If the evidence supports the claim

then I for one would have a hard time either sending this case to trial or convicting a father who found someone molesting his five-year-old daughter. Normally I would say there is a line between stopping him from doing so, and beating him to death. But I can see someone easily crossing that line with a child at risk, without really considering how deadly their punches were in the heat of the moment. Granted, that is also why we have manslaughter vs. murder charges. I suppose we'll see how the justice system will deal with the case. But I wouldn't want to be on the grand jury or any other jury on this one.

A few years ago, when I was on a jury (thankfully, a civil case), I was asked about cases I did not feel I could serve on. I said that one was a death penalty case, and the other would be any case involving the sexual abuse of a child. I did a very good job of sticking to the facts and letting no emotion in the case I served on (as opposed to several other jurors; thankfully on a civil case you just have to get 9 our of 12, because I was the one sticking, of all things, to logic and facts, whereas others were bringing up similar situations (in their minds) that family had gone through, etc.) But in the sort of cases mentioned above, I don't know if I could keep my emotions in check. Hopefully it won't come up again.

Small Texas community stands by man who killed daughter's alleged abuser

This bring up a whole slew of issues

regarding religious, reproductive, and health care rights.

Judge Forces Hysterectomy on God-Loving Woman

A cancer patient in Montana -- identified only as L.K. -- refused to undergo a hysterectomy as treatment for her cancer on the grounds that she is deeply religious and wants to have children. That's sad enough in it's own right. But no one could have foreseen what happened next: A judge found her "mentally incompetent" based on her "delusional religious beliefs" and ruled she was to have the procedure.

State Supreme Court halts surgery to allow appeal in hysterectomy ruling

“Normally, we don’t force treatment on adults. Competent adults can refuse even lifesaving treatments on religious terms,” he said. “The challenge is to establish that they truly are incompetent and that they really do comprehend the risk posed to their life.”

Then there are degrees, so to speak, of religion, said John Stone of Creighton University’s Center for Health Policy and Ethics. People with well-established religious objections to medical treatments — say Jehovah’s Witnesses who refuse blood transfusions, even lifesaving ones – generally see those requests honored, he said.

I realise that in making this ruling, the judge is presumably trying to save this woman's life. The woman has stated that she believes God has cured her, but that she understands that doctors say she will die within three years without a hysterectomy (although she did reserve the right to change her mind later, it may be too late for her.)

But...

In this country, competent adults are afforded the right to refuse such treatment, including based on religious grounds. The courts usually get involved with cases like this when a child is involved.

So, does a belief that God can cure her make her delusional, and incompetent to make such a life-threatening decision for herself? Tell me, is it delusional to believe that bread and wine become flesh and blood? Is it delusional to believe a man spoke to God through a burning bush? Or that Mohammad ascended to heaven? My point is, religion often involves things that don't logically make sense. If all of those are delusional, then does that mean that many Christians, Jews, and Muslims have no right to determine their own health care?

On another front...we get to reproductive rights and mental competence.

Thing is, we used to sterilise the mentally incompetent and developmentally disabled in this country, and that practice is now condemned as unethical. While this woman's sterilisation would be a by-product of a life-saving procedure, it's still sterilisation, and it's the main reason she's balking. She wants children badly enough to risk her life. Is that delusional? Maybe, but I've known at least one woman that desperate who has, indeed, risked her life to have a baby. Most people consider her sane. In the end, shouldn't it be the woman's right to be sterile and alive, or fecund and in peril?

Why do good intentions wind up misused?

Last year in June, Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Consipiracy posted about the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act which had been introduced in the House of Representatives. Apparently it has been again, this time as of April 2nd, (coincidentally and totally extraneously, my birthday).

