May 12, 2011
Houston Press runs story on "The 10 Hottest Women on the Texas Sex Offenders List"
I know next to nothing about the Houston Press, except that the publication got my attention today by running this feature on "The 10 Hottest Women on the Texas Sex Offenders List." Here is the current run-up to the Houston Press's on-line posting of 10 mugshots:
You probably would not be too surprised to learn that the vast majority of people in the Texas Department of Public Safety's sex offender list are male. And most are not good-looking.
But there are females on there, too. Most of them are not good-looking, true, but who takes a good mugshot besides Tom DeLay?
We combed through 15 of the biggest counties in Texas and came up with the ten hottest women in the database. Warning: In some cases, we picked out the best of a series of mugshots. Alternative choices were starkly different. So click on each link before you send any marriage proposals.
(Note: A lot of people riled up; in case you don't read the comments we posted this in response:
I can understand how some people might react to this. On the other hand, it's a way of getting readers to look at the info, maybe get them to realize there are people out there like this and they all don't look like the obvious stereotypical pervert.
It's understood not everyone will agree.)
Some of the comments to this piece are as distasteful as the piece itself, while other rightly call out the Press for its (lack of) editorial judgment here. This comment from "Houston Resident" especially stood out: "This piece of garbage is vile and disrespectful on a number of levels. For shame."
UPDATE: This follow-up piece from CBS News is headlined "Author of 'Hottest Sex Offenders' list apologizes."
May 12, 2011 at 04:50 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Houston Press runs story on "The 10 Hottest Women on the Texas Sex Offenders List":
That comment added after the fact seems an ex post facto attempt to mitigate what turned out to be an extremely disturbing story concept. I'm disgusted.
Posted by: Bill B. | May 12, 2011 5:06:04 PM
Distasteful? No more distasteful than all the advertising on all the TV channels that flaunt sex and sexuality.
The only reason there is a sex offender registry is because America has such an appetite for all things to do with sex.
There is no DUI registry, no robbery registry, no drug dealer registry. Just not sexy enough.
Posted by: anon2 | May 12, 2011 5:10:34 PM
If the offender is Playboy model grade, she is no longer an offender, but a privilege. Most sex objects are set from early childhood, and children want developed people of the opposite sex, not so much other children. The prosecution of beautiful women for having sex with an enthusiastic young male adolescent is for show by the feminist. They use the prosecution of beautiful women to show they are fair and treat everyone equally. It is for the appearance of virtue.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 12, 2011 5:15:00 PM
Just saw the pics. These ladies would not be in Playboy. However, they could deliver Playboy to the newsstands. Bowow. Sorry.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 12, 2011 6:12:08 PM
The comments aren't even Nazi. Compare Jury convicts man in sex offender’s killing with multiple comments like this:
“Mr. Craig decided to be the judge, jury and executioner in this case,”Somebody had to be!!! I dont have any hate for this man in the pic above, he is a flippin' HERO!!!!!!!! this sex offender would have just got out and hurt someone else, they always do, they are garbage!!! he took out the trash
Posted by: George | May 12, 2011 7:04:45 PM
Supremacy Claus' comments in response to this post provide further evidence of his bigotry and mental illness. He should be banned from this blog.
Posted by: Jennifer | May 12, 2011 8:48:58 PM
While I have never agreed with a single thing Supremacy Claus has posted on this blog - and he needs no help in making an ass of himself on a daily basis - I think it would be unwise to suppress his speech by banning him. However, I do feel your pain, .Jennifer.
Posted by: Steve Prof | May 12, 2011 9:13:48 PM
Jennifer: I do not believe you should be banned, because censorship of disagreeable speech is the same as knocking over your King in a chess game, an admission your chess board situation is hopeless in the traverse. If you are a lawyer, think about advocacy. I get to you in court, as I have in the Comments, your case is done. The facts abandoned the Left 100 years ago, so personal attack is all that remains, embarrassing more to the utterer than to the target.
If you are a civilian, we have no dispute, and I respect your concerns.
Steve Prof: If you are a prof outside of law school, again, no dispute, and blessings.
If you are a law prof, we have a great deal to discuss in jurisprudence. Am I the first person to tell you the technical meaning of the word, reasonable (in accordance with the New Testament, with reason, being the ability to perceive God, and far more reliable a guide to moral decisions than the intellect, degraded by sin after the Fall from Eden)? No. I am not. You heard it in 10th Grade World History and freshman year Western Civ 101. Your law school education indoctrinated you into forgetting that, and you are left with a word with no precise definition, with a definition that is covered up in every court around the world.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 12, 2011 10:06:36 PM
SC: I've not only defended your right to speak, I've also gone on record saying that you've sometimes had some interesting points (when you're closer to libertarian-Volokh-Conspiracy-contributor-a-bit-off-his-meds mode, as opposed to rant-by-rote mode or just offensive-for-the-sake-of-offensiveness mode). I think you know the difference.
The posts you've had here aren't worthy of someone who (sometimes) has had interesting points to make. You should step it up or give it a rest.
