Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception » legal punishment

Men ruined and destroyed by feminist legal system, driven to self immolation and murder

admin — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:07:25 +0000

The modern legal system is set to transfer financial resources from men to women. It is stacked against men, in that most accusations of rape, sexual abuse, sexual harassment can instantly ruin a man who, by law, is presumed guilty unless proven innocent. We interview an "Extremist" who says feminist laws have perverted the legal and political system to an extent, that only a serious revolution can undo the damage.

A man, ruined beyond repair, by ex-wife and family court

Wayne Tippett has just two things of any real value left in his life: a 10-year-old car and a granite tombstone.

At 51, Tippett is broken, bankrupt and bunking in the guest room of his parents’ Burlington home after a divorce settlement that’s left him $75,000 in debt and racking up $1,000 more each month.

Today, he’ll appear in court at a default hearing to try to explain why he can’t afford to pay his ex-wife (the couple had no children) $3,300 a month, $16,000 in retroactive alimony and $42,000 of her court costs out of a complex case he himself still doesn’t understand. [...]

Facing massive legal bills of his own, Tippett filed for bankruptcy and it was only later, he says, he discovered he’s still on the hook, under bankruptcy laws, for any payments related to the divorce case.
That’s left Tippett in arrears that are growing monthly, on the default list of Ontario’s controversial Family Responsibility Office and facing seizure of his driver’s licence, his passport and, in time, a possible jail sentence. Devastated by divorce court

Extremist:

A good man, totally destroyed with absolutely no way out. In normal law, there is bankruptcy as a savior, and certainly debtor’s prison has been abolished long ago.
If you cornered a rat
Feminists manipulative control of the legal and family court system created a monster that subjugates men. And this exists world wide. In Brazil, soccer players get arrested if they are behind paying US$ 30 000 per month to their ex-wives. No matter if the short-lived soccer career took a hit and his income tanked.

Men are a bunch of lambs that obediently go to slaughter. Like the Jews went to the gas chamber. But it is worse then the Jews in WW II. There is no country persecuted men can flee to and get asylum. Oppressed exploited wage enslaved men are not recognized as persecuted refugees.

Such men can either suffer the rest of their lives in poverty, in the Gulag jail of feminist dictatorship. Or they can act like men and fight back.

Such kind of dictatorship is why the US constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. If you are violated by the government, you have to stand up against the government. Feminist injustice is so deeply entrenched, a violent revolution might be the only solution. The Boston Tea party was for some small taxation issue, not total ruinous exploitation.

Women did their revolution, with female trickery. Manipulative language, whining complaints, male benevolent chivalry, and pure male manipulability removed due process, justice, constitutional rights and freedom. Men were no match for concerted manipulations perpetrated by feminists.

Mr. Tippet above is a prime example how the Land of the Free has become a medieval terror regime.

Men are repressed cradle to grave. In kindergarten and primary school, boys fall behind because female-only teaching staff gears school towards girl’s preferences and punishes boys for being boys. Female indoctrination continues through University, where a terror regime of sexual harassment laws stifles academic freedom and research. .

Human-Stupidity:

We do stress that we do not advocate violence. Men should use legal ways to fight for their freedom and human rights.

But most men (or honest women) can understand the enormous hurt or rage that must be boiling in a man whose life got systematically destroyed, with absolutely no way out, by unjust cruel inhumane laws. The proper government, its courts and police are to blame for the unfair persecution ( compare Mr. Emerson).

The problem is that there is no public consciousness about the problem of men’s rights. Radical feminists strongly influence governments world wide and basically own the United Nations. Feminists with their manipulative language and outright statistical lies have convinced governments, law makers, and the courts to make more and more exceptions to constitutionally guaranteed rights like due process. The book Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism give quite a shocking impression.

What are the human rights of a person threatened by the unconstitutional dictatorship of the majority? This is similar to the problem of a man condemned to death by stoning for apostasy from a legally constituted governmental court in Afghanistan. But there are governments opposing stoning for apostasy, but is not a single government in the world publicly opposing egregious human rights violations like debtor’s prison for fathers unable to pay child support, or supporting the freedom of an underage boy forced to pay child support to his female rapist. For a man whose life has been utterly destroyed, maybe the only "non-violent" protest is self-immolation as chosen by a man described below.

A man kills his kids, out of despair and anger for being ruined by government powers, with absolutely no way out to get back a dignified life
vs.
Feminists unhinge constitutional guarantees because women are "devastated" because of innuendo or compliments

In the week when one father murdered his four children, and another was jailed for life, Lorna Martin investigates the motives and twisted minds of the men Americans call ‘family annihilators’. Are they driven by hatred, revenge or mad, possessive love? [...]

Jack was three and Nina four. He strangled them with a pyjama cord and wrapped their bodies in duvets, before placing them in a cellar. [...] His body was found hours later at the foot of a block of flats

Fathers Who Kill their children | Angry Harry // Fathers Who Kill their children | The Guardian

Extremist:

The Guardian does not understand the immense hurt, and rage, in a man whose entire life is totally destroyed by a selfish vengeful ex-wife. Lose your home, your money, your children, and be indentured slave for life to pay for the convenience of your ex wife. With absolutely no way out. NO bankruptcy, he can not even flee to start a new life in Brazil, because they take away his passport and he will have a criminal and civil record.

