Protect our children!

[Bob Orts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Menehune

These guys ADMITTED GUILT and were given BAIL that just about anybody could post and walk!

---

He pleaded No Contest which is accepting the charge against him but NOT admitting guilt. You want to make a chamge, get Hawaii to eliminate the No Contest plea.

[nnickle]

Judge Judy LOL says pleading NO CONTEST is the same as being GUILTY

[mella l]

Thanks Glen for the voice of reason and the education! Always enlightening.

As a so called liberal I say hang child molesters, so that ruins the reasoning of some. Liberal/Conservative is too simple and quick to write off any idea and has been used to frequently and inaccurately to hold any weight.

Of course my response about child molesters was visceral and not to be taken literally, like most things one would find on a blog.

That said, I found the sentencing of a father who molested his own son, from the Kona side 2 or 3 years ago received an interesting sentence. 1 year in prison, to be served over a 10 year period one month per year! Oh apparently this sentence was given to help the guy keep his county job! We had quite a discussion about that one.

mella l

"Resolve to be tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving, and tolerant with the weak and wrong....because sometime in your life you will have been all of these."

[roseroo14]

Glen & Mella I,

Perhaps you both should revisit my last post.

Glen wrote:
“This isn't liberal or conservative. The guy skipped bail.”

I never ounce mentioned the word conservative, those are your words not mine. I said,
This is very often done thru liberal idealism supporting the abuser as just another victim. But the meir mention of the word liberal send some into a spin and on the aggress, ounce again defending the criminal. Glen, this is not about a guy that vamoose on his bail, this about a homosexual predator who’s pray was young boys. He got caught and because of the liberal idealism and lenient Judicial system afforded him bail after his conviction. This homosexual child molester should have been incarcerated the moment he was convicted.
Then Glen wrote”
“But Tom, get off of this "liberals" create all problems stuff because they are too "nice". People skip bail, and sometimes do horrible things when they do.”
Glen, please don’t misconstrue the fact that this guy is a homosexual child molester and bail jumping is the pragmatical crime here, it’s not. The crime is that the liberalized Judicial system let it occur.
Again Glen wrote:
“Getting back to the subject at hand, the guy jumped bail. No liberal has expressed sympathy for him, or that he should be let go, or that he should be in treatment (won't work in this situation), and no liberal has suggested he should be excused because of his childhood.”
Glen what I seem to be picking up here is that you may have a sexuality identification problem yourself and are side stepping the real issue. You may be confussing the crime with this predators sexual preference This is not about the liberal, it is about liberal idealism and not the individual. I also believe that you may be involved in the Judicial organization some where [maybe a lawyer] If I am wrong you have my apologies.

Mella I, wrote:
Thanks Glen for the voice of reason and the education! Always enlightening.

Mella I this is an understandable statement coming from a person that who’s single most life’s exhilaration came from being close to a presidential candidate.

The Lack

[missydog1]

Tom, I did revisit you post and why split hairs about the fact you didn't use the word conservative? You attacked "liberal" idealism and ideology four times. Glen rebutted that being "liberal" (or the antithesis) isn't the heart of the problem.

You made a strong and direct anti-liberal stance so coming back at Glen that you weren't making it a liberal vs. conservative issue has nothing to do with the substance of what you two are debating ...

Glen replied to you taking on some of the specific issues you mentioned, so why not focus on that - specifically, that the right to bail is Constitutional and nothing to do with coddling.

I find it very ironic that people who are all for their own Constitutional rights think that other people who have not been proved guilty should be stripped of their rights. If courts and trials were infallible and only guilty people ever got convicted, quite possibly there wouldn't be so many civil rights for people accused of crimes.

Our Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution in a time when they knew what it was to be oppressed by the government, for people to be thrown in jail without fair trials, to be summarily searched, and so forth, and they endeavored to shape a new nation where these things wouldn't happen to the citizens. The same reason why they gave citizens the right to bear arms, which you support.

