A dispatch from a sane planet.
[Update a few minutes later]
Not directly related, but it’s pretty nutty as well:
The question, in a nutshell, is simple: Does it violate the Equal Protection Clause to prohibit race-conscious admissions? Ironic, isn’t it?
The frightening thing is that there are no doubt some “justices” who will think it does.
From the first link: “I think we should be telling men not to rape women, and start the conversation there.”
From Robert A. Heinlein: “Never appeal to a mans better nature. He may not have one. Invoking his self interest gives you more leverage.”
How do people think they can reason with guys who use alcohol or pharmaceuticals to incapacitate women for sexual purposes, or with the various sorts like the guys who rape random passers-by or the Muslims in Tahrir Square to specifically target infidels, who consolidate their sex drive with their hostility drives?
(Full disclosure: my first jury stint was an aggravated rape case.)
Conviction of rape with DNA proof and one, just ONE, Appeal that upholds the conviction, then the death penalty. It probably wouldn’t be a deterrent, but those convicted, wouldn’t be paroled, just to get out and commit crimes again.
Like happens now all too many times.
I’ve read that a lot of rapists are already using condoms to reduce the chances of leaving DNA evidence. If rape carried the death penalty, then there would be an incentive for the rapist to go ahead and murder the victim to reduce his chances of being caught.
All of a piece…
The left always takes the position that jaw jaw will solve the problem.
Saddam Hussein gassing the Kurds? Rockets being lobbed into Israel? Women being raped?
Talk. Reason with them. Don’t you know they are just misunderstood? Troubled?
With the exception of non-Liberals here, who vote or speak to the opposite of the Liberal ethic. Those who do that, should be shot, killed, imprisoned, or a thousand other things.
But talking to a non-Liberal, or attempting to compromise with one, breaks the Liberal jihad.