None of this, of course, justifies killing the children. Even a terrorist should respect children. That is too low. Even killing his wife, while understandable, misses the real culprit. The legal family court system gives a woman all the power, and suggests to use and abuse that power. A woman needs to have excellent character to resist the temptation to get free money and long time support, as the law offers her.

The real enemy is the law, the feminists who inspired these laws, the legal system, parliament. The lawyers and judges who make a livelihood torturing and robbing men. And the stupid men who let this happen.

So if he had to go on a shooting rampage, the lawyers, judges, and feminist authors that inspired this, would be more deserving targets then his immoral wife who just takes advantage of her legal, though unjust, rights to demand support or to unjustly accuse of sexual violence.

Human-Stupidity:

Again, we can not advocate killing and violence. Violence is not the way.

But some serious action is needed to galvanize the resistance, or shake men out of their stupor.

Interestingly, feminists have even devised psychological diagnoses (battered-women-syndrome) to justify premeditated murder of women who always had the option to simply walk away from the allegedly abusive relationship.

Compare this to the men in our examples, that have absolutely no way out to flee decade-long financial exploitation and ruin. Some have life sentences with payment obligations until death!

Men are tough. Mrs. Clinton stated that women are the main victims of war, because the lose brothers, husbands and sons. The maimed or killed men themselves seem to suffer much less then their women.

It is important to compare men’s life threatening troubles to women’s "sensitivities" about tiny inconveniences that elicit pity and support in chivalrous men and a huge legal apparatus to remedy:

Men getting their life destroyed, decades slave labor to pay monthly ransom to ex-wives is considered a trivial. coincidence.

Women getting a clumsy compliment or sexual innuendo, or objectifying gaze, get "devastated", "constantly traumatized, according to the Sexual Harassment Industry, which portrays a social scene where women who experience sexual harassment are "devastated," go through it process of "grieving," and if they are lucky, emerge as "survivors." For obvious reasons, SHI rhetoric maximizes the damage supposedly inflicted on them: Sympathy will be garnered, counseling provided, male wickedness confirmed, and women’s victimhood" (Heterophobia)

Self Immolation as extreme protest and as way out

A very extreme action, without violence against others, is burning oneself alive:

At the time of his self-immolation, Ball was possibly facing jail time for owing about $3,000 in child support. He had been unemployed for the last two years.

Normally, American’s can’t be jailed for debt because debtors’ prisons were thought to be a nonsensical and barbaric practice that was outlawed in 1833.

Yet, the failure to pay child routinely lands American fathers in jail. Even if the fathers become unemployed or hospitalized, the judge could deny their petition to have their child support payments reduced.

Moreover, if the fathers are imprisoned, the child support payments can accumulate. Upon release, they are expected to repay the entire amount. Unfortunately, the US jobs market is notorious for shunning anyone with a criminal record, so the prospects of gainful employment look bleak for many of these fathers.

What else can happen to fathers who don’t pay child support (even for legitimate reasons like hospitalization)? Their cars can be seized and their passports denied, thus further taking away their tools for finding gainful employment.

Ball claimed to have served in the US Army for 21 years. He also claimed the Ball family has been serving the US military since the Revolutionary War. American Father Self-Immolates To Protest Against Family Courts

Men’s rights movement universally ignored and shunned

Extremist:

A Buddhist monk burning himself in Vietnam gets more attention in the US press then a desperate American husband burning himself alive outside family court. How shameful! This should make it to the cover of the New York Times. Seems burning himself was not good enough. Maybe he should have blown up himself inside family court?

Men had overcome the middle ages, fought for human rights, liberal laws and freedom. All these achievements of humanity were destroyed by feminism in a century. Feminism has created a dictatorship, destroyed civil rights and due process, created dozens of new crimes (sexual harassment, offenses to women, DNA testing your own kid in Britain, sex with adolescents and mere possession of adolescent photos). Women wanted and got equal privileges plus special privileges before the law.

Divorce lawyer’s standard advice is for women to accuse their husbands of child sexual abuse, or domestic violence. This is like a trump card. No proof is needed, the man instantly is in the defensive.

Human-Stupidity:

Yes. it is shocking that a man gets into enough despair that he burns himself. it is shocking that the press takes almost no notice. And it is shocking that mainstream feminists complain that the man took the easy way out to neglect his payment duties to his wife and family.

Maybe the next self immolator has to douse himself in gasoline and then wait till the world press is ready to film him. he has to invent some mechanism that he can set himself ablaze even when hit by a Taser or rubber bullet. But, in such a case, his fire will be put out and the only thing he can achieve is getting severely burned.

It is a serious problem: how to defend your human rights against the terror regime of the majority? The Nürnberg process against Nazi henchmen convicted those who followed legitimate but inhumane orders. So what are the legal rights of a man destroyed by inhumane laws that are against democratic human rights traditions but that are the law of the land? What are the rights of a man convicted to painful death by medieval inquisition or Afghan religious courts that are the law of the land and supported by a wide majority?

What is missing is the public consciousness, that it constitutes white slavery and excessive cruelty

to jail man for not being able, or even for refusing to pay life long financial support to an ex wife that did not even mother any the subject’s children. Or

forcing a man to keep paying child support after he proved the children are not his. Or

for making it illegal for the man to do a DNA test on the children that are allegedly his.

This is why serious antifeminist activists seriously believe that Muslim law is the only salvation against feminist terror.

