Idaho judge orders 19-year-old statutory rapist not to have sex until he is marriedJudge Randy Stoker sentenced Cody Duane Scott Herrera of Twin Falls to five to 15 years in prison, but he suspended the sentence for a one-year rider program. If the unmarried Herrera completes the programme, he’ll be released on probation, which requires celibacy unless he weds.
I don't know what to be more outraged about. The fact that another rapist is going unpunished, or that a judge in America thinks he can order someone not to have sex.
Stoker said the probation condition is needed because Herrera told presentence investigators he’s had 34 sexual partners. “If you’re ever on probation with this court, a condition of that will be you will not have sexual relations with anyone except who you’re married to, if you’re married,” Stoker told Herrera.
How many consenting adults this pig has slept with is none of the court's business. It really seems that this judge is more upset about the number of partners that this scumbag has had than the fact that one of those partners was fourteen years old.
Also, no he has not.
And I do NOT like being put into a position where I feel like I'm sticking up for a lowlife like Herrera because I am NOT sticking up for a lowlife like Herrera, I hope he never has any kind of sex ever again in his life. But if this judge can order a chum bucket like him not to have sex, what's stopping him, or any other judge, from deciding someone else should be forced to remain celibate? Maybe someone the judge feels has made too many babies or maybe the judge just has a sincere religious belief that people should not get any action before their wedding night. I don't know, but if we allow judges to start telling people what they can and can't do with their naughty bits, that can not end well.
Also, start putting rapists in prison, goddammit! Even if they are young white men with bright futures.
And speaking of government officials who want to take us back to Puritan times:
An excuse to post pictures of adorable babies? Yes, Please!
Seriously, though. . .
A bill filed by a Tennessee Republican aims to make children born through artificial insemination illegitimate.
Really? How is that. . . how is that even still a thing? Who still makes a distinction between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" babies? Are there still people out there saying "you can not inherit our father's title, for you are a bastard!"
WMC reported that state House Representative Terry Lynn Weaver is sponsoring HB 1406 to repeal Tennessee current statute, TCA 68-3-306, which declares that children born through artificial insemination are the "legitimate" child of the mother's husband.
I don't know which is a sadder statement, the fact that this nincompoop is trying to repeal this law, or the fact that this law had to be passed in the first place. Was there a problem with couples going to fertility clinics and then the husband saying What? I'm not the biological father? You whore!"
Does the law in Tennessee distinguish somehow between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" children? Is there some benefit given to those whose parents were legally married, or denied to those whose parents weren't? I can't imagine even in Tennessee that "legitimacy" holds any legal status.
Pictured: Totally legit.
So what is even the motivation for trying to make this change?
Last year, Weaver was one of 53 GOP lawmakers who got involved in a same-sex marriage divorce that dealt with the custody of a child born through artificial insemination. Weaver and the other lawmakers asserted that the lesbian wife of the child's mother should not be considered a "legitimate" parent under the current statute.
Of course! Of course it has to do with the gay! Of course it has to do with a way to try and hurt or punish same sex couples. Of course! How did I not guess?
Okay, one more adorable baby, and then it's off to bed!