LJWorld.com

Posted by Sirwrksalot on October 10, 2008 at 10:01 a.m.

• permalink

Needed Judicial Change

We are arriving at the new election. It is time to consider what to do with a number of persons in office. One I am most concerned about is Judge Paula Martin. There have been a number of questions concerning her fitness to remain seated on the judicial bench. I can not nor will I tell you to remove her from this very important position. I can however ask you to consider her actions and decisions. The most notable of these is the rape case from 2004 I believe where she said an intoxicated 13 year old young woman gave consent to have sex with multiple partners. Since consent was given she used this as a reason to issue extremely lenient sentences to those who participated. I understand this was overturned on appeal and a stiffer sentence was applied later. The judicial process is one that follows a set of guidelines and in those guidelines the penalties are spelled out for consistent use of them. The judges have the right and ability to consider mitigation circumstances, such as mental capacity...However common since is not a requirement to have any position, one of authority or not. Nor is common sense learned in education through college. Now let's consider this poor young lady. How can an intoxicated underage person legally give consent for anything? Currently, the following types of sexual intercourse with unmarried persons under the age of 16 years of age are sex offenses within the Kansas criminal code: Rape (forcible), defined generally as nonconsensual sexual intercourse. This crime is classified as a severity level 2, person felony. Rape (commonly known as statutory rape), defined as sexual intercourse with a child who is under 14 years of age. This crime is classified as a severity level 1, person felony. Aggravated indecent liberties with a child (also known as statutory rape), defined in part as sexual intercourse with a child who is 14 or more years of age but less than 16 years of age. This crime is classified as a severity level 3, person felony. Unlawful voluntary sexual relations (commonly known as the Romeo and Juliet law), defined as engaging in voluntary sexual intercourse with a child who is 14 years of age but less than 16 years of age and the offender is less than 19 years of age and less than four years of age older than the child and the child and the offender are the only parties involved and are members of the opposite sex. This crime is classified as a severity level 8, person felony. Through the enactment of "statutory rape" laws, Kansas has long provided protection to unmarried underage girls from sexual intercourse. "From the earliest times in this state the age limit stated in the statute defining statutory rape has been spoken of as the 'age of consent.' Actually, however, the word 'consent' does not appear in the statute. The real meaning of the statute is that whereas under some other statutes the state must prove the use of force or promise of marriage, the use of a drug or some other element, in a prosecution for a violation of G.S. 2935 21-424, all the state has to prove is that the sex act occurred and that the female was under eighteen. That construction gave us the term 'statutory rape. The act of committing a rape of a child injures that child as a matter of law. The long held policy of the State of Kansas is that sexual intercourse, consensual or non-consensual, with a child of a specific age or younger is harmful to the child and that such conduct should be prohibited. This policy is of such weight that the State prescribes strong penalties for violators of this prohibition. This action reflects the State's interest in justice, protecting children, deterring future wrongful conduct and the belief that sexual intercourse, in any fashion, with children is inherently harmful to the child. The State's position is supported by extensive empirical data and the long-term nature of the policy. As a judge Paula Martin should be aware of basic laws and tenets pertaining to felony actions. This case has shown she is not in touch with the job and there for in my opinion should not keep it. I will vote to remove her. I suggest you the public educate yourselves and vote your decision. Reference info for both sides of this choice are listed below: http://www.reasonablejudges.comhttp://www.retainjudgemartin.com

Reply 20 comments from and 1 others

Posted by Sirwrksalot on October 9, 2008 at 11:19 a.m.

• permalink

Economic and Environmental Change needed

          I understand there are steps needing to be taken to assist the economy back to a healthy state.  However I STRONGLY disagree with the way it is going.  Our country can not afford to buy bad debt from financial companies.  If we purchase these bad debt items then we have to hire people to value them, and care-take them, advertise them, then sell them.  It will be a HUGE undertaking.   Compare this to what happened with the Savings and Loan scandal in the 80's.  The government had to create a company with approximately 120,000 staff members just to handle the bad assists.  Consider the cost in this and where the money will come from.  The 700 Billion we are going to use the government dose not have they are going to sell IOU's to get it.  Other countries have been purchasing these IOU's over the last 7 years.  So a large part of our national debt is owned by another country, China to be specific is holding a large number of them at the moment.          This time if we focus on the bad assist purchase it will be hugely more complex and very easy to mismanage when compared to the Savings and Loan problem.  That problem took years to clear up, not a quick fix.  The people the Treasury Department are advertising for positions to handle these assists are the same people who own some of these bad debts and crated the problem to began with.  There potentially is or will be a conflict of interest in maximizing their own profit at our, the tax payers, determent.           If we rather purchased stock in the company we still infuse money into the company.  We have them continue with the care and management of the property or asset.  They already have this process in place.  We also have a vested interest in the operation or direction the company goes.  An example would be AIG they took the governments money and went on vacation now the crisis is over for them...we really have no say in it since we do not have voting shares in it.          One example comparison would be the country Sweden during the '80's had a similar problem and see how they were able to fix the situation to the tax payer's benefit.  Look at the United Kingdom/Britain to see they are doing the a similar rescue by purchasing shares instead of debt...If we bought shares then we can recoup the money as a tax payer down the road we as a tax payer would have a vested interest in seeing companies prosper returning the money back to the tax payer with having to pay less tax down the road if the investment gains returns back to the government.           We also can no longer ignore the environment.  It is failing.  We need to look beyond the fossil fuels and look at clean renewable energy.  It is not a lets look for fun.  It is a lets get out from under the thumb of oil producers, and oil sales companies.  We must realize this product is not renewable once it is used it is gone forever.  We need to take a serious look at finding alternate energy sources.  Look at what is happening with the glaciers and in the Alaskan environment.  The Polar Ice Caps are melting.  Not just melting some but in huge amounts.  The permafrost which is usually frozen year round is melting.  The polar bears are dying out.  The glaciers are going to be gone in less than 20 years at the rate they are melting.  We need to take drastic steps to change what we are doing.  More drilling and more oil production will only help for a short time.  It will also hasten the end of available supplies.  We need to hugely invest in improvements in what we use and how it is used for energy production...and transportation power, such for cars, buses, trucks, etc...We need to get involved: Thanks for reading I hope you are able to work on finding solutions to these issues...to do that you need to contact your political members and tell them your views and voice your concerns.  The freedoms we have are not free, it costs our effort:we need to participate or we may loose some of these freedoms.vice_president@whitehouse.gov, comments@whitehouse.gov,dcfo@do.treas.gov,info@barackobama.com,ecampaign@johnmccain.comsam_brownback@enews.senate.gov