SouthernN'Proud
Southern Discomfort
Reprieve for Rapists?
An Ohio child rapist attempting to have his sentence overturned because the judge in his case mentioned the Bible when meting out punishment has had his appeal rejected, reports the Associated Press.
James Arnett claimed that a Hamilton County judge violated his rights when she sentenced him to 51 years in prison for raping his live-in girlfriend’s 13-year-old daughter.
The judge cited a New Testament passage from Matthew when handing down the sentence: "And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
The Appeals court upheld the sentence, but questioned the “propriety of the trial judge making mention of the Bible at all in her sentencing decision.”
**end**
I think that whole millstone around the neck is a better idea than the 51 years in the poke myself, but I wasn't consulted.
At least they didn't give this freak a new trial or overturn the conviction outright. I'd have to make a trip to Ohio if they had, and I wouldn't be reading no Bible when I got there either.
"His rights were offended by the reading of a Biblical passage..." what about the damn kid's rights when he raped her? He doesn't seem too concerned about those rights, now does he? Makes me wanna puke. I say he's a convicted felon, and a sex offender at that. He has the right to consume oxygen, the right to reasonable nutrition, and the right to maintain a pulse. Nothing more.
Off with his nuts.
An Ohio child rapist attempting to have his sentence overturned because the judge in his case mentioned the Bible when meting out punishment has had his appeal rejected, reports the Associated Press.
James Arnett claimed that a Hamilton County judge violated his rights when she sentenced him to 51 years in prison for raping his live-in girlfriend’s 13-year-old daughter.
The judge cited a New Testament passage from Matthew when handing down the sentence: "And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
The Appeals court upheld the sentence, but questioned the “propriety of the trial judge making mention of the Bible at all in her sentencing decision.”
**end**
I think that whole millstone around the neck is a better idea than the 51 years in the poke myself, but I wasn't consulted.
At least they didn't give this freak a new trial or overturn the conviction outright. I'd have to make a trip to Ohio if they had, and I wouldn't be reading no Bible when I got there either.
"His rights were offended by the reading of a Biblical passage..." what about the damn kid's rights when he raped her? He doesn't seem too concerned about those rights, now does he? Makes me wanna puke. I say he's a convicted felon, and a sex offender at that. He has the right to consume oxygen, the right to reasonable nutrition, and the right to maintain a pulse. Nothing more.
Off with his nuts.
