James Howard Gibbons uses today’s “Sounding Board” to discuss his service as a juror in a child molestation case. He talks about his influence in ensuring the conviction of a child molester, and I’m sincerely grateful for that influence. Unfortunately, it looks like Gibbons recounts the story so that we won’t judge him harshly for his proposals to go soft on sexual predators:
Recently several readers have written to the editorial board to ask if the Chronicle favored the adoption by Texas of Florida’s “Jessica Lunsford Act,” to be applied in cases such as the kidnapping and murder of Lunsford by convicted sex offender John E. Couey. The act mandates a sentence of 25 years to life. Upon release, sex offenders would have to wear a satellite locator.The question is flawed in this respect: Anyone convicted in Texas of kidnapping and murdering a child would receive either the death penalty or life in prison with the possibility of parole after 40 years. The Jessica Lunsford Act doesn’t apply to murderers and, were it in effect, probably would not have prevented Couey from killing after his release.
Now, that’s just being dishonest, Gibbons. No one is suggesting that we release kidnappers and murderers, and slap a tracking device on them. What we want to do is throw these violent, deviant scumbags in the clink for a few decades before they kill. Then, if they’re ever released, they’re tracked via satellite and given very tough scrutiny wherever they go.
As for the argument that the law “probably would not have prevented Couey from killing,” how can you possibly know that? The guy tried to molest a girl in 1991. By my calculations, if the Jessica Law had been in effect, that dirtball wouldn’t be eligible for release until 2016. Yes, maybe he would strike again upon his release (if he were ever released), but at least society would be granted a quarter-century reprieve from this monster. Now, back to Gibbons:
As for those who molest or behave indecently with a child, flexible sentencing offers several advantages, despite the heinous and sickening nature of the crimes.
This ought to be good. Let’s look at the “advantages” of releasing murderous perverts into society:
First, without plea bargaining, every defendant would go to trial. In most cases, the young victim would have to endure the trauma of having to appear in court and relive the horrible crime done to her. Having witnessed such an ordeal, I can attest that sparing a child from it is worth some years shaved off a sentence.
And having witnessed the fact that these evil people commit their crimes over and over and over, I can attest that they must be stopped.
Those who view the world in terms of black and white can be forgiven for wanting to send every sex offender to prison and throw away the key.
Hey, it’s nice to know I can be forgiven! I didn’t even realize I’d done anything wrong. But here’s the grand prize:
Also, in cases in which a father molests his child, a long prison sentence would prevent him from contributing to the child’s support, education and medical treatment.
Let me get this straight. Gibbons presumably wants these child-raping bastards to get decent jobs, so that they can pay child support. That would require the monsters’ full re-integration into society. As it is now, no one wants to hire a child molester. They’ve committed unspeakable crimes against society, and society has responded by banishing them.
But in Gibbons World, we welcome the child molesters with open arms, giving them well-paying jobs, so they can contribute to the welfare of their children. You know, the ones they raped.
Yeah, that’ll work.
