Monday, August 27, 2007

Lynch mob?

Here in Los Angeles, one Jack McClellan, described as a "self-professed pedophile," has been harassed for the better part of a month by the media and others who managed to convince a court to issue restraining orders keeping him away from any place where children gather.

What's wrong with that? If I caught this guy -- or any other -- getting inappropriate with little girls (or boys), I'd call the police and beat the living bejeebers out of him while I waited for them to arrive.

The problem is this: he has no record of activity as a pedophile. No arrests. No convictions.

He did have a website in which he supposedly indulged his "passion." I've never seen it (and don't want to) so can't tell you what was on it.

There's no doubt the man is a major sicko, but he hasn't done anything yet.

I don't know what to think. Abusing children is one of the most heinous crimes I can think of, and I would have no problem inflicting condign punishment on him if he did anything out of line.

But the baying hounds who are after him bother me. This gets perilously close to Orwellian "thoughtcrime." If he so much as touched a child, I'd be all for throwing his perverted ass behind bars, preferably in a jail full of loving fathers who have no aversion to bloodshed.

I'm not comfortable with punishing McClellan or anyone else for what he or she thinks as opposed to what they do.

Now, the radio pitbulls who have been on him loud and long are trying to pin the murder of a child in Washington State on him. It's all speculation.

I'm confused. My own feelings about the sanctity of children are fighting with my feelings about the sanctity of the law.

The whole thing just seems wrong.


Justfly said...

I am confused to, to how to think.
He is a sicko. He has sick thoughts.
I personally feel like torturing him for just speaking about it, is there nothing else he can talk about to get the attention he is seeking?

lowandslow said...

This is a real conundrum, regardless of the type of crime involved. The police will tell you that they can't do anything in most cases until AFTER the crime has been committed. This is just another reason I'm in favor of allowing law-abiding citizens to possess firearms for self defense. If the police can't protect me, who will? Answer: No one! I am responsible for ME.

MrScribbler said...

jf -- there aren't many other things he could talk about to get all the attention he's receiving. Maybe we could just arrest him for being disgusting?

l&s -- agreed. Would make dealing with this guy easier if he did anything, too.

Anonymous said...

Slippery slope. Separating a class of people and treating them differently from others is exactly what happened in Germany in the 30's.

Many states with their so-called Megans Laws have slid a good deal of the way down said slope. And once the toothpaste is OUT of the tube ............

Anonymous said...

See this is what is wrong with talk radio, or a lot of the other news media. They cause problems when we there shouldn't be one. I don't like this kind of person either, but he still has a right to think what ever he wants. Just so long as he doesn't do anything.

Anonymous said...

a lot of people have their fantasies- be them sick and wrong or not. I would be glad to know this about him if he were in my neighborhood. It is quite a quandary. I could personally rip his arm off and beat him with the bloody end...oh- so perhaps I should be arrested for saying that? a slippery slope is right...Lou

MrScribbler said...

Lou -- if he was in my neighborhood, you'd be at the end of a long line, and there might not be enough left for you to tear off and beat him with.

I'm quite sure my reaction to him in person would be direct and, for him, painful.

John said...

in my experience the police often claim they can't do anything even after the crime is committed
There are cases where an 18 year old hooking up with a 17 yr old, in a state with 18 as age of consent, get
nailed for statutory rape and classed as a sex offender so they are forever stigmatized and limited in all kinds of ways.
The over zealous responses cross lines.
I would say if no crime has been committed that, foul as the guy is, no special restraints should be instituted. He may bear watching if the suspect he'll act out.

I'm also for letting people be armed like Lowandslow said.

Using issues as emotional as that to further the police state is a dangerous thing. People who do not rate punishment end up getting slammed as much or more than the real creeps.
It seems anytime there is an opportunity to ignore truth and common sense they are all over it, yet following the law means nothing in things like immigration and even murder in many cases.