Now, readers of this blog may remember that Megan Meier was the teen in Missouri who committed suicide after being jerked around by a couple of adults pretending to be peers. Let me just say that I was appalled by that case and very sympathetic towards the girl and her family. I think cyberbullying is real, and can be just as hurtful as face-to-face bullying. There was really nothing on the books to charge the adults in this case with in terms of cyberbullying itself. So of course, the good folks in Washington are looking to make one. Unfortunately, this is a case of good intent that could go horribly wrong. I give you:

Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

I think you can see the problems here, both in terms of defining cyberbullying (you go to prison for criticising someone scathingly more than once--what will happen to our music critics?) and constitutionality (that little thing called freedom of speech, related to that thing called freedom of press). I can't imagine it would survive court tests but it would be bad to be the person skewered for the test case, too.

It's definitely one to watch, though. Lawmakers have passed worse ones.

Okay, that's all for tonight. I'm going to get some sleep. You should, too (unless you're driving cross-country or working with machinery, that is).

PS So far all the rest of the fish are alive. Here's hoping...

Hurrah, let's hope they do the same here!

State moves to ban fake testicles on vehicles

That would be Florida, but we have plenty here. My favourite combination was the big red Dodge Ram truck I was saw with the great big testicles and the little tiny pug that kept jumping in the bed of the truck.

Yeah, doesn't that cry manly? I think it cries Napoleon syndrome.

Good night.

Good question

Should bookstores stocking racy romance novels, the Bible (the Song of Songs read literally), or Dr. Ruth’s Sex for Dummies have to become state-registered vendors of sexually explicit materials?

ABFFE challenges Indiana law

Star-crossed lovers

Forced Annulment Keeps Couple Apart

Fatima and Mansour al-Timani were married with her father's blessing, even though his clan did not have as much prestige as hers. But her relatives convinced her father to give them power of attorney, and after he died they filed to annul the marriage. The police came and informed them of a divorce in abstentia granted by a judge. According to Saudi law, they cannot live together. In fact, when they did reunite they were found by the police. Fatima was given the choice to return to her mother or go to jail. She chose jail. She was imprisoned along with her two children. Eventually her daughter was allowed to return to her father. The boy, who was an infant, remained with her. She is now out of jail. Her husband has been taking the case through the system. An appeals court upheld the original annulment, but studies of Islamic law showed that since her legal guardian gave permission and attended the wedding, the other relatives should not have any right to request an annulment. A request has been made for the case to go before the highest court in the land. Also, Fatima holds out hope that the king of Saudi Arabia could pardon her and recognise the marriage. If not, she is prepared to commit suicide rather than be separated from Mansour.

I hope they are able to be together again. I know it's a different culture, but it seems to me that if her father gave permission--which is required for a woman to marry--then the legalities were observed and her relatives shouldn't be able to change things, especially after they have had children together.

At least the relatives didn't kill her like that awful story of the Indian family where the father killed his pregnant daughter, son-in-law, and grandson because she'd married without his permission to someone of a lower caste.

I meant to post about this earlier

I'm at odds with at least one friend of mine. I heard this story whilst he was watching TV on Tuesday. There are some mitigating circumstances that are in this article that I didn't hear then, but on the other hand, I still believe this was murder--cold-blooded, possibly racially-motivated, murder. It reads like a 'bubba' bagging him some (fill in whatever racial epithet bubbas might use here).


Shootings Test Limits of New Self-Defense Law

And I quote the 911 operator in the case: 'Ain’t no property worth shooting somebody over, O.K.?'

Okay, so the two men were illegal immigrants from Colombia here under forged documents. They were certainly burglars--they had a pillowcase full of over $2,000 in Mr Horn's neighbours' property. These were obviously not 'Good Men'. But they were also apparently shot in the back running away from him--and were unarmed. In any other state in the Union I suspect that it's considered murder once no one is in imminent danger. But this happened to be Texas, and that's a whole other ballgame.

A grand jury's going to have to sort out, for example, whether you can act with deadly force to protect a neighbour's property like you can your own. And then there's the race issue.

Mr Horn identified them on the line as black. He offered to get his shotgun and then told the operator, who was trying to convince him to stay in his house, that he was going out there and kill them--not stop them: kill them.

