As I write this, I fully understand that the public's reaction to tomorrow morning's headline of 'Patrick Sullivan gets 30-days' will be an initial reaction of outrage and disgust at the "miscarriages of the justice system".
Just because he is the former Arapahoe County Sheriff with his name on the building, he gets a slap on the wrist. That sucks, I get it.
But once again I must be the contrarian in the room. This should truly be more typical of the sentencing for similar crimes from “the little guy”. 30-days in jail for "sex-for-insert your trade good here" actually seems entirely too harsh. 30-days in treatment maybe, but jail?
I thought jail was a place for people who hurt others.
The allegations were that Patrick Sullivan attempted to trade methamphetamine for sex with a male prostitute, and he should supposedly go to jail for that.
But no one seems to ask, 'why should we allow anyone to intrude on voluntary exchanges between consenting adults?' Especially a nameless, faceless, resource-sucking “government” of professional bureaucrats who are basically paid rule-makers, and loophole hunters.
The details of the state's case against Sullivan won't be fully brought to light as he admitted guilt of the charges against him. Fortunately for those concerned with the facts, video of the sting was released by CBS4 and can be found here.
And as you watch the supposed crimes committed, it becomes clear that no one was going to be hurt, all of the interactions were progressing voluntarily, and that the only aggressors were the men in green suits detonating grenades and screaming commands with guns drawn.
Because two people were going to get high and have sex...
Though the footage is clearly embarrassing for Sullivan, as anyone's bedroom escapades might be, I personally fail to see the justification for caging the man.
Public shame can be a fruitful deterrent, but violence usually breeds more violence.
I understand the coming outrage, and it is surely coming if the early commenters reflect the general opinion of the sentencing, it seems that the state is going to take a beating on this one. Which I would normally consider a good thing, but not when at the expense individual liberty.
I won't join the lynching.
Especially because I know that the very existence of “meth” is a direct result of the government's war on drugs. People would have never started smoking household poisons were it not for heavy jail sentences for the possession of other natural alternatives. Just sayin'.
The hypocrisy out of both, Sullivan for enforcing laws he didn't follow and the judge for going light on the guy because his name is on the building, is obviously staggering. Though it shouldn't come wholly unexpected.
When laws are written that criminalize peaceful activity, meaning no person or property was harmed or going to be harmed, it is an invitation for even the system itself to disrespect the rule of law and fair sentencing standards.
If you really intended for less people to do dangerous drugs or have illicit sex with prostitutes, make them legal. Have more or less people engaged in both since they have been prohibited in this country?
Freedom is the great equalizer, statism is never the answer if you actually want to fix a problem.
DISCLAIMER: I do not endorse the use of meth, prostitution, or flash-bang grenades. The use of all of which are actually repugnant to my own sensibilities. The opinion expressed above simply represents my own desire for people to be able to associate and interact voluntarily in peace.