CO- Check the facts, mam

8-16-2008 Colorado:

Exactly who are these pea brains that are making an issue of Jerry Sonnenberg’s employee? Why have they assumed his parental duty to “protect” his teen-aged sons? And when did they get picked to serve on the guy’s jury? And exactly why do they think it is any of their damn business? Whatever happened to “innocent until found guilty”? Great shades of Salem. And the Spanish inquisition.

Now, Jerry Sonnenberg and I don’t always agree on things political, even if we are in the same party. I don’t know Jerry personally, but I’ll bet he would support my right to disagree with him on certain issues. On this issue, though, I’d support him to the ends of the earth. He is an honorable member of society, of legal age and sound mind and an official elected by the people. He has the right to associate with any friends whom he wants to and to judge, for his own purpose, their character. I wonder how a close study of all the friends of these self-appointed inquisitors would result. Have any of their associates ever been accused of wrongdoing?

As for protecting the kids, I don’t know the younger of Jerry’s sons, but I do know Jerry’s older son Josh. He has been in classes for which I substituted at Sterling High School, and we’ve had several extended conversations. He’s one of the brightest and best of the students I know. He has his sights set on a political career and he will, some day soon, be a political force to be reckoned with. Had these goody-snoops inquired even that far, they would have discovered that Josh would be in no danger, even if plunked into a passel of predators. He’d have ‘em outwitted in minutes. Which point is moot, because Jerry knows his friend, and if he presented any danger to the boys, Jerry wouldn’t have had him around them.

Now for those purveyors of purity who have condemned this man, and by association, even Jerry: If anyone who has adopted the role of savior of the world’s morals would like to have a bit of enlightenment, I can provide it. I have no sympathy for a child molester, or one who would commit rape in any of its logical definitions. Repeat predators especially sicken me. A sex offense charge always tweaks the interest of those most holy because of the stigma attached. It is also one of the easiest to get a conviction because the accused is more apt to grab a plea to a minor offense in order to avoid a messy public trial.

During the five years that I worked as a teacher at the prison, I taught a score or more men who had actually been CONVICTED of sexual crimes. I took the time to check the stories of these men. I believe that many of them were there only because of the prudishness of our current laws, and the limitations on the judiciary’s options. Most of them had been represented by overworked public defenders and prosecuted by overworked and understaffed district attorneys. And most of them had been charged with several crimes in order to prompt a plea to a lesser charge. Most did not fully understand that this would brand them for life. And in all the time I taught at the prison, and all of these “sex offenders” I taught, I would trust any of my grandchildren with all but a handful of them.

Now, this man for whom Jerry is being smeared has not been convicted of any crime. He was originally charged with a fistful of wrongs, and all but one were dropped. Jerry went to great lengths to get permission from the court to have this man work for him. The judge (certainly more aware of the circumstances than any of the dung flingers) granted permission, and that should be the end of it. The pettiness of these critics speaks more about them than it does about Jerry or his friend. It certainly shows a prurient stripe in ‘em.

Maybe these local ohmygawd jure divino meddlers should have had the courage to check with Jerry, as I did. And then shut up. ..Source.. Opinion of George Rice, J.A. columnist