having a tattoo doesn’t make a woman a tramp.”

RACHEL

Rachel is a 25 yr old degreed professional living in Dallas, Texas.

”I always wanted a tattoo. When I was born the physician handed me over to my mother and told her that I was an “old soul”. My mother has called me an old soul ever since. I’m a free spirit to say the least, so when my first tattoo was so big nobody was surprised. I used to say that my first tattoo was going to be a pair of boxing gloves flanked by “southpaw” ala Rocky Balboa (I’m left handed and he was a weird hero of sorts). I am very glad to report that this never came to fruition but four other tattoos did. The first one was the “tramp stamp” on my lower back.

When the phrase popped into my head my sophomore year of college, I knew it wasn’t going to be my first tattoo.  The fact that it was in gangsta old English script was slightly more surprising. I’ve likened it to a reverse Tu-Pac. (like the one on his stomach, but on my back). I take great care of all of my tattoos because three out of four are font so I don’t want them bleeding from sun damage. The floodgates opened after that and the amount of time that has lapsed between each tattoo has gotten smaller and smaller.”

What does Rachel have to say about “Tramp Stamp Barbie”?

”I do not like it. Young girls are bombarded by sexual images more than my generation.  The difference was- that I was thinking, “One day I want to be that cool.” These images are directly marketed to very young girls.  The Bratz dolls were the first time I noticed it. I was slightly disgusted. While moms now have tattoos I don’t think it should be portrayed as the “ideal”- which we all know is exactly what Barbie is. On the other hand, Barbie herself should be done away with.”

Is Tattoo Barbie turning us into a “Tramp Stamp Nation”?

Hmmm…one has think long and hard whether Barbie could actually influence every little girl.

Maybe, just maybe, we’re all getting a little paranoid because tattoos and little girls just don’t seem to go together.  At least, that’s what we have been conditioned to think.  After all, little boys (and some progressive little girls) have been sporting washable tattoos for years.  They are fun, removable and no one has ever made real mention about them.

So, who knows why Barbie did it.  Perhaps, one day she will hold a news conference and tell us what her stamps mean to her. In the meantime maybe the paparazzi will track down Ken and question him since Barbie’s not talking.  I’m sure his comments will be very enlightening.

©2009 Brian Cuban

Enjoy this piece?  Be sure to join the Cuban Revolution Fan Club and/or subscribe to my newsletter to stay abreast of future posts and live celebrity interviews on The Revolution Rant

What images are stored on your child’s cell phone?  It may be more than you think.  It may be a lot “less” than you think. It could impact your child’s life in the worst imaginable way.

Phillip Alpert, found out the hard way.  He got pissed at his  16 year old former girlfriend.  He took out his anger  by e-mailing naked photos  of her  to more than 70 people, including her parents, grandparents and teachers. She had taken the photos voluntarily.  Alpert, then 18, was charged with transmitting child pornography. He plead “nolo contendere” to the charges.  Today Alpert is serving five years of probation for the crime. He is also registered as a sex offender.  He must stay registered until he is 43 years old.  He recently appeared on Fox News and blamed his attorney for not making clear to him what his  plea would mean with regards to being required to register as a sex offender.  What Phillip does not say in the interview that if he tried the case the jury probably would have had no choice but to convict.  This may have resulted in mandatory prison time.

If you do not think this can happen head on down to Georgia and speak with Genarlow Wilson.  In his case teen sex at a party turned into a statutory rape conviction with a sex offender tag and mandatory 10 year prison sentence.  He was 17 and the girl was 15.  His conviction was eventually overturned by the Georgia Supreme Court but not before he spent two years of  the 10 behind bars.  A young life changed forever after what was really nothing more than poor teen judgment.  Genarlow also faced a similar choice. He was offered a much lighter sentence but would have still had to register as a sex offender. A conviction meant a mandatory 10 year sentence.  He chose to try the case.  He lost in the short term but is now free of the sex offender tag and moving on with his life.

Alpert is not an isolated case.” Sexting” is becoming the  “mainstream norm”  It has apparently lost all context among teens as to what it really means to “hit send. It has become so ingrained within the “play zone”  between generations Y and Z  that an almost complete disconnect has evolved between act of hitting send  and content being transmitted and stored on the other end when it comes to our cell phones.  In the teen mind  if it is transmitted by cell phone it “isn’t real” and not covered by any definition of moral responsibility or man made law much the same way a dollar bill in Las Vegas loses all context when converted into a gaming chip.  Much the same way two consenting teens hook up for a quickie at a high school house party.  Judgment that is flawed as a pure matter of age becomes even more so with consequences never envisioned until an indictment is handed down and a jury says guilty.