Women’s "rights" to life long support by an enslaved man

"The view now about marriage is that (both) parties are entitled, to the extent possible, to enjoy the same lifestyle after a long-term marriage," says Epstein, who sat on the committee that took five years to draft the guidelines. "We operate on a system that, if you create economic dependency (even if the wife isn’t tied to the home caring for children), then you’re going to have to redress it." Devastated by divorce court

Extremist:

Nowadays, the entire divorce proceedings, child support and alimony are made to squeeze the maximum amount of money out of a man. A man who took good care of his family and gave them a good standard of living, will get punished. He will have to continue providing the same standard to his distant wife. The wife will not have to provide the same standard of home care and sex. From the start he should have left them at basic subsistence level, so they would not feel entitled to maintain a high standard of living.

Totally absurd. Nobody has a guarantee for life-long maintenance of one’s life style. If she stays married, he can become poor. Even married families can lose their standard of living.

If you have 2 households, it is impossible to maintain the same standard of living. In practice, the woman maintains the same standard, the man has to work as a slave and lowers his standard. The man can not afford to have a new family. The woman can add the income of a new boyfriend or husband to the money given by the ex.

Divorce permanently guarantees the old standard of living, a guarantee no married wife has!? Let us be honest, in almost all cases this is a guarantee for women, to be paid by men. If women want men to maintain their life style, they should work to get along with their man. The perfidy of feminism is to insist that wives don’t have the duty to please their man, but men have the duty to support their bitchy wives for their entire lives.

Even children: if the woman wants the children to keep the same standard of living, she has choices: either she herself, as an empowered feminist woman, makes enough money. Or she leaves the children with the husband. Or she just makes a supreme effort to get along with the husband: you want money, you try to please the one who can give it to you. Simple!

In reality, there is no divorce for a man. The man continues with all the same obligations, or actually increased obligations. He has to pay for two households. He just loses all his rights (to see his children, to have sex, to get his house taken care of). What kind of divorce is that?

In marriage, traditionally a woman used to give sex, child care, household work in exchange for protection, security, money. Now women refuse sex, will not take care of the man’s house. But the man will continue paying? What a lop-sided agreement. Men’s bank accounts get robbed and raped.

Human-Stupidity:

I cannot but agree. I understand the anger. Still I plead for non-violence and search for democratic process.

Giving power and voting rights to women: a failed experiment?

Extremist:	Giving power to women was a noble experiment, It has miserably failed. Giving women the vote was a noble gesture, a well meant experiment. It was a terrible mistake. Women do not have the genetic apparatus to responsibly use power. In all of human and primate history, women never had absolute power without men having a clear veto right. Men had the power for thousands of years. They did not enslave women. They did not invent crimes to lock them up in prison for decades. They fought for due process and other legal guarantees for men and women. Women managed to undo all this, imprison men, disappropriate men, enslave men, take over school education, drug boys with Ritalin, arrest 6 year old boys for sexual harassment and scare adult men with harassment charges and an entire sexual harassment industry. Finally false rape allegations that are always believed because "women don’t lie". Additionally underage sex crime persecution for normal adolescent sex, false child abuse accusations, trumped-up child porn allegations for simple possession of movies of fully dressed 15 year old girls (Knox vs. USA) and minimum sentencing mandates that outrage even judges,
Human-Stupidity:	Shhhhhh. I wish you had shut up. This is misogyny. You must not even think such things. Men’s rights advocates abhor extremism. People need to be egalitarian. Only feminists can espouse radical theories like the one that men should be eliminated and only left for insemination.
Extremist:	As long a men have the last word, veto power, women can have power. In all of history, men could have broken up cat fights and have the last word if women went overboard. Certainly they would have stopped Dworkin rape theories and Solana’s Scum Manifesto
Human-Stupidity:	Shhhhhh. Keep quiet!

"Child Pornography" issues will even alienate fervent men’s rights supporters

Extremist:

By feminist medieval voodoo* logic mere copying, possessing or looking at adolescent nudity victimizes children, even if the "victims" have been photographed 80 years ago and are already deceased of old age. Feminists are not even interested in protecting children from real true abuse: Prestigious professor Milton Diamond furnished unassailable proof that availability of child pornography vastly reduces true assault of children

7 – 15 times as many men are imprisoned then women. And there is a great men’s rights movement that shyly mentions those facts. Women want to totally abolish prison for female felons and British judges are explicitly ordered to discriminate against men with higher sentencing.

While women’s "liberation" demands and gets quotas in government and CEO offices, men shyly mention that there are no such quotas in jail, homelessness, garbage collection work. And just leave things that way, because women will not listen and men will not unite against injustice.

Political correctness helps to skew even scientific research, further cementing the status quo of suppression of men’s human rights

Either totally scrap all quotas and leave things to individual merit, or seriously pursue quotas to get a gender balanced 50% female jail population. There is no other way.

Imagine all the Millions men exploited by family court, plus all men locked and raped in prison for non-violent victimless sex offenses that would not have been crimes a century ago, unite and stand up against feminist fascism.

Men need to revolt and stand up against this institutionalized injustice. The original Boston Tea party was for much smaller injustices. After all, we still man the Navy seals!

Human-Stupidity:

I wish you had shut up. We will lose 97% of the men’s rights advocates who would support you for liberating men from debtor’s prison, but who wholeheartedly agree to 25 year prison sentences for men who copy computer files of 0′s and 1′s.

