Jessica's Law

If you are not familiar with Jessica's Law it was a law past in Florida in 2005 after Jessica Lunsford. She was a young girl who was brutally raped and murdered. Jessica's law has been introduced in many states and on a federal level. In short, the law requires mandatory prison sentences for child predators.

In total, 42 states have pasted some form of Jessica's Law requiring harsh punishments for those who sexually prey on children. Most forms of Jessica's Law call for these mandatory sentences when the child is 12 years of age or younger.

I know this law is controversial. There are law enforcement people and lawyers that don't like the law because it takes any kind of plea bargaining off the table. These people want the flexibility to place alternate forms of punishment or lighter sentences via plea bargins. Plea bargins, they say, are a method to reduce the number of cases that the already overloaded court system must hear.

Now whether you are for or against legislation such as Jessica's law, there is an interesting parallel that I would like to explore.

Gun control has been a hot topic in this country for many years. Many laws are already on the books and there is always an out cry for more. The recent rash of school shootings are the main reason for wanting tougher and stricter gun laws. Yet it is not the gun that does the killing. It is the person who pulls the trigger.

So many people want mandatory sentences and tougher laws, on something that by itself, commits no crime. But want to be flexible when it comes to prosecuting and punishing those that take advantage of young children. I do believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a right allowed under the constitution of the United States. That point can be argued and is being argued. In fact oral arguments were just heard by the US Supreme Court about a Washington, D.C law. The results of that case are scheduled to be released in June. However, what argument can be made about child predators? We are not talking about someones constitutional right to rape or molest a child because that right does not exist.

In Massachusetts there is one judge who has let 6 sex offenders back on the street. The result, 3 of them are back awaiting trial for sex related crimes. One of them allegedly raped a 6 year old boy in a public library. The judge was told by several experts that this individual was a threat young children and the judge released him anyway and the rape of a 6 year old was the result.

Why are we spending so much time and effort trying to regulate something that by itself kills or hurts no one, yet we let people who have hurt children off with lighter sentences?

I will let you answer that question individually. For ultimately each of us are going to have to answer that question and then let our lawmakers and judges know exactly how we feel.