Monday, August 2, 2010


Please remember these opinions are solely my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of others or that of any organization. This blog is my opportunity to vent. Deal with it!

On Thursday, July 29, 2010 John Stossel's show on Fox Business network was about Sex and the Rules. Much of the show was devoted to the sex offender registry. Now I love John Stossel, and in fact call myself a libertarian (mainly because most people have never read the Constitution much less understand what being a Constitutionalists means.) However, in my humble opinion I believe John made a fatal error. Instead of having a true professional regarding the sex offender registry, someone of the stature of a Jill Levenson, or a Chrysanthi Leon, people who have devoted years of their life studying this important issue, he instead opted to have the notorious Wendy Murphy. Perhaps he actually did many of those on the registry and the advocates for change of the registry a great favor. I say this because once again she not only proved herself to be ignorant of the facts, completely out of touch with reality, but willing to make blatantly false statements and ridiculous suggestions. She exemplified once again just how low the advocates for these ridiculous laws will stoop to further their agenda, and demonstrated their complete disregard for the ramifications of these laws and the real effects they have.

The show is broken into 6 parts on YouTube. I hope I have all the show and links below. You really must see them all.

Part 1.

Part 2.

Part 3.

Part 4.

Part 5.

Part 6.

"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," 1. says English jurist William Blackstone. The ratio 10:1 has become known as the "Blackstone ratio." 2. Lawyers "are indoctrinated" with it "early in law school."3. "Schoolboys are taught" it. 4. In the fantasies of legal academics, jurors think about Blackstone routinely. 5. Benjamin Franklin thought "that it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer." 6.

These thoughts of humanity have obviously never crossed the mind of Ms. Wendy which is really scary when you consider the fact that she is actually called on to lecture and/or teach at New England law school. While I am certainly not advocating the release of 10 much less 100 guilty child molesters or sexual predators, (in fact I feel many are under sentenced) it only takes a little common sense to realize that not everyone charged with a “sexual offence” deserves to be thrown in prison, or once they have served their time and paid their debt spend the rest of their lives on a public sex offender registry. There are some, a few, but not all. Even Ms. Murphy tried to suggest that some of these cases should not be prosecuted, although without much conviction. And while she admitted there were some overzealous prosecutors out there, her suggestion was that they should be impeached or voted out of office. The solution to these problems is political. Try doing that from behind bars! Remember, many on the registry are not even of the age to vote. STUPID! She even suggested that many Romeo and Juliette cases that were brought before her she dismissed. Good to know she is all knowing and all seeing and is the only one capable of meeting out justice. Now I admit there are some judges out there that are too lenient. But they are few and far between. Remember the United States of America has the highest percentage of people incarcerated per capita of any country in the world! Damn few people get off easy in the USA. Just damn! I have an idea! Let's try to have those few judges impeached or removed rather than having thousands of undeserving men women and children's lives destroyed. Just a thought.

However while doing this she continued to defend and advocate the sex offender registry laws, in spite of the example sitting right in front of her of just how unjust these laws are. You see right in front of her was a young couple who back in high school had sex. He was 19 she was 15, it was consensual and they are now happily married with four children. But back then, rather than face years in prison he took a plea where he was promised some years on probation and in seven years it would be off his record. But then came the retroactive sex offender registry laws, and now he is being forced to register for the rest of his life. When he is 60 years old the Internet will tell everyone he is a child molester. His four little girls will go to school and be abused because they're father is classified as a pedophile. These registries do not give all the facts of the case.

But then the psychopath (and I mean that in the truest sense of the word) opened her mouth and out came the words, “Cases like this are rare and exceedingly rare”. (Lady, did a damn tree fall on your head? Are you that completely unaware?) There are literally tens of thousands of people just like these nationwide, serving lifetime sentences on the registry, with full public disclosure. 80% can't find jobs, and thousands are forced into homelessness. (For God sakes woman, there are 4840 children between the ages of ten and 17 on the sex offender registry in the state of Texas alone. 10 years old!) Why cannot Ms. Wendy comprehend that these laws force prosecutors and judges to make rulings and issue sentences, including lifetime registration, that are completely illogical, immoral, and socially unacceptable. Has this country decided to completely forsake nobility for the sake of retribution? She even suggested that we need these laws for the same reason we don't like 17 and 18-year-old children to drink or drive fast. (Woman, do you really think a suspended license, some time on probation, or even a short time in jail compares to a lifetime registry on the sex offender list is a pedophile? Your complete lack of empathy, compassion, and understanding with a total disregard to the effects these laws have on undeserving people is why I'm convinced you must be a psychopath.)

Then she said when asked, “It isn't that the law is good it’s that children don't always make good decisions”. Talk about talking out of both sides of your mouth. It's a good thing she's always going to be there with the law to help them make good decisions, especially right after their lives are destroyed. In the next segment she classifies these injustices, and samples of people being put on the registry for urinating in public as “lofty stories”. (Lady, these stories are far from lofty, they completely degrade our society, and completely destroy what this once great nation stood for, justice, and a chance to amend and overcome. That is what made us the envy of the world.) Then finally she threw out the bomb. She threw out a statement in defense of her arguments that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that she is clueless. It proved once and for all that she would say and do anything to further her agenda and sell her books. It almost sounded like a politician, it convinced me that she may be on crack. (Yeah I said that. This is my blog and my opportunity to vent. If you read this entire article you just may agree) She said, and I quote, “Something like 2% of sex offenders are on registries, that's a problem, that number should be higher.” Now right now there are over 716,750 people on the registry. Based on her calculations that means there should be over 35,837,500 on the registry. That's right, almost 36 million. Based on the current populations of the United States, that's over one in eight for every man woman and child. (Lady where in the hell did you come up with this figure. You give me the reliable source and I'll publish it. Not only that I will publish a video recording of my public apology. I will take back everything I said or implied bad about you. I will kiss your butt on Peachtree at high noon and give you 20 minutes to draw a crowd. All you have to do is send me the information to the comments section at the bottom of this blog. I'm waiting!)