And, of course, I reiterate that non-violent legal means should be found.

Extremist:

Sorry, I tried to shut up, but my conscience does not allow me to be silent about an issue that cause immense suffering to both men and children because it

causes thousands of men to be locked up and raped in prison, and then have their life destroyed permanently due to sex offender registries

that invalidate sex offender registries by confounding true child rapists with harmless wankers who look at photos, and teenagers having consensual sex. Those 5% truly dangerous criminals disappear in the sea of harmless offenders. Furthermore, we don’t have registries for arsonists, gang bangers, repeat robbers and other true dangerous criminals.

prevents us from taking the right measures to save children from sex predators.

I almost shut up, obeying your concerns. But repression of child pornography actually victimizes children, because Dr. Milton Diamond has clearly shown that it increases victimization of children. He is the same guy that clearly showed that availability of porn reduces sex crimes against adult women. The reason is that horny perverts can act out their sex drives in the privacy of their homes and masturbate their sex drive away while watching porn.

It is very clear that true child-attracted perverts can masturbate with child pornography and thus lose their incontrollable drive to hurt actual children. The campaign against child pornography is even more useless then alcohol prohibition and marijuana prohibition. Because alcohol causes real damage while copying computer files with 0’1 and 1′s in them causes damage only in the phantasy of voodoo* believers.

So I can not shut up to be politically correct to please feminists and sex-averse men’s righters, while in fact damaging real children. My conscience does not allow watching while children get endangered for political and religious creeds.

Dr. Diamond himself was scared and thus advocated only artificially computer created child porn. He would not dare to say the obvious, that child porn older then 30 years could also be grandfathered, plus all child pornography that depicts legal acts with clearly no victims.0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Compare the Copine scale

I must not allow feminist and religious fanatic dogma to create laws that harm our children. This is against my conscience.

Cruel society condones fetal and toddler abuse, with alcohol and junk food

Extremist:

It is perfectly legal to possess or distribute for profit computer files about adolescents being stoned to death or clubbed to death or jackass wannabe videos of self mutilating teens.

Pregnant women can, with total impunity, permanently damage their fetus with fetal alcohol syndrome. No legal sanction for that, not even societal shunning.

Much less is there punishment for obese women overeating and giving birth to a baby disposed to life long overweight, additionally compounded by sickening unhealthy junk food for the toddler, guaranteeing his life long misery as an overweight fat sick loser. 1, 2, 3, 4

The entire world wide obesity epidemic is fueled by obese mothers being the main culprit for feeding damaging food to non-consenting toddlers (toddlers are unable to consent to unhealthy food, much more so then 17 or 15 year olds allegedly are unable to consent to sex). People obsess about child porn while missing the true menace, world wide obesity epidemic that we imprint onto our unsuspecting innocent children
We poison our innocent children with junk food and sedentary life style into a world wide health epidemic. And the selfish idiotic women’s movement is concerned about the profound life changing trauma of cat calls and objectifying gazes.

Human-Stupidity:

No serious person can contradict you here. Women are responsible for uterine environment, for breast feeding, and in reality for a large part of feeding of toddlers. Even for calming boys in kindergarten and school, stopping their natural urge to move and exercixe. Feminists are amazingly unconcerned about those health hazards. This reinforces the antifeminist trade union theory, also repeated in Patai’s book: Feminist goal is not saving children, but repressing heterosexual men by instilling terror.

Rapists-proven-innocent are majority (57%) of prisoners released by Innocence Project

admin — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:12:31 +0000

153 of the 268 exonerations in the Innocence Project were for rape. This is 57.1 % rape convictions, we found in a search of the innocence project for "Rape". A large number was due to eyewitness misidentification. People freed by DNA testing are freed because the innocence has been proven.

This confirms the false rape society suspicion, that people can easily be locked up for rape accusations, and that due process is violated especially in rape cases.

There have been 268 post-conviction DNA exonerations in United States history. These stories are becoming more familiar as more innocent people gain their freedom through postconviction testing. They are not proof, however, that our system is righting itself. # Seventeen people had been sentenced to death before DNA proved their innocence and led to their release.

Seventeen people had been sentenced to death before DNA proved their innocence and led to their release.

The average sentence served by DNA exonerees has been 13 years.

About 70 percent of those exonerated by DNA testing are members of minority groups.

In almost 40 percent of DNA exoneration cases, the actual perpetrator has been identified by DNA testing.

Exonerations have been won in 34 states and Washington, D.C.
Source: innocenceproject.org/know/

The innocence Project is a national litigation and public policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals trough DNA testing and reforming the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice. innocenceproject.org/

Kenny Waters, an innocence case that was not due to rape but murder and robbery conviction

The listing of men convicted of rape and freed due to innocent project.