In another twist, a plainclothes detective had just arrived on the scene and witnessed the shooting but did not have enough time to announced his position and in fact may have ducked to avoid Mr Horn, thinking he might think he was their driver.

Because of this there have been protests both for and against, and at least one death threat. The city is moving to ban protests in the residential area, which may be for the best, since I'm sure it's causing havoc--and certainly the death threat is wrong and should be pursued. But there's lots of other ways to express First Amendment rights, and people are entitled to their opinions. Many hail Mr Horn as a hero. I'm not one of them. I think there's something wrong with eagerly grabbing your firearm to 'help out' the police and shooting people in the back. I think anyone in a moment of adrenaline can think they're in danger, but he was safe in his house and made that clear to the operator. It didn't sound like he thought his neighbours were in danger--just their property. Property can be replaced--lives can't. And vigilantes don't make us any safer--especially 'helpful' vigilantes with guns.

This so appalls me

Appeal lodged over 'lenient' Aboriginal rape sentences

A 10-year-old girl is gang-raped by 9 men who confess to the crime and the judge lets them off without prison time saying (and I quote) she 'was not forced and she probably agreed to have sex with all of you'.

Since when is a 10-year-old girl able to give consent to sex? In Australia, the legally-defined age of consent is 16. This apparently gets thrown out if you are not a white, middle-class Australian. The truly sad thing about this? This was the second assault on this child. She was removed from the town when she was sexually assaulted at the age of 7 by several juveniles who never even made it to court. She was sent back by the welfare agencies and almost immediately gang-raped. Several in the welfare agency have faced enquiry/loss of jobs. But the actual perpetrators in both cases have received almost encouragement for their deeds.

It has many in Australia up in arms over the sentence and particularly the judge's remarks. A full review of rape cases in the area has been ordered to see if there is a trend to go lenient in cases involving Aborigines and this case has been appealed by the attorney representing the state of Queensland.

I hope the judge in the case gets reviewed as well and if she was appointed, that appointment be revoked. In the meantime I hope this child is finally where she can be both safe and receive counseling. She's now 12, I think, and has already had her childhood yanked from her by both groups of thugs and now the supposed justice system.

A town responds to a sad event

MySpace suicide town outlaws online bullying


Town Will Punish Cyberbullies: Officials Respond to Young Girl's Suicide

My understanding from one of the comments by 'LiquidBlue2' on the ABC News article is that there is already federal legislation in place that deals with online harassment. It is section 113 of the latest Violence Against Women Act, signed in 2006. For a discussion of the act and controversies regarding this provision and its free speech issues, see: Does New Cyberstalking Law Criminalize Free Expression?

Anyway, after Megan Meier's suicide the town, not finding a law under which to prosecute the adult (identified in police records and on the Internet as Lori Drew, according to the Wikipedia article and a police report you can find at The Smoking Gun)--who apparently pretended to be a 16-year-old boy to gain Megan's trust, flirting with her and then abruptly turning on her with vicious comments that led to the suicide--created their own against cyberbullying, although it wouldn't be used in this case, of course. The woman is the mother of a former friend of Megan's and has stated that she was just trying to see what things Megan might be saying about her daughter and that it was a joke and the Meiers should 'give it a rest'. The Meiers commented in one of the articles that the friends and parents of friends who knew Megan knew she was suffering from suicidal depression and that it was 'no different than somebody handing her a loaded gun'.

It's very sad that a vivacious 13-year-old would hang herself because of some petty comments put on a MySpace page. But as those of us who have been both 13 and depressed know, things that might inspire resiliency in some can seem very large indeed when you're in that mindset. What boggles my mind is that any adult in their right mind would act this way over a falling out amongst children. It's possible she has had remorse over her actions, but I couldn't find any evidence of it online. Of course, many of the news sources refuse to identify her supposedly to protect her child. I wouldn't want to live down that sort of thing if I were her daughter, but I don't think it should be hushed up, either. Drew was 'outed' by bloggers--here's one's description as to why, which I agree with--and there have been several unpleasant 'hoaxes' played on her that I suspect she does not find a joke at all (and in some cases, she's blamed the girl's father for them in the police reports). (Read the Wikipedia article for more information). Certainly I'm sure everyone in town knows who did what. I would not in any way condone actions against her (other than prosecution under the VAWA Act), but this story bothered me enough to do a little research and find out more. It's sad that it's so petty, and that a young girl with her whole life ahead of her died because of such pettiness. At least in this Missouri town, maybe they can make cyberbullying a little less likely.

