Grounds for Dismissal

I read an AP article by Kim Curtis in the Houston Chronicle this morning, “Woman accused of burning homeless prostitute to death” (linked via title bar).

“SAN FRANCISCO — Two women are accused of soaking a homeless, drug-addicted prostitute with gasoline and burning her to death after she reported that one of them had robbed her.”

A little further down the page:

“Prosecutor George Butterworth said the crime showed "exceptional depravity."”

I’m not trying to make light of a tragic event that has taken place; however, it happened in San Francisco where it would be difficult to define “exceptional depravity”. Yesterday the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held hearings at the Stanford University Law School to determine what constitutes “hate speech” regarding natural family values and homophobic fear. I’m not making this up.

http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/02/15/9th-circus-hearing-hate-speech-case-you-should-worry/

The use of the term “exceptional depravity” might easily be construed to mean that Mr. Butterworth, a representative for the State of California acting in the capacity of prosecutor, does not approve of the alternative lifestyle that prostitutes exhibit. A careful examination of Mr. Butterworth’s religious background, previous statements regarding natural families or unacceptable relationships might be at variance with the progressive or even non existent social code in the San Francisco metropolitan area.

In a country where the right to life has been interpreted in such vagaries as to permit late term abortion and state assisted euthanasia it might be difficult to imagine any particular act committed by an individual or group of individuals as qualifying as “exceptional depravity”. It sounds like Mr. Butterworth might be a radical right wing Christian attempting to impose an ancient and outdated moral code on an advanced society far removed from any such restraints.

I’m certain that the term robbery will eventually show the earned wages that were forcefully taken from one individual and then redistributed clearly intended to mimic the actions of governmental attempts to do exactly the same thing. These individuals were simply advancing the State’s policy of maximizing social burden relief through confiscatory taxation.

The tragedy is that two hard working women of the streets have been castigated by an employee of the State of California intent on imposing his personal beliefs on the rest of society. Case dismissed!