Last	First	State	Conviction Year	Exoneration Date	Real Perpetrator Found	Compensation
Abbitt	Joseph	NC	1995	2009	Not Yet	Not Yet
Abdal	Habib Wahir	NY	1983	1999	Not Yet	Yes
Adams	Kenneth	IL	1979	1996	Yes	Yes
Alexander	Richard	IN	1998	2001	Yes	Not Yet
Anderson	Marvin	VA	1982	2002	Yes	Yes
Atkins	Herman	CA	1988	2000	Not Yet	Yes
Barnes	Steven	NY	1989	2009	Not Yet	Not Yet
Bauer	Chester	MT	1983	1997	Not Yet	Not Yet
Bibbins	Gene	LA	1987	2003	Yes	Yes
Bivens	Phillip	MS	1980	2010	Yes	Not Yet
Bloodsworth	Kirk	MD	1985	1993	Yes	Yes
Booker	Donte	OH	1987	2005	Yes	Yes
Bradford	Ted	WA	1996	2010	Not Yet	Not Yet
Bravo	Mark Diaz	CA	1990	1994	Not Yet	Yes
Briscoe	Johnny	MO	1983	2006	Yes	Not Yet
Brison	Dale	PA	1990	1994	Not Yet	Not Yet
Brown	Dennis	LA	1985	2005	Not Yet	Not Yet
Brown	Keith	NC	1993	1997	Yes	Yes
Bryson	David Johns	OK	1983	2003	Not Yet	Not Yet
Buntin	Harold	IN	1986	2005	Not Yet	Not Yet
Burnette	Victor	VA	1979	2009	Not Yet	Not Yet
Butler	A.B.	TX	1983	2000	Not Yet	Yes
Byrd	Kevin	TX	1985	1997	Not Yet	Yes

These were the last names starting with letters A and B. Click on "more" to see the rest of the alphabet.

