I find the judge's quotes to be extremely disturbing. Laws against sex before marriage are one thing (although I do disagree strongly with them), but wanting to put a person in jail for life for fathering a child out of wedlock goes far beyond even those.
------------------ To the rational mind there can be no offense, no obscenity, no blasphemy, but only information of greater or lesser value. -- Jennifer Diane Reitz
With judges like this on the bench, contept of court is not a crime, but a sign of intelegence. This guy has to go, he is downright unamerican and a threat to the whole constitution. If someone put a bullet through his eyes, mine would produce no tears.
Posts: 475 | From: ohio | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Wow! Has this judge had some bad experiences with sex offenses (daughter was raped, or something)? Because it seems to me that he has a completely skewed opinion on the subject, and really should not be making so-called objective, judicial decisions about them. Since when is fathering a child a crime? I understand that some violent, repetitive sex offenders are castrated to keep them from breaking the law again (I'm not sure whether or not I agree with that) but there is no law against having sex with a consenting adult. If the judge caught him having sex with a minor (which, as I understand, he did but when he was a minor himself), then the judge could give him the full book for statutory rape, but how can he possibly be given two sentences of 99 years for doing something that's not even illegal?
"You will not engage yourself in any relationships with anyone," Banales ruled at the hearing. "You will not have sexual conduct with any person unless you are married by law."
If he can't have any relationships, then how can he ever get married?? Clearly, this ruling is ridiculous. Does anyone live in that area of Texas? If you do, I would protest this decision. It is a barring of a basic human adult sexual freedom, and needs to be revoked.
------------------ Nobody knows what you know, nobody's seen what you've seen, nobody's lived what you've lived...so why let them judge you? ~Personal Quote~
You know, Hobbes, sometimes I think the surest sign of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us. ~Calvin~
[This message has been edited by AngelElisheva (edited 06-08-2001).]
Such a judge would be removed from the bench in Canada. But here, judges serve at the Queen's pleasure. There is a formal review process but such judges are usually fired by a jury of their peers.
Oy ... I'm tempted to say this is a good idea. I agree w/ parts of it ... except for the marriage thing.
What if he never gets married? He's just going to abstain from sex forever?
I was talking about this w/ my dad a few days ago ... About how stupid it is that it's ok for people to need licenses for guns and cars and such, but don't need something as small as a parenting class to reproduce.
This just goes back to my theory some people should really have their hormone producing organ things turned off until their of age to care of and provide for a child. Until you're responsible enough to have safe sex, you simply shouldn't be having.
While i think this judge was a bit harsh, this case is really seen too many times. And he didn't stop ... he made the same mistake three times. He's not learning on his own. He's not supporting those babies ... And last time i checked it took two people to make a child.
(Sorry if i offended anyone ... this article just struck a nerve w/ me. This kid reminds me of my uncle ... I must have 10 freaking cousins that i've never met b/c he decides to spread his sperm to anyone w/ the right parts. Oy.)
------------------ When mom found my diaphram, I told her it was a bathing cap for my cat. ~ Liz Winston
That's absolutely disgusting. And aside from all the civil liberties issues, it's not as though marriage makes someone responsible- in fact, I'd think that something like this is more likely to lead to an irresponsible marriage.
Secondly, what about the girls involved? They consented, so they should have been thinking about safe sex too- now, I do think that safe sex is the responsibility of BOTH parties having sex, but the girls were equally irresponsible. This disturbs me because their consent in this matter is being treated as something unimportant. On this side of the coin, that means that the man gets punished and the women don't. But what if the women had been raped? Would their consent still be unimportant then? It worries me.
Thirdly, what if the convicted fellow decides that he wants to have sex with a man? He wouldn't even be allowed to get married.
Can someone please tell me also, is this edict valid only in the judge's state, or in all states of the USA?
Since I seriously doubt the constitutionality of the judge's sentence, I am reasonably sure that the Appeals Court will either amend or overturn the sentence completely.
I am beginning to wonder if perhaps this was a part of a plea agreement that the defendant arranged with the prosecutors. It sounds like this "no sex until marriage" edict is a condition of the defendant's probation, which likely means that he arranged some sort of plea-bargain in order to avoid jail time for the second count of statuatory rape.
Sometimes court is like a game show, where the prosecutors basically tell the defense "You can have jail time, or probations with conditions to be determined by the judge." Since probation is far less severe and restrictive than jail time is, many defendants choose to go that route instead. I have a feeling this 19-year old did just that, and then was stunned (and rightfully so, in my opinion) by the unprecedented conditions set forth by Judge Banales.
Thank heaven for the fine state of Texas.
------------------ "Unit 12, 12D, 16A, 18S; respond to the fight in progress, weapons used are hands and feet. Suspect 1 is a male white with no arms or legs..."
So, he'll just be sure to marry every girl he wants to have sex with from now on. And if they get pregnant, he'll probably divorce them. Oh yeah, that will keep him from ruining any more children's lives...
And if he spends the rest of his life in jail, won't that be counterproductive? His kids will never get to see their father, and never receive child support. Oh yeah, that's a great idea...