You may cry foul and exclaim that the images were not obscene. You may argue that  this was not the intent of child pornography laws. You may go on Bill O”Reilly and rant that the laws your child is being prosecuted under laws meant to deter pedophiles and perverts  and instead are being used “in loco parentis” when punishment for such indiscretions should be left to the parents.  You may very well be doing all these things as the process takes on a life of its own.  You may be doing these things as  your child is indicted,  convicted and his/her appeal winds its way slowly through the justice system while he serves his mandatory minimum sentence  at the nearest state or federal penitentiary with real perverts and child molesters or at some “gladiator” juvenile facility.

Moral of story?  Have the talk…

©2009 Brian Cuban

Enjoy this piece?  Be sure to join the Cuban Revolution Fan Club and/or subscribe to my newsletter to stay abreast of future posts and live celebrity interviews on The Revolution Rant

The city of Duncanville, Tx which is suburb of Dallas has been involved in its own little Jerry Falwell style bible belt battle with the owners of a private “swingers club” called “The Cherry Pit“. The Cherry Pit is a private residence tucked in away in an upscale Duncanville residential neighborhood. The Cherry Pit advertises on the internet and according to published reports draws as many as 100 guests to a weekend gathering.

The Cherry Pit has been throwing adult-oriented parties where couples pay a fee for entry and can engage in pretty much any type of sexual activity they want on the premises. It is the position of the owners that this does not constitute a “business” as the entrance money is to cover the cost of food, soft drinks etc and not a fee for the privilege of engaging in sex from the tame to the “Pulp Fiction” apple in the mouth brand of entertainment…. It is rumored for an extra service charge they will even “bring out the gimp“….(just kidding)

The whole bru ha ha started back in November of 2007 when after several years of Cherry Pitt neighbors complaining about the crime, traffic and “unsavory element” “the pit” was bringing to the neighborhood, the City of Duncanville passed the following ordinance:

“the operation and maintenance of a sex club to be unlawful and a public nuisance. Violation of the new ordinance can result in a fine of up to $2,000.”

The city of Duncanville then decided that the gatherings at the Cherry Pit were more than just a gathering of “friends and family” looking for some fun and determined that it was in fact a sexually oriented business and subect to the ordinance. The response of Julie Norris, one of the owners of “The PIt” was as follows:

“I don’t know what their definition of a business is, but to my understanding a business is public – anyone can just walk into it and you must pay to get in and we are none of that,” Norris said. “I accept donations. Have you ever had your friends over for a barbecue and asked everyone to pitch in $5 or bring a dish? That is exactly what we do. The only requirement to get into my home is that you call and let me know that you are coming and you are on my reservation list.”

Ms Norris went on to state that she believed that the ordinance is a guise to attack their lifestyles and beliefs and that the ordinance regulating the club violated their First Amendment Rights to Privacy.

“It boils down to people want to put their morality into my private home and I am going to stand against that,” Norris said. “That is not what the Constitution allows.”

The owners of the Cherry Pit subsequently counter sued the city claiming the ordinance banning sex clubs violates their privacy and due process rights. They are basically using the same argument under which a right to privacy was found under Roe v. Wade. They have to use this method in making the right to privacy argument because there is in fact no right to personal privacy spelled out in the Constitution.

The Cherry Pit’s attorney, Ed Klein, said the city is trying to regulate private acts in a private home using the public nuisance law as a “pretext” to do so….

The Cherry Pitt has remained open while all the legal wrangling has taken place… Just today the City of Duncanville broadened the ordinance designed to shut the club down by making the definition of a sex club more general and add a local appeal process for sex clubs that the city orders to close.

***October 29, 2008 A jury found the owners of the Cherry Pit guilty of illegally operating a sexually oriented business.

So what you do think? Should private citizens be allowed to “swap pits” at the Pitt without the government getting its’ rocks off?

My initial gut reaction is to always have a problem when big brother enters my home and says you can’t do this or you can’t do that. My gut however has to take a back seat to the fact that this is done all the time.

You obviously can’t do cocaine or heroin in the privacy of your home. Both of these things are illegal regardless of where they are engaged in.

What about gambling? Consenting adult coming together to play poker or even chess for money? When does the government have the right to regulate such victimless consenting acts that may not be illegal in and of themselves? When is there a compelling government interest?

If your 100 closest friends are playing poker for big bucks at your place is it a friendly gathering or an illegal gambling operation? if you have take a cut of the pot, it is an illegal gambling operation subject to regulation and you as the owner of the home can go to jail. An act not necessarily illegal in itself but one that could be illegal based on the circumstances in which it occurs.