Last	First	State	Conviction Year	Exoneration Date	Real Perpetrator Found	Compensation
Capozzi	Anthony	NY	1987	2007	Yes	Not Yet
Chalmers	Terry	NY	1987	1995	Not Yet	Yes
Charles	Clyde	LA	1982	1999	Yes	Yes
Charles	Ulysses Rodriguez	MA	1984	2001	Not Yet	Not Yet
Chatman	Charles	TX	1981	2008	Not Yet	Not Yet
Clark	Robert	GA	1982	2005	Yes	Yes
Coco	Allen	LA	1997	2006	Not Yet	Not Yet
Cotton	Ronald	NC	1985, 1987	1995	Yes	Yes
Cruz	Rolando	IL	1985	1995	Yes	Yes
Dabbs	Charles	NY	1984	1991	Not Yet	Not Yet
Dail	Dwayne Allen	NC	1989	2007	Yes	Yes
Davidson	Willie	VA	1981	2005	Not Yet	Yes
Davis	Larry W.	WA	1993	2010	Not Yet	Not Yet
Daye	Frederick	CA	1984	1994	Yes	Yes
Deskovic	Jeff	NY	1990	2006	Yes	Not Yet
Dixon	Bobby Ray	MS	1980	2010	Yes	Not Yet
Dominguez	Alejandro	IL	1990	2002	Not Yet	Yes
Doswell	Thomas	PA	1986	2005	Not Yet	Not Yet
Dotson	Gary	IL	1979	1989	Not Yet	Yes
Durham	Timothy	OK	1993	1997	Not Yet	Not Yet
Echols	Douglas	GA	1987	2002	Not Yet	Not Yet
Elkins	Clarence	OH	1999	2005	Yes	Yes
Erby	Lonnie	MO	1986	2003	Not Yet	Not Yet
Evans	Michael	IL	1977	2003	Not Yet	Yes
Fain	Charles Irvin	ID	1983	2001	Not Yet	Not Yet
Fappiano	Scott	NY	1985	2006	Not Yet	Not Yet
Fears Jr.	Joseph	OH	1984	2009	Yes	Not Yet
Fuller	Larry	TX	1981	2007	Not Yet	Yes
Gates	Donald Eugene	DC	1982	2009	Not Yet	Not Yet
Giles	James Curtis	TX	1983	2007	Yes	Yes
Gillard	Larry	IL	1982	2009	Yes	Yes
Godschalk	Bruce	PA	1987	2002	Not Yet	Yes
Good	Donald Wayne	TX	1984	2004	Not Yet	Not Yet
Gray	David A.	IL	1978	1999	Not Yet	Yes
Gray	Anthony	MD	1991	1999	Yes	Not Yet
Gray	Paula	IL	1978	2002	Yes	Yes
Green	Edward	DC	1990	1990	Not Yet	Not Yet
Green	Michael	OH	1988	2001	Yes	Yes
Green	Michael Anthony	TX	1983	2010	Yes	Not Yet
Gregory	William	KY	1993	2000	Not Yet	Yes
Halstead	Dennis	NY	1987	2005	Not Yet	Not Yet
Harrison	Clarence	GA	1987	2004	Not Yet	Yes
Hernandez	Alejandro	IL	1985	1995	Yes	Yes
Hicks	Anthony	WI	1991	1997	Not Yet	Yes
Honaker	Edward	VA	1985	1994	Not Yet	Yes
Jackson	Willie	LA	1989	2006	Yes	Not Yet
Jean	Lesly	NC	1982	2001	Not Yet	Yes
Jimerson	Verneal	IL	1985	1996	Yes	Yes
Johnson	Calvin	GA	1983	1999	Not Yet	Yes
Johnson	Larry	MO	1984	2002	Not Yet	Not Yet
Johnson	Richard	IL	1992	1996	Not Yet	Yes
Johnson	Rickie	LA	1983	2008	Yes	Yes
Johnson	Arthur	MS	1993	2008	Yes	Not Yet
Jones	Joe	KS	1986	1992	Not Yet	Not Yet
Jones	Ronald	IL	1989	1999	Not Yet	Yes
Jones	David Allen	CA	1995	2004	Yes	Yes
Kogut	John	NY	1986	2005	Not Yet	Not Yet
Kotler	Kerry	NY	1982	1992	Not Yet	Yes
Laughman	Barry	PA	1988	2004	Not Yet	Yes
Lavernia	Carlos	TX	1985	2000	Not Yet	Yes
Lindsey	Johnnie	TX	1981, 1985	2009	Not Yet	Not Yet
Lowery	Eddie James	KS	1982	2003	Yes	Not Yet
Mahan	Ronnie	AL	1986	1998	Not Yet	Not Yet
Mahan	Dale	AL	1986	1998	Not Yet	Not Yet
Maher	Dennis	MA	1984	2003	Not Yet	Yes
Mayes	Larry	IN	1982	2001	Not Yet	Yes
McClendon	Robert	OH	1991	2008	Not Yet	Not Yet
McCray	Antron	NY	1990	2002	Yes	Not Yet
McGee	Arvin	OK	1989	2002	Yes	Yes
McKinney	Lawrence	TN		2009	Not Yet	Not Yet
McMillan	Clark	TN	1980	2002	Yes	Yes
McSherry	Leonard	CA	1988	2001	Yes	Yes
Mercer	Michael	NY	1992	2003	Yes	Yes
Miller	Neil	MA	1990	2000	Yes	Yes
Miller	Robert	OK	1988	1998	Yes	Not Yet
Miller	Jerry	IL	1982	2007	Yes	Not Yet
Moto	Vincent	PA	1987	1996	Not Yet	Not Yet
Nelson	Bruce	PA	1982	1991	Not Yet	Not Yet
Nesmith	Willie	PA	1982		Not Yet	Not Yet
Newton	Alan	NY	1985	2006	Not Yet	Not Yet
Northrop	Alan G.	WA	1993	2010	Not Yet	Not Yet
Ortiz	Victor	NY	1984	1996	Not Yet	Yes
Pacyon	Douglas	NY	1985	2010	Not Yet	Not Yet
Peacock	Freddie	NY	1976	2010	Not Yet	Not Yet
Phillips	Steven	TX	1982, 1983	2008	Yes	Yes
Pierce	Jeffrey	OK	1986	2001	Yes	Yes
Piszczek	Brian	OH	1991	1994	Not Yet	Yes
Powell	Anthony	MA	1992	2004	Yes	Yes
Rainge	Willie	IL	1979	1996	Yes	Yes
Restivo	John	NY	1987	2005	Not Yet	Not Yet
Richardson	Kevin	NY	1990	2002	Yes	Not Yet
Richardson	James	WV	1989	1999	Not Yet	Yes
Rollins	Lafonso	IL	1994	2004	Not Yet	Yes
Rose	Peter	CA	1996	2005	Not Yet	Yes
Ruffin	Julius	VA	1982	2003	Yes	Yes
Ruffin	Larry	MS	1980	2010	Yes	Not Yet
Salaam	Yusef	NY	1990	2002	Yes	Not Yet
Santana	Raymond	NY	1990	2002	Yes	Not Yet
Sarsfield	Eric	MA	1987	2000	Not Yet	Yes
Scott	Calvin Lee	OK	1983	2003	Yes	Not Yet
Scott	Samuel	GA	1987	2002	Not Yet	Not Yet
Scruggs	Dwayne	IN	1986	1993	Not Yet	Not Yet
Shephard	David	NJ	1984	1995	Not Yet	Yes
Smith	Walter D.	OH	1986	1996	Not Yet	Yes
Smith	Frank Lee	FL	1986	2000	Yes	Not Yet
Snyder	Walter	VA	1986	1993	Not Yet	Yes
Sutherlin	David Brian	MN	1985	2002	Yes	Not Yet
Sutton	Josiah	TX	1999	2004	Yes	Yes
Terry	Paul	IL	1977	2003	Not Yet	Yes
Thurman	Phillip Leon	VA	1985	2005	Yes	Yes
Toney	Steven	MO	1983	1996	Not Yet	Yes
Towler	Raymond	OH	1981	2010	Not Yet	Not Yet
Townsend	Jerry Frank	FL	Various	2001	Yes	Yes
Velasquez	Eduardo	MA	1988	2001	Not Yet	Yes
Villasana	Armand	MO	1999	2000	Not Yet	Yes
Washington	Earl	VA	1984	2000	Yes	Yes
Waters	Leo	NC	1982	2003	Yes	Yes
Watkins	Jerry	IN	1986	2000	Yes	Yes
Webb	Mark	TX	1987	2002	Not Yet	Yes
Webb	Troy	VA	1989	1996	Not Yet	Yes
Webb	Thomas	OK	1983	1996	Not Yet	Not Yet
Webster	Bernard	MD	1983	2002	Yes	Yes
White	John Jerome	GA	1980	2007	Yes	Yes
Whitfield	Arthur Lee	VA	1982	2004	Yes	Yes
Williams	Michael Anthony	LA	1981	2005	Not Yet	Yes
Williams	Dennis	IL	1978	1996	Yes	Yes
Williams	Willie	GA	1985	2007	Yes	Yes
Willis	Calvin	LA	1982	2003	Not Yet	Not Yet
Woods	Anthony D.	MO	1984	2005	Not Yet	Yes
Yarris	Nicholas	PA	1982	2003	Not Yet	Yes

Overcriminalization: everyone violates trivial laws! Hence: “Don’t Talk to Cops! Refuse Search!”

