Hypocrisy
I am here today to call Hypocrisy and bullshit on the enire State of Utah. Or at least it's judicial system. the subject is the Warren Jeffs trial. For those that don't follow weird news Jeffs is the leader of the "Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" He has been arrested not for being involved in polygamy as Utah is very quick to say but as an accessory to Rape. In specific he arranged a marriage between a 14 yo girl and her 19 yo cousin.
Now leaving all of that aside the fact that Utah continues to insist that polygamy has nothing to do with this case is pure crap. The fact that they have arrested the "accessory" to rape and not the actual alleged rapist,Allen Steed, gives lie to that fact. Steed in fact testified at the trial of Jeffs.
Is Jeffs a flake? Yeah, probably. But the simple fact is he has been arrested because he lives a lifestyle and preaches a doctrine that is not "correct" in the US. Not for rape.
Now leaving all of that aside the fact that Utah continues to insist that polygamy has nothing to do with this case is pure crap. The fact that they have arrested the "accessory" to rape and not the actual alleged rapist,Allen Steed, gives lie to that fact. Steed in fact testified at the trial of Jeffs.
Is Jeffs a flake? Yeah, probably. But the simple fact is he has been arrested because he lives a lifestyle and preaches a doctrine that is not "correct" in the US. Not for rape.
posted by exMI | 11:08
7 Comments:
I'd suggest that Steed had an immunity for testimony deal, but his testimony doesn't seem that favorable for the prosecution.
OK, and they got Capone for tax evasion.
He was called tot he stand by the defense.
Yeah, but with Capone they didn't pretend it wasn't because he was a gangster.
They have now charged Alan Steed with rape.
From what I've read, Jeffs makes David Koresh look like a normal dude. Wikipedia has a nice article on him.
As much as I don't like the guy, religion is religion, and we shouldn't be in the business of going after cult leaders just because their way of thinking is out of whack. If they could get him for real rape, murder, or something real, then by all means, get him. But polygamy is part of his religion, like it or not. And as far as we know, nobody put a gun to anyone's head to be one of his wives.
I wonder if anyone's brave enough to use a 1st Amendment defense of this guy.
I don't think "it's my religion" is a universal legal defense. Where do you draw the line?
Polygamy is my religion.
Marijuana is my religion.
Peyote is my religion.
Heroin in my religion.
Gambling is my religion.
Prostitution is my religion.
Animal sacrifice is my religion.
Human sacrifice is my religion.
Since there's no definition of "religion", you could put any activity under that umbrella.
(I need to do some research, but from what I recall, there's a putatively Native American religion allowed to use peyote, but on the other hand there was a recent case where some other people were busted for their "sacramental" marijuana. So precedent isn't very clear.)
Well, crap, I'm a lawyer, so I guess I oughta say what "the law" is, as distasteful as it is to me.
Unfortunately, "It's my religion" is pretty much not a defense, ever. Peyote is illegal, and it doesn't matter one whit whether you believe it's part of your religion. See Employment Division v. Smith for details. Scalia had the gall in that opinion to site the execrable Reynolds case. Ticks me off every time I think about it.
What anonymous is thinking about with regards to peyote is probably a legislative exception carved out because of the outcry over the Smith case, but it is not based in the constitution.
Now, if conduct is made illegal just because it is religious in nature, like chicken sacrifices, then that's a violation of the constitution. Don't laugh about the chicken sacrifice -- that's what the case actually talks about. That is the Hialeah case. The argument goes, people are always killing chickens. You can't make it illegal to kill a chicken only if it's done in a religious way. Or something like that. If the city had passed a law banning the killing of chickens, period, OK, that's fine.
So SCOTUS agreed with you, anonymous. I do not.
Post a Comment
<< Home