Repost from the old site.
Due to the fallout from the Groene case, Steve Groene is pushing a One Strike Law in Washington State, where he now resides. I don’t blame him, and a lot of crime victims lash out like this.
As you can see on the page explaining the law, the law is constructed so Joseph Duncan would never have been freed to kill Steve’s ex-wife and two kids and rape his daughter. So the tragic past would never have occurred.
California’s 3 Strikes Law was written by Mike Reynolds in such a way that the 2-bit thugs who killed his daughter (who merely had lengthy records for petty crime) would have been imprisoned and would have been able to kill his daughter.
In this way, surviving crime victims, or usually relatives of crime victims, are able to time travel. They can go back in time, and in their imaginations, wipe out the past.
The problem is that this is all an illusion.
Mike Reynolds’ crazy 3 Strikes Law didn’t bring back his daughter, and the guys who did it are going down bigtime anyway. Steve’s One Strike Law won’t bring back Dylan or Slade, or wipe out what was done to Shasta.
Sure, it might prevent it from happening to others, but to be completely frank, I don’t think that’s the purpose of these laws. The purpose of these laws is to enable their enraged and vengeful authors-relatives of victims to imaginarily go back in time and prevent the past from occurring by passing a new law in the future.
It’s the stuff of science fiction. It’s magical thinking, but magical thinking is not just for kids and crazies. Adults do it all the time too, especially traumatized adults. Like relatives of murder victims.
First of all, I will say that this law is not as nuts as I assumed it would be. Some of my friends know Steve, and they did not think he would write a law as stupid as California’s 3 Strikes Law, especially since his own son has a record as a 2-bit petty criminal. I’m not even sure about Steve’s own history, but my friends say he ran with a rough crowd.
The proposed One-Strike law says that anyone guilty of child molestation (wisely put at under 12) and anyone guilty of forcible rape through the use of violence needs to go away for life. Now, most people would sit back and cheer.
To the authors’ credit, the law seems to exclude the “date rape” bullshit by requiring that the rape be forcible and violent. It also rules out the “statutory rape” bullshit by requiring ruling out sex with minors aged 12 and up.
So where does that leave us? With a bunch of pedos and rapists. So why is this not a good idea?
Because right here in my town, we have 133 people on the sex offender list. Fresno, a city of 440,000, probably has 1,000 people on the list. They’re either all or almost all men.
Nationally, with the ever-expanding definitions of sex offenders, there are now 2 million people on sex offender lists! Surely they are almost all males.
This is starting to look less like a war on “sex offenders” and more like just a war on males.
Here in my town, most of the guys on the list are guilty of rape, child molesting under the age of 14 or even rape of a child under the age of 14. That’s probably 100 out of 133. You’re going to throw all 100 of these guys away for life?
In Fresno, I bet 800 out of the 1000 are on for rape or molesting a child under the age of 14. You’re going to throw 800 guys away for life?
How many of the 2 million on the sex offender lists nationwide would be covered under this One Strike Law? That’s an interesting bit of research.
This law isn’t going to work. Implemented nationally, it will easily result in life sentences for hundreds of thousands, and possibly over 1 million, people, almost all men. Even if it’s a good idea, it’s not doable.
Repost from the old site.