Devils Advocate — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 01:57:44 +0000

1) “I have nothing to say, officer”. 2) I don’t consent to searches”.

are the most important sentences to deal with police. Listen to a law school professor, a policeman, a human rights organisation. They all say the same

Police: a dangerous threat to be avoided? Why can’t we cooperate with police?

You always have the right to refuse police searches (“Officer, I don’t consent to any searches”) and refuse to answer questions without a lawyer present. (“I have nothing to say. I want to see a lawyer.”) [...]

No Warrant, No Search!
The Supreme Court has ruled that the home is entitled to maximum search protection. Even if they have probable cause to believe something illegal is going on inside your home, the 4th Amendment requires police to get a signed search warrant from a judge to legally enter and search. flexyourrights.org/faq

This advice makes us cringe: as honest, law abiding citizens, we want to cooperate with law enforcement, so they can track down violent dangerous criminals and terrorists. But collaboration with police endangers our own safety and gets us into jail?

A law abiding honest citizen has to avoid talking to police? Must refrain from helping police work? The good citizen has to make it harder for police to find the real criminals by refusing to cooperate! Why can’t an honest citizen collaborate with police, so they can find criminals and terrorists?

What is wrong here? In the “Don’t talk to Cops #1″ video, a law school professor explains, that even a hard core criminal lawyer could get himself trouble, if he talked to police. There are so many laws. You might be found a felon for possessing a lobster that was packed in violation of Native Indian reservation law, or Honduran Law.

Never talk to a tax official. It is impossible, not to be in violation of one of the millions of articles of tax law. in “Don’t talk to Cops #2″, a policeman explains: if he follows a car, he is certain that pretty soon he can nail the driver for some traffic violation. If the honest normal citizen cannot collaborate with police, cannot help police to make their work easier, something is wrong. Or am I the only one thinking this way?

Overcriminalization: criminalizing trivial or harmless behavior.

The Crime of Living

Government run amok.

Posted October 19, 2010

The new term “overcriminalization” describes the last few decades’ legislative orgy of criminalizing trivial or harmless behavior. Under “zero tolerance” the legal system has shifted ever closer to a vast police state. From 2000 to 2007 Congress added 452 new federal crimes to the 4,450 already in effect and the roughly 300,000 regulations that can be enforced criminally. “Get tough” punishments and innovative new crimes have brought career-making headlines to politicians, who encountered little resistance.

Traditionally civil offenses now resemble criminal ones in their punishment. For example, it is commonplace for judges to imprison “deadbeat dads” who cannot pay child support for civil contempt of court. Not even children are exempt. Petty offenses such as “sexting” between teens are felonies and can be severely punished; in grade schools police are sometimes called to control children who throw temper tantrums. Everyday life has been criminalized.

The book Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent, by libertarian attorney Harvey Silverglate, details how you are a felon right now because going through one day without violating the law repeatedly is virtually impossible.
Source: The Crime of Living

Three Felonies a Day:

How the Feds Target the Innocent

Harvey A. Silverglate $25.95 1594032556

Go Directly to Jail: The Criminalization of Almost Everything by Gene Healy $17.95 1930865635

The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Law Enforcement Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice by Paul Craig Roberts $14.95 0307396061

on June 28, 2007, Breitbart.com reported research by Northwestern Professor Bruce Spencer [...] Spencer discovered that innocent defendants had a 25% chance of being wrongfully convicted by juries and 37% chance of being wrongfully convicted by a judge. In contrast, Spencer found only a 10% chance a jury would acquit a guilty person and a 13% chance a judge would acquit a guilty person. [...] According to Northwestern University law professor Jack Heinz, the concentration of errors in wrongful convictions result from "the strong presumption of guilt when someone is arrested and brought to trial."

[...] criminologist Richard Moran reported his research findings in the New York Times on August 2, 2007: ‘My recently completed study of the 124 exonerations of death row inmates in America from 1973 to 2007 indicated that about 80%, or about two thirds, of their so-called wrongful convictions resulted not from good-faith mistakes or errors, but from intentional, willful, malicious prosecutions by criminal justice personnel.’

We have too many victimless crimes, harsh punishment for petty crimes, and too many laws. Every single citizen commits (harmless) crimes and felonies with regularity and is in danger of arrest and conviction. And over 99% of these “crimes” remain unpunished, with the occasional unlucky guy who gets convicted.

Potential crimes include: copyright infringement, underage sex among minors (hey, maybe you had sex with a minor when you were 15 and there is no statute of limitation), potential vengeful charges of rape and sex abuse, underage drinking, drug consumption, indadvertent possession of child porn (most men probably have some picture on their hard drive that potentially could be of a 17 year old nude).

certain practical steps could greatly alleviate the suffering of the law’s innocent victims. They include:

eliminating the ability of civil judges to imprison debtors for contempt of court;

reestablishing the need to prove “criminal intent” for criminal charges;

ceasing to prosecute victimless crimes, like drug use and sex between consenting adults;

eliminating prosecutorial immunity for corrupt or excessive prosecution;

enforcing constitutional protections such as “the presumption of innocence”; and

making all courts, including family courts, transparent.

