Death Penalty for a Blow Job?

Scene: Paris, Texas - in the courtroom of Judge Eric Clifford.

Date: April 8, 2009

Judge Clifford rules:

An 18-year-old kid's death sentence* was reaffirmed for the crime of sexually assaulting a 6-year-old boy. The teenager (Aaron Hart) confessed to the cops that he was on the receiving end of a blow job.

Details, details

These details are worthy of note:

• Hart is mentally retarded - having an IQ of 47. So, basically, Judge Clifford condemned one of the 6-year-old "kids," who happened to be in the body of an 18-year-old "man."

• The 6-year-old boy "abused" by Aaron Hart is a neighbor and is also mentally retarded.

• What is meant by "sexually assaulting?" Be careful here, since the legal definition of this term might not mean what you think it means. [Note: A lot of legal terms don't mean what their common sense definitions would lead us to believe.]

• Judge Clifford didn't think it mattered whether Hart understood his Miranda rights, since [in his own words]: "...the evidence I have seen is overwhelming that he committed the offense." What evidence is the judge referring to? The confession made by Hart after hearing his Miranda rights, which the judge didn't think important enough to be actually be understood by the defendant? Or was the judge thinking of other evidence - "overwhelming evidence," mind you?

• Aaron Hart has been sitting in jail since September, 2008 and has been repeatedly raped while in custody - according to Hart's parents. You don't have to believe Hart's parents, though, for "everybody" knows what goes on in the Big House - especially to accused child molesters who haven't yet been convicted. Not to mention: Competent medical personnel could corroborate the bodily damage of these rapes to Mr. Hart's (er) "person" - unless perhaps they are prison doctors paid by the state to look the other way.

• That's right: Aaron was not released to his parents pending trial with the stipulation he wear an electronic tracking device to assure he not leave his home. I guess such amenities are only for the Bernie Madoffs of this world, who are accused of raping investors out of their hard-earned assets.

What's this about a *death sentence?

Judge Clifford decided to sentence Aaron to a total of 100 years in prison. There were five felony counts being considered (Five? For one BJ?). Guilty on all five counts: 30 years for each of 3 counts, and 5 years for each of 2 additional counts. Oh yeah, the judge decided to stack these, rather than run them concurrently.

As for probation? Nope.

As for committing to a state facility for the mentally disabled? Texas doesn't have such an option.

By sentencing Hart to prison - for life - this Judge has decided to execute this man. How do I figure? Simple: Just ask yourself this question: How many times will Aaron Hart be raped by fellow inmates (courtesy of this judge) before he contracts AIDS? Or this question: How much abuse will Hart suffer before he decides to commit suicide?

No matter how you slice and dice it, this judge sentenced a retarded man to death.

In the words of the judge:

QUOTE:

"It was a sad situation. I was about to cry. The jury was crying," Clifford said. "Everybody looked at everybody like, 'What the hell do we do?' The only option we were presented was prison. We don't have any facilities in the state of Texas for any type of care for somebody like that. That's the problem. It's a terrible problem. I don't know what you do with him other than what we did."

:UNQUOTE [article by Howard Witt, Tribune correspondent, 4/6/2009]

Not so fast, Judge Clifford. You didn't have to stack the sentences. You could have even let him go - that is, given him probation. You said, "We don't have any facilities ...for somebody like that." There are several reasons for that:

• Texas lawmakers have severely cut back programs and facilities for people "like that."

• Texas is one of only 7 states that doesn't impose a state income tax, even though it should - to help people "like that" (among other reasons).

If you, Judge Clifford, had let this young man go, the Right Wing Wing-Nuts would have surely howled. But surely you are a bigger man than those Lilliputians. You could have lit a fire under those derelict legislators. They'd be thinking: "My God, Clifford let a retarded molester loose because he had no option other than jail. We'd better cough up some options!"

Wrongful death suit

If Aaron Hart dies in prison, Judge Clifford should be charged in a wrongful death suit. Or, if Hart doesn't die, charges of malicious mischief should be considered. I am aware that the law, as currently interpreted, would not allow for a judge to be subjected to either of these actions. However, the words "as currently interpreted" should be carefully reevaluated.

Judges make a lot of noise about their job being only to interpret the law and not to create any "rights" where none had existed before. The basic idea: "If Congress has not codified certain expectations into the form of written law, and if common law doesn't address a given area of concern, then judges have no business being activist judges by creating new ‘law.'"

However, these judges conveniently overlook the US Constitution's ninth and tenth amendments (these, sadly enough, are never emphasized in legal briefs, though they could profoundly empower We-the-People, if we made enough noise):

Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Comment on IX: One of these rights "retained by the people" is that of "reasonable expectation that the scope and nature of our body of rights will evolve as we evolve as a people and as times change, without any formal recognition by Congress being necessary."  Such an evolution would have brought us to this point: "No citizen should be railroaded to jail simply because the state is too cheap to provide an alternative."

The irony of this is, the state cannot argue against providing special education services to retarded school children due to inconvenient expense. Remember: Aaron is retarded.

Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Comment on X: Whereas IX talks about "rights," X talks about powers. We-the-People must never forget that we actually have powers. However, we have to claim them; we have to at least cite them in our lawsuits. We should insist that our lawyers who represent us in court insert such citations and claims as parts of legal briefs filed on our behalf.

And then there's the Fourteenth Amendment...

Ah, yes...the Fourteenth!

Amendment XIV [Section 1]: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Comment on XIV: Judge Clifford definitely abridged the "immunities" of US citizen Aaron Hart. Don't you think Hart should have been "immune" against a punishment (that is, the death penalty) that did not fit the crime? A punishment which a judge was "forced" to make because the state of Texas was derelict in its duties to mentally-impaired citizens, by failing to provide alternatives to prison?

The power of one person to make a difference...

I am inviting all of you to become that one person who will make a difference. If enough of us cherish that thought, that will be enough to really bring about change we can believe in. If you keep that thought in mind, continually nurturing it, you will know what to do when the time comes. And "what to do" will be entirely within your power and that will end up making a difference we can all believe in.

Our problem is, we too readily believe authority figures in black robes who tell us what our rights are - or, in reality, what crumbs we should get after the elite gets its lion's share.

Keep in mind the fine example of one of our former presidents. John Tyler insisted that he was the president of the United States, and his insistence silenced all opposition. Each of us should have the attitude that we too can conjure such results due to sheer force of will.

Consider (especially the part I bold-faced):

QUOTE:

Since a strict adherence to either of the two sections of the Constitution could yield opposing interpretations, there was, naturally, much disagreement when the matter was first put to the test. Any question regarding the Vice President succeeding to the Presidency was for all intents and purposes resolved in April 1841 when John Tyler succeeded William Henry Harrison upon Harrison's death. Tyler made it clear that he was the President rather than the Vice President acting as such, thus establishing precedent in accordance with the Article I interpretation.

:UNQUOTE [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acting_President_of_the_United_States#Origin_of_the_position:_Constitution_.281787.29]

As to letting Aaron Hart go...

If Hart were freed, does anyone really believe he'd be a danger to the community? With his name and deed splashed all over by the media, local parents would surely be on extra high alert and watch their children even more closely than usual. Come on, people, this is a no brainer. I'd rather have Aaron Hart on the loose than someone like Judge Eric Clifford, who is a far greater menace to the community.

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"We have to reach a point where any one of us can protest in a court of law against an injustice done to one of our fellow citizens - without some judge dismissing us because we lack standing. I am my brother's keeper; therefore, I have all the standing I need" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.