Our girl gets into trouble for worthy causes

The cheerleader of the line from 'Heroes'--'Save the Cheerleader, Save the World'. Hayden Panettiere, was attempting to do the latter last month when she and an animal activist group paddled to a cove to try to warn off dolphins and whales before they could be massacred by Japanese fishermen. They were forced back to shore when the fishermen used their boat propellers and giant hooks to turn them away, at which point the killings continued.

So the 18-year-old now has a warrant in Japan for her arrest for 'interfering with international commerce'.

Arrest The Cheerleader?

Panettiere was quoted as being surprised by the publicity surrounding the incident. 'In this town [Hollywood], you tend to be able to get publicity when you're not wearing underwear or [you're] in rehab. I was very excited that people were interested in what we did.'

Well, her heart's in the right place, although I'm sure the fishing industry in Japan would beg to differ. All I can say is, you go girl. And yes, she said she'd probably do it again.

I've been following this story for awhile and I'm glad it had a good conclusion

Bulgarian Nurses Home After Eight-Year Ordeal

Home at last, after eight years of hell in a foreign prison

For more on the HIV Trial in Libya, check out Wikipedia's article.

Jailed on charges that they had instigated a CIA- and Mossad- (the Israeli equivalent) inspired plot to infect over 400 children at a hospital in Libya (despite the fact that the epidemic started before most of them came to the country, and most were probably singled out because of their country's relations with the US and others that opposed Qaddafi's regime), these nurses and trainee doctor were sentenced to death not once but twice, allegedly tortured including by electrocution, and at least one intimated that rape had been a tactic. The doctor apparently lost an eye, one woman's face is paralysed, and another tried to commit suicide to escape the interrogations that brought false confessions. Now they have been released due to a great deal of diplomacy on the part of the European Union and various countries, pressure from international groups and organisations, and perhaps (it's somewhat controverisal) an intervention by the wife of the French President. Even Qaddafi's own son Saif al-Islam al-Qaddafi, played a vital role in the negotiations on behalf of the medics. The nurses are Bulgarian; the Aegyptian-born Palestinian doctor was granted Bulgarian citizenship last month, and all were pardoned by the Bulgarian President shortly after arriving in Sofia. So in a sense it's a happy ending, as they reunite with families. But they've had eight brutal years that have changed their lives forever. I wish them well.

Meanwhile, the devastation from that epidemic, ruled due to bad hygiene such as running needles under the tap, continues to mount. Of the 400 or so children infected, over 50 have died. Part of the negotiations included settlements to the government and to the families for the care of these children. Several are being treated in France and Italy. I wish them all that life has to offer as well.

I believe that was my point

A few months ago, I expressed my dismay at the so-called 'Ashley Treatment' in which a young disabled girl, among other things, was given a hysterectomy.

Children's Hospital admits it broke state law with girl's surgery:
But 'miscommunication' to blame; facility argues it made right decision

At the time I felt that her rights were being violated, and that it was a step back to a time when developmentally disabled patients were routinely sterilised.

Now, apparently, it also violated the law of the state of Washington. They should have sought a court order, something the hospital ethics committee suggested but which was ignored because a lawyer had given the family a letter stating that it was not needed.

So there will be an intensive review of the case to find out where the communication broke down, what measures should be in place to ensure the rights of the disabled, etc. Which is all to the good, I think.