I would also point out the point of choice here. A girl in this situation can always decide to abort. This guy however has no choice. You can argue that he made a choice when he decided to have sex, particularly unprotected sex, but the same holds for the girl and she is given choice. As far as equal protection goes, this just doesn't seem fair. What would people say if the judge ordered any teenage girl who had an abortion, or who had a baby, to not have sex again outside of marriage, on penalty of 99 years in prison. Such a decision would be quickly deemed unconsitutional, even by Scalia, Renquist and Thomas (well maybe not by those 3, but the rest of the supreme court would find it unconstitutional in a heartbeat). This judge should not only be removed from the bench, he should be disbarred.
Posts: 475 | From: ohio | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
I think we need to be very careful when suggesting that maternal and paternal rights should be identical, especially in terms of carrying a child to term.
A father does not carry or birth a child, which is no small potatoes. Not only does childbrith -- even in good medical conditions -- pose a risk of death for the mother (according to the CDC, in the US, we still have 7.5 deaths per 100,000 births, and the higher maternal mortality rate is in teenaged women and minorites)and pose absoltuely no life or health risks to the father, it also poses risks of health complications, and being pregnant seriously compromises employment and living opportunities and abilities for a woman carrying a child or rearing one solo.
If a woman is 8 months pregnant, who agreed with her partner to carry their child, he can change his mind and vanish. She can't do the same. She's still carrying the baby, taking the risks, and has to manage the care of the child and her own health following childbirth, regardless of what the father opts to do.
I do think that paternal rights are skewed, and that we need to make some changes (for fairness to men AND women). But I don't think that we can say anyone should have rights over another person's body simply because they put something of theirs inside it, especially when their level of responsibility and involvement is not as high, and that's biological -- so far, we haven't come up with a way to change that and have men be pregnant. And so in addressing paternal rights and issues, I think it's really important we don't err and say that mothers and fathers have the same risks, the same costs and the same consequences, because they simply do not.
This is an outrage to me, because i believe that it is up to your self to decide if u want to have sex or not. even considering Putting some one in jail for this! Well my friends if thats the way it's going down, Im gonna be risin to the top, because NO body, exept for God himself, can tell me what to do with my body, well at least FORCE me too anyways. This is something in my opinion not right, and unjust! Thank U, great topic
[This message has been edited by Dirmid (edited 06-11-2001).]
Posts: 9 | From: Hot Springs, Arkansas, USA | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Heather, At times I think I perhaps put my position on this too strongly. As far as abortion is concerned I like Clintons formulation, it should be safe, legal and rare. We have lots of work to do as a society on the rare part. I am uncomfortable with the thought of the father being able to force a woman to carry a child to term, but on the other hand I fully understand how a man who really wnats a child fells when his future son or daughter is flushed down the drain and he can do nothing to stop it. I am a very big beliver that parenthood is mostly about being there and raising the child, not about biology. It saddens me that couples spend enormous fortunes on in vitro fertilization clinics or wait for years to adopt a child at the same time that we have so many abortions in this country. For a man to be saddled with the expense of raising a child, but have no say in how the child is raised, or even get to see him or her on a regular basis, strikes me as a form of taxation without representation. Financial support and emotional involvement with a child's life should be a package deal. Perhaps the solution is to have some sort of linkage. If a woman decides to carry the child to term, and to keep it, the father should then be able to sign a legal contract. If he wants the kid, he agrees to support it financially, but also gets liberal visitation rights (much more than the BS standard order of visitation) and/or joint custody(at least joint legal custody). If he doesn't, he would not be responsible for it financially, but would have no legal rights concerning it. The father would also have the right of first refusal for adopting the child. with the mother getting visitation rights. Personally I don't understand fathers who abandon their kids, i am fighting like hell for as much access as possible to mine. But I do know that being forced to just pay for the kids, without any say in their lives would be especially painful. In my case, not from a financial point of view, I make more than enough. But for lots of dads out there it is a major issue. But emotionally it would hurt to be reminded every month as you write the check.
(p.s. this seems to have gotten a little bit away from the origional topic of this thread, perhaps a portion of it could be moved to a seperate thread. I can't do it, do you have the ability to do so Heather?)
The best way to do that would be for you to start a new thread, then cut and paste these posts of yours into new posts, and I can just delete them from here when they're somewhere new.
I think, John, you feel strongly about this simply because of your own challenges right now, which is certainly valid. I also think on some level that it is hard for a father who is very determined to parent his children to understand those that are not that way, just like I have a hard time understanding certain things that I personally could never imagine myself doing.
And I think some of your suggestions in the last post are certainly sound, but I also think the easiest solution to men who simply do NOT want children, nor to fiscally help sustain them, is to either abstain from procreative sex or only do so when using a sound method of birth control. And we have all that available right now, eh?
Copyright 1998, 2014 Heather Corinna/Scarleteen
Scarleteen.com: Providing comprehensive sex education online to teens and young adults worldwide since 1998
Information on this site is provided for educational purposes. It is not meant to and cannot substitute for advice or care provided by an in-person medical professional. The information contained herein is not meant to be used to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease, or for prescribing any medication. You should always consult your own healthcare provider if you have a health problem or medical condition.