Question: Marlin Perkins and Jim Fowler? (Insert music from Jeopardy ©.)
Answer: Who are these men and what did they do? They were the weekly hosts of a nature/animal oriented television show sponsored by an insurance company. It was the manner in which Marlin Perkins (Director Emeritus of the St. Louis Zoo) and Fowler highlighted the lives of various animal species captured on film in their natural habitat made them competitive with Disney’s “pocket documentaries” (90 minute or less durations).
Often the subject animal used its protective coloration (if it had it) as camouflage. Young minds saw how young animals were without natural strength and power to protect themselves from predators, yet they could virtually “hide in plain sight”. As the animal grew older it used the same protective coloration (in certain cases) to again “hide in plain sight” stalking prey. Perkins and Fowler showed the actual usage of camouflage concealing or cloaking them as they lay in waiting for their next victim was educational to all. There was no debate about whether the victim’s rights superseded those of the predator. It was a matter of survival for one to trick the other until a favorable outcome was derived by one or the other.
In human interaction there’s always room for debate. There’s room for justifications and there’s always time to bury the victims.
In 2011, Bobby Jindal sponsored legislation removing known, registered, juvenile related sexual predators’ rights to use “Social Media” (Facebook, My Space, Twitter etc.). The legislation defined “chat rooms”, “social networking websites), “peer to peer networks” and other salient or relevant terminologies associated with “social networks”.
On February 16th, 2012, Judge Brian A. Jackson, U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Louisiana, ruled against the law under appeal. He said the wording was too “broad” to be constitutional. That’s his job, to interpret the law and issue judgment concerning the constitutionality of the law as written and is engaged to enforce. That’s what we pay him for. Jindal will probably appeal to his higher power.
And Jackson may be right. Some think the ruling sucks and is unreasonable based on emotional responses to realities we’re aware of from working in law enforcement. Protecting children always will be primary for cops and prosecutors: not satisfying a judge removed from the realities we see regularly.
This is an example of law being written based on knee-jerk, reactionary motives. This is designed to draw support for politicians; not actually drafting the legislation with a knowledge and understanding of law and its possible interpretations being brought before the bar. Nobody at this level ever plays the game of “what if?” to prevent rejection of the law under appeal.
Jindal’s people set it so predators can’t go near a “chat room”, “social networking website, “peer to peer network” and other salient or relevant websites for them to gain employment or other social necessities made available to ALL people before and after conviction for any crimes. They can’t contact their Probation or Parole agent for communication. They can’t search jobsites. The restrictions are so heavily restrictive it was ruled a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
But, who’s looking out for the rights of the victim being stalked by the once endangered, camouflaged and hidden juvenile grown to adulthood and is now the predator? Answer: it sure as heck ain’t the Federal Courts because they’re charged with interpreting law. They have NO responsibility to play the “what if” game. They have NO desire or drive to care about the victim being stalked. They are charged and required to sit above it all and read the law as written. Then they tell us what it means in their view.
Their view should require they look at the death of victim’s childhoods, the murder of their futures and the homicide of people stalked with permission granted by detached and myopic jurists.
In securing the rights of the predator, they probably seal the fate of a victim somewhere.
It’s got to make for a pretty lousy sleep pattern for somebody. It occasionally keeps me awake at night. I wonder how well the judges sleep.
Thanks for listening.