But that wasn't enough. In the face of a logical and commonsensical evaluation of the effects of the current registry laws she goes on to suggest that anyone who is on the registry only has to go out and meet people and everyone will be nice and they will be forgiven. And if not, it's because Stossel invited them on the show. You have to watch part two in full to see it. I’ll let you decide who is irrational.

But now I'd like to take a moment and introduce you to some of the other irrational and illogical thought processes that this lady presents. Regarding the recent trials and tribulations of Kobe Bryant, regarding some comments made by Bryant's attorney she said, “We now know that was a false statement — but most people still believe it to be true. In other legal systems the defense attorney would have been punished for making such a statement — but not in this country where defense attorneys can do whatever they want, including lie outright, with impunity. Bryant’s lawyer was described as a brilliant lawyer for how she handled the case. She may be a great attorney, but the way in which she handled that was didn’t take smarts — any dope can make up stories.This statement comes from Murphy’s Law” Law 101 with Wendy Murphy. From an interview in National Review.

Well hello dope! How about your 2% statement above? I guess it never occurred to you to do a little research. Such as the Texas Council on Sex Offender Treatment, which formed a task force in 2008 to study the efficiency of the registry. Council members say the current registry treats too many offenders as equally dangerous and inundates law enforcement agencies tasked with keeping track of them. "The registry is not really accomplishing what we wanted it to accomplish," said Liles Arnold, council chairman and a licensed professional counselor. "If we spread ourselves too thin, we are not keeping the community as safe as we like." And with your complete dispassionate and total disregard for the importance of keeping undeserving people off the registry, or how if they just go talk to people every one will make nice, I would like to further point out their findings that; Some offenders told of their children being ridiculed at school. Others told of difficulties finding jobs and places to live because of the public scrutiny. Sixteen to 19 percent of families of sex offenders report harassment, according to the treatment council.

Read more:

You want more, (and please do, I promise you will love it?) See her lies regarding the Duke Lacrosse team rape scandal, a case which resulted in the disbarment of the prosecutor, DA Mike Nifong here - : a blog by K.C Johnson; a professor of history at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, where he teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history. In 2007-8, he was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University.

Want more fun? Want to see the Psycho Witch (I love dogs (IHO) Ms. Wendy being completely unreasonable, check out this YouTube video of a debate regarding the Nifong issue on Fox News. See it here:!

Oh! And least we for get one of her most famous verbal snafus, (some might call it a blatant lie,) I lead you to this wonderful site which even though it is supposed to be her highly exalted biography, at the bottom it offers you a link to her actual statement and also a copy of the truth. I defy you to impeach this source! . You have got to see this one!

Can you say Liar, Liar Pants on Fire? (Lord knows I hate it when Media Matters has it right.)

In summary, it's time for Fox news to start bringing on the true experts, the people who have actually done the research and dedicated their lives to seeking truth. They claim to be fair and balance, now would be a good time to back it up. On this issue, they have completely dropped the ball. I honestly don't think they understand just how many lives have been needlessly destroyed and children put at risk because of these knee-jerk reactionary laws. There are better and more cost-effective ways to protect our children that really work.

ALL FROM: n Guilty Men Alexander Volokh *146 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 173 (1997)

1. 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries *358.

2. William S. Laufer, The Rhetoric of Innocence, 70 Wash. L. Rev. 329, 421 n.17 (1995).

3. G. Tim Aynesworth, An illogical truism, Austin Am.-Statesman, April 18, 1996, at A14. Specifically, it is "drilled into [first year law students'] head[s] over and over again." Hurley Green, Sr., Shifting Scenes, Chi. Independent Bull., January 2, 1997, at 4. "I think it was attributed to a Supreme Court judge."

4. Dorsey D. Ellis, A Comment on the Testimonial Privilege of the Fifth Amendment, 55 Iowa L. Rev. 829, 845, 845 n.87 (1970).

5. "Opponents of the use of propensity evidence fear that it will have the practical effect of changing the burden of proof. The jurors may think, `Now that we know what else this guy did, we're not going to worry as much as Blackstone would about convicting an innocent man. Sure, it's better to let ten guilty men go free than to convict an innocent man in the case where the man's really completely innocent. But here, he's not completely innocent.'" Roger C. Park, The Crime Bill of 1994 and the Law of Character Evidence: Congress Was Right About Consent Defense Cases, 22 Fordham Urb. L.J. 271, 274 (1995) (citation omitted).

6. Letter from Benjamin Franklin to Benjamin Vaughan (Mar. 14, 1785), in 9 Benjamin Franklin, Works 293 (1970). According to Franklin, "even the sanguinary author of the `Thoughts' agrees to it," citing Martin Madan, Thoughts on Executive Justice 163 (2nd ed. 1785).

No comments:

Post a Comment

Got something to say? Got something on your mind? Unload it here! Humor welcome!