Is our sex obsessed society punishing sexual child abuse too severely,
compared to serious bodily harm to children?
Julie Carr Performed oral sex with baby daughter: 17 years jail; filmed it: 20 years.
Compare: killing baby: 4 years; causing permanent brain damage: 2 years.
We will be attacked now with untrue accusations of "promoting child abuse". Which, of course, we are not doing. We don’t say Julie Carr should go unpunished.
Warning: not safe for children. Do not continue reading if you are easily offended.
We try to avoid explicit language, but even CNN uses some semi-explicit language
We are wondering what is less damaging to the infant:
- a mother licking baby in the wrong places. (17 years in jail) plus 10 years supervision plus life long sex offender registration
- physical abuse: violent shaking of an infant causing permanent life long brain damage (2 years jail). Or killing infant (4-5 years in jail). No registration in murderous-nanny-registry to prevent future work as nanny.
No, we are not condoning either behavior. We don’t think it is normal, healthy behavior. Sorry for questioning conventional wisdom and asking taboo questions.
If we suggested killing Julie Carr vigilante style, to mete out a death sentence, or 4 life sentences without parole, that would be acceptable.
But suggesting to even think about lower sentencing for certain kinds of child sexual abuse, is a no-no. We have been warned that this would be dangerous. We hope we will not attract vigilante threats.
But, our sense of justice, our sense of scientific curiosity compels us to ask these questions: Are some licks in inappropriate places really warrant much longer jail terms then violent brain and spinal cord trauma? What kind and how much damage is being caused in the infant by mom licking in inappropriate places? No, we don’t promote or condone such behavior.
And how many other so called "child rapists’ did not do more then Julie Carr? (Did we mention that we don’t condone this behavior, but are opposed to misleadingly call fondling and licking "rape").
Woman sentenced after streaming sex abuse of daughter over webcam|CNN
[Julie] Carr used a webcam to deliver four live videos of herself performing oral sex on her youngest daughter, according to the documents. The videos were sent to Nicholas Wilde, then 19, in West Midlands, England, whom Carr had met on an internet dating site, the documents said.
Woman sentenced after streaming sex abuse of daughter over webcam|CNN
We were surprised that the crime was labeled correctly:
"oral sex on an infant" and and not the usual "rape of infant".
In case you don’t know, any sexual activity, like kissing or fondling with a minor is defined as "rape". Probably it would sound too weird and incredible to write "Mother raped infant daughter". If it were perpetrated by a man, certainly the headline would read "Man raped his infant daughter". And everyone would imagine the guy having committed more atrocious acts then licking a baby’s privates. (No, we don’t approve of this!)
Compare this headline: Former Army Major Daniel Woolverton Sentenced For Raping Baby. Whereupon Human-Stupidity provokingly asked "What kind of rape"? (No, we don’t condone Woolverton’s behavior).
We did not want to be sexually explicit, so we refrained from the graphic terminology CNN used in this case here. But we suspect Woolverton probably engaged in similar activities as mother Julie Carr, like oral sex and manual indecent touching. In Woolverton’s case, we can not know, due to modern misleading language definitions of rape.
We will be crucified for this. People will falsely accuse us of condoning sexual abuse of children. We do not condone Woolverton’s or Julie Carr’s behavior..
Rather our message is 2 fold
Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Julie Carr performed oral sex with baby daughter: 17 years jail; filmed it: 20 years. Too harsh compared to 4 years for baby killer?” »
Julie Carr performed oral sex with baby daughter: 17 years jail; f…
» continues here »