It all comes together here

Remember the story of the teacher that had sex with a minor student but was not given prison time because she was too pretty? Ah, yes, finding reasons to ignore the relevant facts of a crime with regard to sentencing. (The other side of this coin, btw, is having family members testify at sentencing hearings. But that is a debate for another time.)

Now there is this story from Nebraska.

A judge's decision to sentence a 5-foot-1 man to probation instead of prison for sexually assaulting a child has angered crime victim advocates who say the punishment sends the wrong message.

But supporters of short people say it's about time someone recognizes the unique challenges they face.

Cheyenne County District Judge Kristine Cecava issued the sentence Tuesday. She told Richard W. Thompson that his crimes deserved a long prison sentence but that he was too small to survive in a state prison.

Though he could have been sentenced to 10 years behind bars, he ended up with 10 years of probation instead.

Just to give you an idea of how this is crossing the line of too many extra rights and protections being created check this out.

The judge's reasoning confounded Amy Miller, legal director for the Nebraska chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"I have never heard of anything like this before," she said.

No one has ever come to the ACLU to complain of height discrimination, she said. And using Thompson's height as a reason to avoid sending him to prison is surprising, because neither the U.S. nor state constitution provides protections based on physical stature, she said.

Hmm, even the ACLU says this is not a protection to be assumed from the Constitution. And seriously, how would this guys life in prison be?

A spokesman for the prison system said Thompson's height would not put him at risk among the state's 4,400 inmates. There are protections available in prison to help inmates who feel threatened, prison spokesman Steve King said, but to his knowledge, no one has ever taken advantage of them based on fears related to their height.

"He's not the shortest guy we have in prison," King said. "We've got some short guys that are as tough as nails. We've got people from all ages, physical stature of all sizes, in general population."

Hmm, so the judge is looking to protect the safety of short people. Why did he ignore the shorter of the people involved in the case...THE 12-YEAR OLD GIRL that was molested?

I guess I have to admit that I was partially wrong with the Debra Lafave case. I thought it could only happen becase she was a woman. Well, I have to clarify that now. Insane judgements being used to keep child molesters out of prison are not confined to women-on-boys but also extend to men-on-girls. What still would only happen to a woman-on-boy situation is the "too pretty for prison" arguement and the amount of support (nearly split) for the 'adult'.

Now, I heard a connection on the radio that I want to expand on. Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling were found guilty and face over a hundred years in jail. Too harsh? I don't think so. But why are these guys facing these terms while the short child rapers could have been in prison for only 10 years maximum? I think it is due in large part to the over-vilification of Lay & Skilling by the public, the over-reporting of Enron by the media, the invalid efforts to use Enron against Bush, AND the under-reporting, under-vilification, over-rationalizing of child molesters. Worse was the Debra Lafave fascination...the support that she was getting...that further diminishes the ability of the courts to judge strictly on the facts of the case. Criminal courts should not worry itself with societal effects of a sentence on someone.

********** UPDATE **********
Called the aforementioned radio show (Glenn Beck) with these points. After quizzing me a bit Glenn stated that I must be the only sane person in Minnesota. Thanks, Glenn...can I fill-in for you sometime while you are on vacation?