Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Lil' Kim Learns What The Meaning Of Is Is

In one of the stranger rulings this year, female rapper Lil' Kim was sentenced today to
1 year in prison for perjury.
The Grammy Award winning rapper received a prison sentence of 1 year plus a
$50,000 fine for "lying to a grand jury" to protect friends.

Although this is news, the real story and what makes this ruling so strange is that it has more to do with the state of our political and judicial system than with Kim.

In April of 1999 Judge Susan Webber Wright found that President Bill Clinton was guilty of perjury, among other things, for giving false testimony regarding the allegations of Paula Jones. Wright wrote:

``Notwithstanding these orders, the record demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the president responded to plaintiff's questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process.''

``... it simply is not acceptable to employ deceptions and falsehoods in an attempt to obstruct the judicial process, understandable as his aggravation with the plaintiff's lawsuit may have been. ..."
Jones v. Clinton, 36 F.Supp.2d. 1118 (E.D.Ark. 12 April 1999)

Despite clear evidence that Mr. Clinton had perjured himself, the entire Democratic Party and much of America came to his defense making an excuse for his lie(s) under oath. The phrase "that depends on what the meaning of is is," is still firmly etched into our minds.

Fast forward 6 years and we now see Lil' Kim without the protection of the Left Wing media prosecuted, convicted and sentenced for a "crime" that is the same as that comitted by the former President.

That would seem like enough of a thought to keep us busy for today, but there is more. The maximum allowed sentence for this "crime" is 20 years in prison, but the prosecution only asked for 3 years. In the end, however, Kim received only a one year sentence. The reason for the light sentence is one for the books. U.S. District Judge Gerard Lynch said he had considered the public perception of sending "a young black entertainer to prison far longer than Martha Stewart." Did you get that? The judge is afraid that people would think something was wrong if we gave a black rapper a much harsher sentence that we gave the rich white lady. So I guess if it were Dido she would be serving 3 years now. Or if it was Lashonda Smith from the Bronx, maybe 10 years. Are they putting law degrees in Cracker Jack boxes now? What kind of legal reasoning is that? To borrow from the late Johnny Cochran, "if you do the crime you must do the time" or "if the glove don't fit you must aquit." You are either guilty or not.

Instead the legal system is beginning to show its serious slide into mediocrity. Situation ethics and moral relativism guides judicial decisions today. There is no real law to be a standard any longer. It appears to be merely what this judge feels is appropriate according to who is in front of them today.

In the end here is the message sent by this verdict today. Perjury is a serious crime and deserves serious jail time, but because we did not punish a rich white lady, and a former President as severely as maybe we should have, we will not punish you as much as we feel you should be.

Come quickly Lord Jesus!

5 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your point is so well made that there is no comment to be made. This is just a shout out to your keen eye.

3:17 PM  
Blogger DarkStar said...

In the end here is the message sent by this verdict today. Perjury is a serious crime and deserves serious jail time, but because we did not punish a rich white lady, and a former President as severely as maybe we should have, we will not punish you as much as we feel you should be.

Yep, and that is how it should be.

2:48 PM  
Blogger Eddie Huff said...

Dark Star,

With this you prove yourself to be a full fledged NUT.

12:10 AM  
Blogger DarkStar said...

Whatever.

I happen to believe that if you are found guilty of the same crimes, and the background of the people are the same, ie criminal record, unless there are extenuating circumstances, they should be given very similar sentences.

Martha was guilty of lying as was "Lil Kim". Neither had a criminal record before that, so, why not give similar sentences?

It's my world and you're the squirrel...

7:36 AM  
Blogger Eddie Huff said...

Ed,

My point was that Kim got a harsher sentence that Martha and Bill and should not have.

12:25 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home