You can’t run a gambling operation in the privacy of your home and guess what? You can not charge people for the privilege of having indiscriminate, anonymous sex in your home. Just like taking a cut of the house makes your little gambling gathering illegal, taking profits at the Cherry Pit makes you the equivalent of the D.C. Madam

Let us also keep this in mind. Duncanville is NOT attempting to regulate the “Piters” showing up at the house. They are attempting to regulate the owners of the home in allowing the “Piters” to engage in sex for a fee at their home…. The government is NOT regulating where and with whom you can have sex with. They are telling the owners of the Pit that if they are charging you to do it, they are subject to government regulation. There is a huge difference…

No one is going to tell you that you cant go down to your local red light district and get a BJ from Sallie the local crack addict or Eddie the cross dressing pimp or even take Sallie of Eddie to the Cherry Pit for some fun. We of course know however that the act of handing over a dollar in exchange for the BJ makes the otherwise consenting act illegal prostitution on one end and the illegal act of soliciting a prostitute on the other end no matter where it occurs (in addition to whatever other nasty stuff goes with “the other end”). The government has decided that there is a compelling government interest to regulate and/or criminalize such acts…

Here is the problem as I see it. Whatever law passes constitutional muster can not be based on counting soft drink and pretzels receipts. If you break even its a gathering of friends. if you come out five bucks ahead your running a sex shop…. A law enforced by accountants…. An unenforceable vague statute that will not pass constitutional muster just as I predict the Duncanville statute will fail. Not because what is going on at the Pit is morally right or wrong but because you can not have a law based on counting pretzels and coke cans….

Duncanville may ultimately be able to come up with a law that passes constitutional muster and shuts the club down. I predict the current try is “the pits”…..  What would you do?

***October 29, 2008 A jury found the owner of the Cherry Pit guilty on 10 counts of running a sexually oriented business.  The Cherry Pit has since been shut down.  While counsel for the owners stated that the verdict would be appealed and the statute challenged, it is unclear if either of those was ever pursued.

Copyright Brian Cuban 2008

Enjoy this piece?  Be sure to join the Cuban Revolution Fan Club and/or subscribe to my newsletter to stay abreast of future posts and live celebrity interviews on The Revolution Rant

In a case that has sparked national attention and will surely spark a new Law and Order SVU episode, a Dallas women has been sentenced to 5 years in prison for making a false rape accusation that ultimately lead to the murder of her lover.

The sentence stems from a bizarre set of facts starting with a false claim of rape to cover up an affair and ending with the murder of her lover (the man she falsely accused) by her outraged husband.

Mrs. Tracey Roberson, 37, was convicted Friday of manslaughter in the 2006 shooting death of Devin LaSalle. Prosecutors said it was Mrs. Roberson’s husband, Darrell, who fired the fatal shot but only because his wife falsely claimed she was being raped by Mr. LaSalle.

Mr. LaSalle died in December 2006 after Mr. Roberson shot him outside the Robersons’ south Arlington, Texas home. Mr. Roberson shot Mr. Lasalle after he returned home from a card game and caught Mr. LaSalle and his wife – who was clad in only a bathrobe and underwear at the time – together in Mr. LaSalle’s truck

The case was presented to a grand jury. In a soap opera crime show twist the grand jury declined to indict Mr. Roberson(the husband) for the actual shooting and instead indicted Mrs. Roberson on manslaughter charges. Yes, that is correct , at least for now,Mr. Roberson will face no criminal responsbility here for the actual shooting.

The sentencing jury deliberated more than 2 days before sentencing Mrs. Roberson to Five Years in Prison.

This case really bothers me. Not because Mrs. Roberson is going to do time but because Mr. Roberson who engaged in a textbook case of manslaughter himself will walk away scott free. My gut tells me that he killed this guy because he was having an affair with his wife and not because his wife cried rape. Did he take his rage of past indiscretions in the relationship out on this guy? Did he know about this guy prior to the shooting?  There was some testimony that he was suspicious of her infidelities….  It is not clear whether he knew anything about this specific affiar prior to the shooting.  Would that change your opinion on justification if he did?

If the husband knew absolutely nothing and this was a pure spur of the moment decision to try to save his wife, I would feel better about the justification defense here.

Did Mrs. Roberson deserve to do 5 years? I don’t think so but I was not siting on the jury.

If you read up on the case there were a lot of facts presented that certainly did not make Mrs. Roberson likeable person and I am sure that had a lot to do with the severe sentence. There was also testimony of Mrs. Roberson of abuse by her husband with no corroborating evidence. I think introducing this testimony with nothing to back it up backfired on her and made her even more unlikeable as simply looking like someone with her hand caught in the cookie jar……

Finally and in my mind most importantly , juries take claims of rape very seriously. Juries don’t like people who don’t take them seriously. Juries don’t like people who cry wolf with a cry of rape to cover up affairs….

Juries maybe want to send a message to the next person who thinks about crying rape in a crowded theater…..

