Queen Oprah
So yesterday I'm watching Oprah's show on child molesters featuring the Idaho case of Shasta Groene. This gruesome case is enough to get anyone up in arms, yet Oprah goes over the top at times. Her solution to keep child molesters off the street---put all molesters in jail for life the first time they molest a child. At first glance, this sounds like a good way to handle the monsters who are out there stalking children. But wait a second--what happens to the defendants who are accused of molesting a child but are innocent? How would the courts handle that?
I think what we really learn from Oprah's anger is that she will get back at anyone she does not like without thought to the repurcussions it could have on other people. For all the people out there who would vote for Oprah for president (which I find preposterous) ask yourself if you would want to incur her wrath. Just look at the poor Hermes president groveling on Oprah's show for not giving her a personal shopping day in a closed store. Oprah stated that this episode was not about shopping for a purse--but from the looks of it--it was about shopping for a purse and people not realizing how famous she is. Look how angry she gets when Katrina hits Louisiana. For Oprah, if the world doesn't go the way she wants, her tendency is to lash out. If Oprah isn't happy, someone is going to pay. Is that the kind of president you would want?
So yesterday I'm watching Oprah's show on child molesters featuring the Idaho case of Shasta Groene. This gruesome case is enough to get anyone up in arms, yet Oprah goes over the top at times. Her solution to keep child molesters off the street---put all molesters in jail for life the first time they molest a child. At first glance, this sounds like a good way to handle the monsters who are out there stalking children. But wait a second--what happens to the defendants who are accused of molesting a child but are innocent? How would the courts handle that?
I think what we really learn from Oprah's anger is that she will get back at anyone she does not like without thought to the repurcussions it could have on other people. For all the people out there who would vote for Oprah for president (which I find preposterous) ask yourself if you would want to incur her wrath. Just look at the poor Hermes president groveling on Oprah's show for not giving her a personal shopping day in a closed store. Oprah stated that this episode was not about shopping for a purse--but from the looks of it--it was about shopping for a purse and people not realizing how famous she is. Look how angry she gets when Katrina hits Louisiana. For Oprah, if the world doesn't go the way she wants, her tendency is to lash out. If Oprah isn't happy, someone is going to pay. Is that the kind of president you would want?
11 Comments:
I visited the site but quickly drowned in syrupy features on Are You a Racist?,
Uma Thurman on Love and Marriage, Oprah's Guide to How She Lost Weight on her 52nd weight loss plan etc.
Sorry. I know its very neanderthal of me, but I find her ponderous moral boosterism hard to take.
what happens to the defendants who are accused of molesting a child but are innocent?
You are missing the point, they are found guilty, they aren't innocent. And if they never get out they can't molest another child. Have you realized that these monsters escalate in violence with each offense?
There are some pure evil people out there and we have every right to protect ourselves against them. And we must protect our children from these monsters.
To Americanwoman:
Look, I said in the post that they were innocent and found guilty. Believe it or not, in our hyped up hysterical "every man is a child abuser climate" in the US (promoted by Ms. Winfrey and others) people are found guilty of crimes they did not commit or that were not "evil enough" to warrant a lifetime in prison. Yes, real child molesters are horrible but so is the hysterical behavior that promotes fear of children in many adults in this country. Also, what constitutes child abuse? Should someone go to jail for life the first time they "touch" a child? Which touch constitutes life in prison? Most murderers do not serve life in prison. There are many points to consider in this one strike, you are out law. Using the media like Ms. Winfrey to promote blanket laws about sexual abuse is irresponsible and potentially dangerous.
You have to admit, Dr. Helen, that our justice system has not done a great job keeping violent sexual offenders off the streets and from preying on our children.
There is always the risk that an innocent person will be found guilty, which is why our laws favor the accused to a large degree. And it is also why all death penalty cases get an automatic appeal.
But if someone not simply molests, but violently abuses a child, they should be locked up for life.
The man who murdered Shasta's Groen's family, was a known violent sexual predator yet was allowed out on bail. There are many cases that follow a similiar trend. Even John Wayne Gacey had a trail of crimes which when looked at now, could have predicted his behavior.
We do need to realize that there are some very bad people out there who are not going to be deterred by light jail sentences or cured by therapy. Any molestation that involves violence should be dealt with with harsh penalties and possibly life in prison.
I would be in favor for a two strikes law, but only if DNA or some other incontrovertible evidence (e.g. videotape, caught in flagrante delicto, etc.) were present.
I wonder how Oprah squares her belief in One Strike with her past discussions of the Innocence Project and wrongful convictions.
To Pogo
Great point--I don't think Oprah thinks much about the hypocrisy of some of her convictions. There was a recent article in the July issue of Oprah magazine on teens who kill (which I helped them with and they gave me no credit on--just a little insight into the ethics of the Oprah operation). Anyway, the byline of the article states that the teen killers' (mostly girls) crimes could have been prevented which is true but what's happening to them is another kind of murder. I can only infer that what is happening to them is staying in jail for the rest of their life for the murders of innocent people. The magazine apparently finds actual murderers as more deserving of leniency than a man who touches a child in an inappropriate way. How hypocritical is that? BTW--the link you gave on wrongful convictions does not work--could you send it to me or put the corrected link into another comment so I could take a look at it? Thanks.
Oprah could be our very own (unmarried) Evita...
I have never been a fan of Oprah - I admire her for building an empire - that is not an easy thing to do - but I am not one of the devoted and find her show rather revolting. As you note - she often espouses 2 diametrically opposed views with great ease... in other words - it's whatever Oprah thinks is right...
I'm pretty lucky - in my job I don't have to pay too much attention to her at all. I'm sorry that your work means you have to at least know what she's talking about. Yuck!
re: You are missing the point, they are found guilty, they aren't innocent.
Not always; just ask these folks.
actually, your mention of oprah's failure to credit you gives me some insight into YOUR biases and point of view as well.
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home