Julie Carr performed oral sex with baby daughter: 17 years jail; filmed it: 20 years. Too harsh compared to 4 years for baby killer?

 

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:

  1. a mother licking baby in the wrong places. (17 years in jail) plus 10 years supervision plus life long sex offender registration
  2. 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

 

  1. Animal mother licks babyDon’t mislead! Use correct clear language: Saying "raping a baby"  is meant to confuse people into thinking he did worse things then "oral sex on an infant". NO! we are not saying that oral sex on an infant is right. We are saying: call a spade a spade. Call crimes by their names, don’t mislead the public by abusing and re-defining the language. The real crime is bad enough. No exaggeration is needed.
  2. Re-analyze our sex-obsession. Are the punishments for sexual non violent acts overblown? This issue has already been discussed above.

If Carr (the mother) had licked the baby on the hand, the feet, the arm, even the belly, nobody would think anything of it. It would be perfectly legal, normal, and morally acceptable. She was probably unaware that putting the tongue in the wrong place would be considered a heinous crime, much worse then killing or permanently disabling her infant. Quite likely she was stupid and thoughtless, but probably she is in no way a carreer criminal and long term danger. (Did we mention that we don’t condone Julie Carr’s behavior?)

"I want to say that I am sorry," she told the court. "I never meant to hurt anyone in my family, and I have regretted it ever since."

Once released, Carr will receive a mandatory 10 years of supervision where, along with checks for drugs and alcohol, her computer and internet use will be monitored, the documents said. She will also be registered as a sex offender
Woman sentenced after streaming sex abuse of daughter over webcam|CNN

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share

Author: Human-Stupidy (Admin)

Honest Research, Truth, Sincerity is our maxim. We hate politally correct falsification, falsification, repression of the truth, academic dishonesty and censorship.

2 thoughts on “Julie Carr performed oral sex with baby daughter: 17 years jail; filmed it: 20 years. Too harsh compared to 4 years for baby killer?”

  1. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Prior to the Romans, originating in Jerusalem and possibly more ancient civilizations – it was much more common for “courts” (assemblies of peers and village / tribal elders) to assemble the victim and perpetrator together. The court would decide how much harm had been done to the victims family – and then decide on punishment. There was no imprisonment, just a fine and usually slavery to the victims family. It was a well-balanced system that worked for a long time until the Roman military garrison-style prisons were used to prevent the criminal from absconding (common especially as many citizens were annexed from conquered lands). We never went back and I have always believed we should had adopted this approach. The ultimate punishment was death in the Jewish society (although rarely used) and the sheer idea of not being protected from the victim’s family would serve as one of the best deterrents I can think of. Intra familiar abuse could be judged once a divorce had been awarded. This would prevent these modern day judges from imposing their moral judgements on individuals – and bypasses the flawed legal system that recruits only those judges who share the same moral compass and sense of justice as other judges.

    The day we stop questioning any system is the day we cease being intelligent humans capable of love and understanding.

    We need to move away from the media-driven legal system that is in use today. Looking back at history – no other part of criminal jurisprudence has received as much of an increase in severity of punishment as that to do with children. The reasons are possibly many fold but they are there.

    All I want to see is society questioning that which it has been force fed by the media and the government. Without that – we will never understand what drives people to do this kind of thing. It is a flaw not just with the individual but with all those who contributed to it.

    I too do not condone child abuse. I just question how clear people’s understanding is of these sorts of matters. If we all went with knee-jerk reactions, we would never survive as a species. Peace and love to everyone – especially those who are affected and struggle with a history of abuse.

  2. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    I couldn’t agree more.

    I understood your need to clarify every few words, though, people would take this the wrong way, but I agree completely. I’m shocked to hear that a direct action on a child causing the death of that child was just treated with 4 years. Similarly, I heard of a vegan couple not too long ago, that starved their baby to death by only giving her apple sauce and some kind of soy product.. The baby died from malnutrition, they were given 8 or 9 years.

    I wonder when we left the realm of charging crimes based on the direct effect they had on the victim/s, and started charging them based on whatever is technically ‘correct’.

Leave a Reply. We appreciate a discussion: if you disagree, your comment still is welcome.