Protecting the Public From Further Crimes of the Criminal

 Back to United States v. Dorvee now. People really need to read this case. The trial judge banged the defendant with more years because the judge feared Dorvee might harm a child. No evidence of this possibility existed.

Where there is no evidence, the law has no legs upon which to stand. Without evidence, there is only the superstition of the judge. The law cannot presume to act to prevent an imaginary harm.

Yet, we do presume people like me do pose a harm to children. Never was a child harmed by me, and of the people with me during my pre-trial detention, I do not think any harmed a child. The government builds upon this fear to do as they want with us. Think on that for a minute or two.

Read the Dorvee opinion, follow the link above, to see that one can harm a child and the federal law is more lenient to them than to people like me. Can anyone explain Congress' reasoning for this?

[Can anyone explain why Congress has not changed the law since the Dorvee case brought this problem to light in 2010? sch 12/10/22.]

The women I was carrying on with before my arrest were in their thirties and their forties. If I do return home after my sentence is served, they will be much older. If they were interested in seeing me, I would be interested in seeing them. That would not entail any crimes I know of. See, I do not understand why anyone would prefer a depiction to a live woman. Experience and the knowing of one's own mind are marks of a mature woman, and quite sexier than playing with the inexperienced and ignorant. Nor is there any need of the government in protecting such women.

From what I know of my fellow detainees, they may not have four women in their lives, but they all have women waiting on them.

Back to the original issue, I do not see that there is any evidence of anyone needing protection from me. 

sch