Paul Hill’s Extremist Judges
Capitol Area Christian News
Spring, 1997
There were seven Florida State Supreme Court Judges who presided over Paul Hill’s appeal. They were asked to consider whether he was afforded a just trial when his opportunity to present a case for justifiable homicide was denied by the trial judge Frank Bell. They voted to uphold the Judge Bell’s decision. The justices essentially stopped their ears, preferring to turn their faces away from a man whose only opportunity to live was to simply explain why he would give up a happy life with his wife and children and risk death and to argue how his actions were legally defensible.
They regard him as an extremist, a man whose actions are too far out to warrant a serious hearing. (Are they so foolish to think his preaching will die with his body?)
We think they have some eccentricities of their own. In the opposite direction of Truth, some apparently have an affinity for relativism (which leads to statism). No final authority over government? Then government (expressing its will through judges) is the final authority.
In particular, we note that two of the justices, including Chief Justice Stephen H. Grimes, are members of the Episcopal church – that peculiar brand of open-minded folks who raise the eyebrows of other “progressives” over their shameless march toward ordination of sodomites along with all the controversy over sundry pedophilia scandals among their clergy. Their sophisticated broadmindedness has led them far beyond the countenancing of “abortion rights.” These progressives, nevertheless, are certainly outside the mainstream.
Another Justice, Charles Wells, is a United Methodist. This band of reprobates houses the offices of the Religious Coalition of Abortion Rights in their ornate United Methodist Building across the street from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Two of seven indicate no church membership on their official resumes. (Are they pagans or just trying to be sly? Or sly pagans?)
Two have five children; one has four; the rest have three. Not extremists for these times, but certainly all these are men who believe in limiting family size. Are they prejudiced against those who don’t?
Why not hear a man who believes children are a blessing from God, created in His image, to be respected and protected from conception? What do they fear?
Enter, The Privileged Vampire Rapist (AP, 7 August, 1996)
He didn’t do too bad. John Crutchley was sentenced by a circuit judge from Tallahassee, the same city in which the Florida justices refused Paul Hill a fair trial. This man, sentenced to 25 years for kidnapping and raping a 19-year-old woman and draining and drinking half her blood, is out after 10 years. (He had offered to plea to six counts of murder to avoid the death penalty. No deal from the prosecutors; trial and conviction on lesser counts.)
So far so good; no one has been raped and blood-sucked so far that we know of since he was released in Florida last year on the eighth of August.
If only anti-abortionists were treated as well as the vampire rapist. Don Benny Anderson, in since ‘82; Joseph Grace, in since ‘83; Curt Beseda released after 12 years and thrown in again on 24 March for refusing psychiatric drugs as a condition for continuing on parole.
A fair-minded person might call this growing record of hostile sentences against anti-abortionists a clear example of “disparity of sentencing.” And so it may go for a while since anti-abortionist convicts (especially with the passage of FACE) are now political criminals.
Comments are currently closed.