Reason #582 for me to dislike George Bush

He's considering vetoing a law that would expand the definition of 'hate crime' to include not only those based on race, religion, colour, national origin, but expand it to include those targeting sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability. A House bill recently passed budgets $10 million over the next two years to supplement local authorities in the prosecution of hate crimes. It will also allow federal officials to participate in investigations (I'm assuming to keep down local cover-ups or disinterest that may hender resolution of a case). The Senate is expected to pass a similar bill shortly.

Not surprisingly, religious right groups are opposing the bill and crying foul, saying that it violates free speech (read, 'hate speech').

House passes expanded hate crime bill

The Saga of Traffic School

In January, I made the mistake of not putting my headlights on when I left UK's hospital. I paid my fine, signed up for traffic school, yay, right?

Well, it took weeks and I hadn't heard from the state, so I called and they said it wasn't a moving violation (when in fact it is, worth 3 points on my licence). I called the court system to make sure there would be no trouble with any balance on a fine and they informed me that it most certainly was a moving violation and called the state on my behalf and apparently fixed it all with them, so I could go to traffic school. (The clerk even gave me her cell phone number to get in touch with her later. I was impressed.)

Then I finally got a letter that had been sent weeks before informing me that I was not eligible for traffic school because I didn't have a driver's licence (which, in fact, I do). That pre-dated the fix we'd put into place, so I waited a couple of days and i got another letter from the Transportation Cabinet about signing up for traffic school, the locations, how to pay, etc. Yay!

Yesterday I got a letter from the court system saying that the state said I was ineligible because I didn't have a driver's licence and so I still owed $20 and had a court date for later this month to pay it by or show up for.

So today I called, got put on hold, got bumped off hold, called back, got disconnected again, and then finally got a hold of a person who cancelled the court date and I should be okay. In the midst of making all the dang phone calls, I went online and enrolled in traffic school. So I should be going within a month or so. (No, the saga's not quite over).

But it's a little closer to the end, hopefully.

I feel sorry for her

although, of course, the man had a fundamental right to block her from using the embryos they'd created when they were together. But they went through the in vitro fertilisation specifically because she had pre-cancerous cells in her ovaries and had had to have the ovaries removed. So, she has no other option to have a biological child, whereas he does. It must be terribly frustrating to have these embryos in storage without being able to use them, and now they'll be destroyed. The one friend I have who has been through in vitro was surprised this wasn't all hammered out ahead of time; she and her husband had to establish custody of their embryos. Maybe clinic policies are different in England, or they were different when the couple went through IVF in 2000.

UK woman loses European appeal over frozen embryos

This may affect my phone service

Vonage's future questioned after latest setback

Yay!

The case was dismissed, which is good, as I paid them three months ago. Apparently in this case, it would have been fine so long as I paid right up to court. It just depends on the judge and prosecutor you get, though. There's only one cheque I didn't pay off before going to court, because I couldn't afford to at the time, but I have more than one of these on my record.

At least now I can look at getting the dismissed cases off my record. Unfortunately I can't do anything about the actual convictions, from what I can tell.

Oh well. I'm a criminal, but just a petty one at least. I saw a lot of people in jail and out today who were facing felonies and some pretty serious misdemeanours, too. I definitely want to stay on the good side of the law from now on.

Do I just have a blazing neon sign on my car?

I got stopped by the police again last night--a block from where I started, because I didn't come to a complete stop at a stop sign. I guess I was distracted by my own thoughts and not really concentrating on driving. Fortunately he gave me a warning rather than a ticket. But I am beginning to wonder if my driving is deteriorating or if I just have had some bad luck when it comes to being in the car lately. Well, actually, that's wrong. It's my fault I was stopped, not the universe's. But it's still frustrating.

I did have a bit of good luck yesterday, too, because for the second time this year someone pulled out in front of my at the corner of Lakeshore and Richmond (they were turning left from Richmond to Lakeshore while I was approaching. They were basically turning blind, since you can't see the oncoming traffic because of the cars in the opposite turn lane.) I had to swerve, but we didn't T-bone. I'm thinking of contacting the councilman for that area, whom I've worked with, to see about getting a protect arrow installed on that light. It couldn't hurt, anyway.