Unfortunately for absolute justice against criminals, having rights to protect the innocent means that people who are guilty but not proven so get the benefit of the same. But what can be done until and unless our society is able to convict criminals with 100% accuracy? If someone accused you of molestation, which does happen to innocent people, I'm sure you would scream for all your rights and not feel "coddled" when the court gave them to you.

Back to the penalties for child abuse in Hawai'i, could someone knowledgable about penalties in other states please offer up a comparison?

Menehune, you asked why so few replies to this topic.
I think it says nothing about how people feel about children, and everything about the incivility and antagonism that has been popping up in the forum in the last year. Post and you get attacked and ranted at and insulted ... I'll probably be sorry I replied ...

[roseroo14]

KathyH,
you may have revisited my past post but you obviously haven’t comprehend a word that I’m saying. Let me try and explain.

From the Star Bulltin:

Frank Lefrandt, 47, of Aiea pleaded guilty last month to second-degree sexual assault, attempted second-degree sexual assault and third-degree sexual assault involving a boy who worked for him.
Lefrandt is scheduled to be sentenced in February. But as part of his plea deal with the state, he accepted a 10-year prison term and agreed to begin serving his sentence Monday.
Here is where the liberal idealism comes into play within the bailable system. From the article above [“But part of the plea deal with the state”] This convicted homosexual child molester was free on bail to make his plans to take flight. What I stated in my past post was this,
“This homosexual child molester should have been incarcerated the moment he was convicted.” What I should have added was and/or confessed to his crime. Your belief in that every person is innocent until proven guilty is correct and I agree with you. Yes that person is entitled to bail. This said, that leaves the rest of your arguement unvalued.
This homosexual child molester is now at large probably on the mainland stalking his next young victim. Yes the liberal idealism in the law enforcement system must end if you really want justice. Yes this is coddling the criminal. Are you starting to visualize the whole picture yet? Or do you still think that this is about liberal & conservatives.
Please KathyH, don’t think that I’m attacking you because of your beliefs, I’m not, I’m just trying to shine a little light on the matter and see if it can be fixed.
For the record I was ounce a liberal until I came back from a war.

The Lack

[JWFITZ]

It is pretty hard for me to understand the link between "bail" and a liberal political policy. As a liberal unabashedly myself, I'm fully aware that bail is primarily an option soley available to those with the resources to come up with it, and a characteristic more typical of Larry Craig types than many you might find here in Hawaii.

Certainly something needs to be done. I worked for two years in Juvinille Justice and have stories that are wholly inappropriate for the forum here. Still, more importantly, I've got a serious case of issue fatigue and ignorance fatigue and have been holding off on this whole topic as it looks to be yet another that will go in such a manner as to solve nothing but obviously demonstrate why we've problems with child abuse, theft, corrupt business and all the rest. Which is, ill-informed self interest.

Any sociologist can tell you in a heartbeat how to fix the vast majority of the child abuse problem. The solution, however, isn't sociologically acceptable, and I imagine the status quo will prevail.

No, it isn't jail. 9 out of 10 offenders are never prosecuted.

[mella l]

Mella I this is an understandable statement coming from a person that who’s single most life’s exhilaration came from being close to a presidential candidate.

The Lack
Dear Lack,

That was only one one of the exhilarations of that particular week! Glad it caught your attention though, perhaps you'd be interested in the other 50 plus years of exhilarating tales! LOL Some would curl your hair assuming you have some, some would make you weep, and several would well never mind those parts!



Jay please why aren't 9 our of 10 offenders never prosecuted? What is the primary solution a sociologist would recommend?

mella l

[punafish]

LOL

The primary solution? Use your imagination, Mella! :-o

[mella l]

Jay if it isn't for public consumption would you send me a brief email? The PW email isn't so hot so an address to reach me is

mella.l808@gmail.com That's mella(dot small L808). Thanks


Punafish, ouch! Everyone should be allowed one mistake, taking into consideration the degree of a crime. I'm all for one mistake then NO more, with the exception of consenting adults and a few others.

mella l