He's arguing that sexual assault should not have been included in the list of the "worst of the worst" crimes which count as strikes under the new law, or perhaps he's saying that the sexual assault in the first case to result in a Strike wasn't bad enough to count for one. Have a read and tell me which you think.
Often Bomber and I are on similar pages politically, or if not we're at least in the same chapter. We have gone in different directions politically since we were part of a cabal of lefties at uni together, not in terms of left or right but in relation to the issues we care most about and how we pursue those. It feels kind of odd to be reading something Bomber's written and feeling... well, icky.
Bomber too is opposed to the Three Strikes Law, and he outlines well just why that is. And see for me that would have been enough. I don't know that there's any need to go on and then develop a case that sexual assault (or this particular sexual assault) is not a serious enough crime to count as a strike. But that's precisely where Bomber goes, including:
Now this sexual assault was pretty awful for the woman involved (it is her home, she should never have to feel fear in her own space) [see those last four words should not be there at all, for a start - J] and Dwyane Christopher Mercer obviously let himself down horribly as an individual with his drunken pursuit of someone who clearly wanted nothing more than to sleep.Then in the comments he writes:
As awful as that situation was though, how on earth could his groping of a woman through their clothes EVER be considered 'the worst of the worst'? In the pantheon of awful acts human beings can commit on one another, this act deeply underwhelms.
...The sexual assault was awful and of course should be punished, but was this offending the worst of the worst? No, it clearly isn't the worst of the worst.And later:
...The offending in this case IS NOT the worst of the worst, that doesn't mean he shouldn't be punished, it means the defence that this law wouldn't net prisoners on the low end of offending isn't true and we will get an explosion in the prison population which will please the private prison industry and set us on the future of worse offending committed by more and more damaged human beings ejected from an underfunded, overcrowded, corrupt State prison system...
...Within the sexual assault band, is his offending the worst of the worst? It clearly is not, now that is not to insinuate that his offense wasn't serious to the woman assaulted, of course it was, but within that band of offending, what he did was low...Thank goodness for A Nonny Moose who has waded in over on Tumeke with a helpful comment including:
I'm with Anonymous. I may have some issues with the 3 Strikes law, but to posit it's first use on a "lowly" sexual assault is to negate the seriousness of sexual assault.My concern with Bradbury's post is that while I don't think he intends to minimise sexual assault he actually does.
...You start out by implying empathy for the victim, but because the offending doesn't directly affect you, then hey, it's not so bad. You just completely negated the seriousness it has for the victim.
Sexual assault does not have some sliding scale of heinousness. To imply that unless it was full penis-in-vagina rape, other types of sexual assault just aren't "serious enough to be taken seriously"...
I don't think Mercer should be getting a Strike for this. I don't think anyone should be getting any Strikes for anything. The whole concept of ranking crimes on a "worst of the worst" scale (does that make stuff that's not least worst "best"?) is ridiculous anyway, and far too subjective to be useful. And I don't have to denigrate and dismiss the crime of sexual assault, or this particular instance of it, in order to say any of that.