Any criminal lawyers out there to comment?

What would Oliva Benson and Elliot Stabler think?

The death to all pedophiles freight train sweeping the nation has stopped at the door of the United States Supreme Court in the form of Kennedy v. Louisiana which will address whether an individual can be executed for the rape of a child that does not cause the death of that child. The case was argued today before the United States Supreme Court.

My home state of Texas has joined in arguing for the states right to determine its own capital offenses and against such punishment being “cruel and unusual punishment” Texas was the latest state to come up with a far reaching bill that would allow for capital punishment in certain circumstances where the rape of a child is concerned.

The last time the U.S. Supreme Court came close to addressing this issue was the 1977 case of Coker v. Georgia in which the court basically stated that the death penalty amounted to cruel and unusual punishment with regards to the rape of 16 year old adult women.

Here are some of the point-counterpoints on the issue with my take…

ANTI DEATH PENALTY FOR CHILD RAPISTS

1 Execution is “cruel and unusual punishment” when applied to child rape cases because the Supreme Court already ruled that it is excessive in rape cases when the victim was not also killed.

I believe that this will be an almost impossible hurdle to overcome and the law will be struck down on this basis. The Supreme Court has ruled on this and I believe that any argument that because the case involved an adult women and therefore leaves open the possibility that death is ok for a child rapist is “wishful spinning” I do not believe the court was making an age distinction here. They were simply addresses the crime and the punishment. They were saying we don’t execute rapists of any kind if a death did not result. If the court would hold otherwise would be to basically say that the rape of an adult is less serious than the rape of a child…. I think adult rape victims would disagree….

2. Executions for child rape mean the penalties for rape and murder are the same so an offender may be more likely to kill a victim.

I don’t believe the court will give much weight to this argument. It is the same as arguing that capital punishment reduces the murder rate which is not true…. This would be an argument based on comparative statistics and I don’t think it was presented to the court in that way…

3. Executing child rapists may make it more likely for some child sexual abuse to go unreported.

Again this is a statistical argument that I don’t think will be given much weight by the court.

4. Louisiana’s law, the subject of the case being argued today, is too broad because it could apply to any rape of a child under 12, not just the most egregious.

This is an argument that Texas will be paying a lot of attention to. In my opinion the wide discretion prosecutors will have to seek the death penalty in a case not involving death is a fatal flaw in Texas own Jessica’s law which allows for capital punishment in certain rape cases. This can and will also give rise to claims that the law is being applied disparity to various minorities in ethnic groups which is a huge no no…. I believe that the cruel and unusual punishment issue aside, if Texas version of the law is unconstitutional, it is in this area.

PRO DEATH PENALTY FOR CHILD RAPISTS

1. Execution is not necessarily barred by previous rulings as excessive for all rape cases, merely for the rape of an adult woman.

This, in my opinion is a ridiculous argument. That is not what the court said or implied in Coker v Georgia. It is an argument hoping that the court is looking for a way to sanction child rapist executions….

2. Violent rape of a child is particularly egregious and shows “a degree of manifest evil, that is qualitatively” different from other rapes.

I agree it is a particularly heinous crime mandating a special place in hell for such rapists. It still does not matter. Who decided what is heinous enough for death? The prosecutor? Way too much discretion. Supreme Court won’t go for it.

3. Society’s moral standards are evolving to recognize the horror and damage caused by child rape and impose stricter punishments on perpetrators

Again, I agree but not the death penalty. Too much discretion involved. Won’t fly.

Don’t get me wrong. I am all for tougher sentencing for certain types of child molestation crimes and repeat offenders. My concern is the situational morality.

I certainly want death if it’s my child but if it’s your child, maybe death penalty is too harsh for the crime. That is situational morality.

Trying to legislate the latest horrific crime of the day we see on CNN.com. Situational morality cannot dictate justice. The rule of law dictates justice. The Supreme Court said that many years ago when the southern juries imposing their own situational morality said they would only execute African-Americans for sex crimes. No whites would be executed. Situational morality this year mandates we execute the guy who molests your daughter. Situational morality in 10 years may mandate we execute the drunk driver who kills your daughter. Situational morality in 10 years dictates we execute you when you have one too many and kill someone in an accident.

That is not justice or the rule of law. In this country, as much as we hate or want, we do not take a life where a life has not been intentionally taken or taken with such complete disregard for the risk of death that it raises to the level of intent. That rule of law applies to the scum sucking pervert who molests your child, the drunk driver who kills your child, the shoplifter, the jaywalker. It applies to me. It applies to you….

I do want all child molesters off the street. I personally have no moral dilemma executing them. I however don’t want to look for the Constitution of the United States floating in the same sewer they are hiding in……

That’s my take and opinion. One guy in Dallas, TX.