Wednesday, January 11, 2012


Happy Hump Day to all my Angry Angels! We are midway through our sessions for this week and are enjoying what is in my neck of the woods a beautiful, if not slightly breezy day. I hope this Wednesday finds you well as we jump into the topic of the day.

This past Friday U.S. Attorney General Eric "Fast and Furious" Holder announced a long overdue revision to the Uniform Crime Code to redefine "rape." Vice President Joe "Tough Guy" Biden, author of the Violence Against Women Act, of course weighed in with his usual "me too" comments so we don't forget he's there. Interestingly enough the VAWA is up for reauthorization in 2012, last having been passed in 2005. Now at first glance the VAWA looks like a very noble undertaking, providing violence prevention programs, rape counseling centers, and of course legal aid. In 2000 upon reauthorization of the Act, the Office on Violence Against Women was established in the Department of Justice.

Looking a little deeper however we find some provisions that are a little disturbing, and much to my surprise, I find myself in agreement with the ACLU on some of these points. First off, the 1994 Act allows for mandatory HIV testing of people who are CHARGED with a crime, not CONVICTED of a crime. Second it allows for increased detention of people who are CHARGED with a crime. And among other things that the increased penalties were "rash."

With the establishment of the OVW and the continued renewal of VAWA, we as a nation have been sold on the horror of domestic violence and that women are perpetually victims by special interest groups. However the OVW's definition of domestic violence states that it can happen to anyone regardless of sex, age, race, or religion. So why is it the laws are not applied equally in regards to those mitigating factors? The increase in states incorporating "hate" crime statutes give rise to divisions based on those factors rather than providing equal protection, and prosecution, under the law.

Are Jerry Sandusky's crimes any less appalling because his victims were male? Or white? Or impoverished? No they are not.

Was the murder of Jessica Kalish, a gay rights activist, any less disturbing because it was committed by her wife? 222 stab wounds is pretty fucking disturbing.

Is the sexual abuse by 57 year old Jean Hardy of a 17 year old boy any less criminal because the perpetrator was a woman? Still, no.

So welcome to Eric Holder's new criminal world. Rape: The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

Sounds better than the previous definition of: The crime, committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him, esp. by the threat or use of violence, right?

Well...not quite.

I'm sure Jean Hardy was quite consensual in getting penetrated by her victim. As was Pamela Rogers Turner. And Jennifer Lea Burton. And of course Debra LaFave, who could forget her.

Do you know what all these women have in common with that piece of shit Sandusky? They all used their position of power and influence to commit a FUCKING CRIME!!!

What does it matter if the perpetrators were women or men, white or black, gay or straight? What does it fucking matter?

My dear Angry Angels, if someone is RAPING your child, do you really give a damn about anything else except for the crime perpetrated on your child? If someone murders your spouse do you really fucking care what their sexual orientation or religious bent is? If someone is stabbing you 222 times does it matter to you whether or not it's your spouse, your child or a random stranger? I'm pretty sure all you are thinking is "Holy fuck I'm gonna die!!!"

So what is the point then of redefining crimes as hate crimes, or domestic crimes, or anything else? A crime is absolute in its violation of the rights of the victim. The punishments should be absolute as well. If we as a country and a society need to differentiate victim from victim and perpetrator from perpetrator based on sex, creed, color and whatnot, all we are doing is creating inequalities in a justice system that is supposed to protect us all as defined by our constitution. If we need to add reasons to punish perpetrators because of special interests, maybe the punishments aren't harsh enough to begin with.

Let your politicians know that you do NOT support special treatment under the law for any perpetrator of crimes. Do not accept that a crime against you is any less severe because the criminal piece of shit who perpetrated it is different from you. Let me know how Angry YOU are at the continued corruption of equal protection by our lawmakers and special interest groups.

Crime is crime, and angry is Angry!

Till next time Angry Angels!!


1 comment:

  1. Great article Angry Man! I completely agree! It's ridiculous how we have different crimes and different punishments. I thought we were all Americans!!