Overcriminalization threatens everyone. It does not matter how peaceful or law-abiding you mean to be. Today you are a criminal. Tomorrow you may be a prisoner.
Source: The Crime of Living

How Long Can You Go Without Infringing On Copyright: Nowadays we infringe copyrights numerous times throughout the day without even thinking about it. Watching an unauthorized SNL clip on YouTube. Playing the radio in the background at work where customers can hear. Loaning a copy of your Finding Nemo DVD to play at your kids’ daycare. Downloading clip art to use in a personal scrapbook. Scanning your own wedding photos. Forwarding a funny photograph to a friend. Loaning a co-worker some software.

Everything I Want to Do Is Illegal

dumblaws.com/

Abner Schoenwetter, formerly a Miami seafood importer, chose to fight. In 1999 he was accused of buying lobster tails from a long-time supplier. The purchase allegedly violated harvest regulations in Honduras. Among the violations: The lobsters were in plastic bags rather than cardboard boxes. Schoenwetter provided American prosecutors with evidence from Honduran officials that no law had been broken; the attorney general of Honduras filed a friend-of-the-court brief stating that the cited regulations had been voided. Despite having no prior record, Schoenwetter was convicted and served six years in prison.[...] Source: The Crime of Living

Sexual Desire for Pre-Pubescent Children. The worst of all crimes?

Devils Advocate — Tue, 26 May 2009 11:55:15 +0000

As child abuse experts point out, about 50 children are reported kidnapped and raped or murdered by strangers annually, compared to more than 3,000 children murdered by parents and other family members in non-sexual cases.

Most sex offenders, says one therapist who works with sex offenders in a state prison system, are “Gentle grandfathers who made one mistake in judgment years ago and fondled their grandchild.

At issue her is:

Legal punishment for sexual “crimes” against minors is a modern witch hunt.
Totally out of proportion to damage caused by it.
Hysteria
Purposeful confounding of criminal violent sexual crime against minors nearly or totally harmless fondling or consensual sexual acts
any reasonable open-minded unbiased discussion or scientific analysis of the issue regarding underage sexuality is totally shunned, repressed, ignored, prohibited.

The blog cited below is pretty extreme. I am not saying that I totally agree with all of this. It is an interesting “devil’s advocate” article meant to shake up ingrained prejudices.

In spite of being Devil’s advocate, I personally still think that messing with children is somewhat of bad taste and maybe should not be totally liberated.

What I question, though, is if it is such vile a crime as it is being treated by the law in the US and most other countries.

My doubt is:

Is it really necessary that the punishment for slightly fondling a child is higher then for throwing the same child out of a third story window or throwing boiling water on it and getting the child seriously injured?

all quotes from http://www.radicalleft.net/blog/_archives/2006/6/5/1990675.html

Of course among these sex offenders are indeed some criminals who have caused extreme harm: violent rapists of adult women as well as children. A few of them have kidnapped, tortured or murdered their victims.

Dr. Fred Berlin of the Johns Hopkins University Sex Disorders Clinic in Baltimore estimates that such crimes account for less than 1/10th of 1% of all sex offenses in America.

His studies also show that fewer than 10% of child sex offenders re-offend—though recidivism is usually given as a reason for draconian measures against them.

Most sex offenders, says one therapist who works with sex offenders in a state prison system, are “Gentle grandfathers who made one mistake in judgment years ago and fondled their grandchild.

Or lonely, geeky gay men—teenagers some of them—who sought mutual sexual release with adolescent boys.

Or young female teachers who succumbed to the wiles of handsome adolescent boys or girls. Or young men who got drunk and pushed their girlfriends over a line that is now called date rape.”

Yet the media, police, prosecutors and politicians continue to insist that children are in dire need of protection from serial rapists and murderers.

Two-thirds of parents surveyed said they feared their children would be kidnapped and or murdered by strangers. Facts simply do not matter when hysteria is involved.

Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception » legal punishment

Men ruined and destroyed by feminist legal system, driven to self immolation and murder

A man, ruined beyond repair, by ex-wife and family court

A man kills his kids, out of despair and anger for being ruined by government powers, with absolutely no way out to get back a dignified life vs. Feminists unhinge constitutional guarantees because women are "devastated" because of innuendo or compliments

Self Immolation as extreme protest and as way out

Men’s rights movement universally ignored and shunned

Women’s "rights" to life long support by an enslaved man

Giving power and voting rights to women: a failed experiment?

"Child Pornography" issues will even alienate fervent men’s rights supporters

Cruel society condones fetal and toddler abuse, with alcohol and junk food

Rapists-proven-innocent are majority (57%) of prisoners released by Innocence Project

Kenny Waters, an innocence case that was not due to rape but murder and robbery conviction

The listing of men convicted of rape and freed due to innocent project.

Overcriminalization: everyone violates trivial laws! Hence: “Don’t Talk to Cops! Refuse Search!”

1) “I have nothing to say, officer”. 2) I don’t consent to searches”.

Police: a dangerous threat to be avoided? Why can’t we cooperate with police?

Overcriminalization: criminalizing trivial or harmless behavior.

The Crime of Living

Government run amok.

Sexual Desire for Pre-Pubescent Children. The worst of all crimes?

A man kills his kids, out of despair and anger for being ruined by government powers, with absolutely no way out to get back a dignified life
vs.
Feminists unhinge constitutional guarantees because women are "devastated" because of innuendo or compliments