Posted by: guest | May 12, 2011 10:25:10 PM
Guest: I understand your point, probably agree, that is the mature thing to do.
As an owner of the law, I am the most serious person here:
Can we agree that the law is an empirical not a supernatural practice, with every decision having a physical effect on the body of the person? As such, shouldn't all decisions require empirical validation. And that the most serious task of legal academia is to transition from Scholasticism to Empiricism. This is as a matter of law, not just preference, because we are a secular nation, and the entire Scholasticist content of the common law is unlawful.
Prof. Berman likes his academic job as priestly. But, there is no choice. That position is illegal.
You should hold a conference that includes the top of the hierarchy. Decide that from that day, the law will be empirical or nothing else. All signs of Scholasticism will be purged from every lawyer utterance. Get it over with.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 12, 2011 11:46:11 PM
In the movie Animal House, a woman dressed like a Playboy bunny comes flying through the window and lands on the bed. (parade scene near the end) The 10-12 year old boy, sitting on the bed looking at a Playboy, remarks, "Thank you G-d!" I have never heard anyone comment negatively about that scene and we probably all laugh every time we see it.
I speculate that SC was commenting, in part, on the culture of growing up male in this country and the things about which boys think.
Posted by: Stanley Feldman | May 13, 2011 9:40:02 AM
In the spirit of the article, I say we vote for the Hottest Crazy Commentors of SL&P. SC, are you in the running?
Posted by: anon2 | May 13, 2011 9:51:57 AM
I am in the running for the Most Caring, Loving, Lawyer Profession Advocate, a lawyer humanitirian award for saving the lawyer profession from its cult tyranny, by a small number of misguided members of the hierarchy. The ABA will have a statue of me in front of its virtual world headquarters in 100 years, with the simple carving underneath, The Savior. There will then be half your number, each making 4 times the current salary, because of the tremendous value you will add to the economy, with 100 times the public esteem of today.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 13, 2011 12:23:51 PM
Stan: Laugh of the Day. Thanks.
More seriously, shouldn't a crime cause a harm? If it causes great pleasure, and no harm whatsoever, unless one believes all sex is rape, great prestige, great boost in self-esteem, and no harm whatsoever, should sex with older women be criminalized? It is to show the appearance of virtue and even handedness in the witch hunt of the male.
For 10,000 years of human history, adulthood was at it biological marker, adolescence. One apprenticed at age 12 or learned one's trade, even being a farm wife. One set out at age 14. One was not infantilized to keep a large segment of the population out of the labor market, nor enrolled in that babysitting service called high school.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 13, 2011 12:32:23 PM
The Houston story, and some similar comments here, are totally disrespectful of the victims of the crimes committed by these women. They exploit the tragic circumstances in which these crimes were perpetrated, and seem devoid of any compassion for those dealing with the aftermath.
I also think that the reporter’s displaying of women in particular in such a way, as well as comments here on this site that are similarly veined - really demonstrate how deeply ingrained attitudes and prejudices against women specifically, can be. They are testament to the pervasive bias that sees women in particular as not only as less than equal, but sometimes as less-than-human objects, similar to chattel or animals, and in a sadly sexualized way.
Posted by: anonymous | May 13, 2011 12:40:20 PM
I must agree with Supremacy Claus.. these women would definitely not belong to Playboy..
Posted by: Tallinna Risteily | May 13, 2011 1:09:13 PM
Priorities are interesting critters.
Posted by: George | May 13, 2011 1:32:40 PM
The problem with the Registry is that we really don't know much about the actual crime. "Sexual Assault" can be many things. A woman in Arizona got drunk and asked a minor to place his hand on her fully clothed breast. She is now serving life in prison. I think her charge may be classified as "Sexual Assault" in many places. That is the charge listed for many of the women in this article.
The USA is hungry for more information about crimes that involve some hint of sex and some enquiring mind came up with the idea for putting pictures on the registry whether the crime was for tinkling in the park or rape.
The whole thing is ripe for some aweful Lifetime Channel made for TV movie.
The solution? Get rid of the Registry.
Posted by: anon2 | May 13, 2011 2:22:50 PM
Totally agree with getting rid of the registry as Anon2 suggests. It's part of the solution. But the problem with the Houston story and related comments (including here) goes beyond that. As noted above, it's disturbing on a number of levels.
Posted by: anonymous | May 13, 2011 2:36:27 PM
Some of the women abused babies, and that is not normal, nor acceptable. If they had sex with adolescent boys, who are in reality, and biologically adult, they did not commit a crime,but a constructive crime. Their prosecution is pretextual, to prevent criticism of the prosecutor for the all out witch hunt of the productive male, the all out attack on the patriarchal family. They use the false prosecution of females in the absence of harm to fend off criticism about bias.
I think, Anon is a feminist, and she makes my points better than I can. In 1911, it was the KKK, a lawyer founded and run terror organization. In 2011, it is the feminists, a lawyer founded and led legal terror organization, riding in our courts, seizing the assets of its object of hatred.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 13, 2011 3:32:18 PM