Taken right from the pages of our recent news of the day, a convicted and high-risk sexual predator and rapist is about to be released and sent to live among women, students and children in a peaceful family community. He has not yet been released, but even his current facility has been created with softening detail not likely found in other facilities constructed to house those who must be removed from polite society for similar reasons.
Inside Edition’s website states, “Fraisure Smith was convicted of rape and is currently locked up at Coalinga State Hospital.
“This controversial facility has tree-lined jogging paths and a spacious mall. “It’s where sex offenders who have already done their time are sent because they are deemed to likely attack again. Most are never allowed to leave. But, Fraisure Smith is set to be released within weeks…”
His release is not the real problem; if he’s done his time and there is no legitimate reason to hold him any longer, he must be set free.
What seems to really bother people is that this non-disputed and convicted high-risk rapist and sexual predator is getting ready to be released and to move into a rural family neighborhood — a neighborhood filled with concerned women and parents, and located near a college campus.
The neighborhood has been described as a “beautiful, tree-lined street where dozens of children live is a California paradise with peacocks strolling about,” yet it is still the location where state authorities have decided to house that high-risk convicted rapist named Fraisure Smith.
What’s additionally infuriating neighbors is that this lovely 4-bedroom house complete with a pool, located in the city of Fairfield, close to California Wine Country, has been chosen to house sex-offender Fraisure Smith upon his release. And to add to the indignity of it all, the $3,200-a-month rent will be paid for by the California taxpayers, giving him that rent-free paradise as his “reward.”
“According to court documents, Smith plead no contest to sexual battery of a 17-year-old girl back in 2006, as well as three other convictions dealing with rape or intent to rape. In 2012, Smith was granted a conditional release.
“Liberty Healthcare, the company that found the home for Smith, says they looked at 1,200 other housing possibilities for the convicted felon before settling on this one,” one account of this incident stated.
One wonders what factors went into the decision-making process to so grant this home to Mr. Smith under his particular circumstances. One can only hope and pray that no one else will have to suffer for this amazingly difficult-to-understand decision on the care and housing of Mr. Fraisure Smith.
To be (sovereign) or not to be: that is the question I received an email today about sovereignty. Why do people seem to want to fight to the “death” to achieve it and keep it?
As many of us know, William Shakespeare wrote the famous “To be or not to be” soliloquy for Hamlet, a character in one of his plays by the same name — and within that question, he was pondering whether it would be better (nobler) for all dejected souls to live miserably or to end one’s sorrows with “a single stroke.”
The soliloquy is a masterpiece of contemplation in that regard.
But this is not about Shakespeare and it is not necessarily about dejected souls; it is about why “sovereignty” might be so coveted.
In order for us to have become a country, the United States of America, the individual states had to give up their state sovereignty and agree to become one nation with all the other states, under a national government. It was not necessarily easy, as we well know, and some individuals or states might wish to go back to being separate and become sovereign once again. Would that in any way be a good thing for the progress of our country or for the progress of mankind? Before that ever happens, we must all give much thought to the question posed: To be (sovereign), or not to be?
Needless to say, those who are in the “sovereign mode” will come up with reasons for hanging on to their particular mode of sovereignty: to keep what they have, to get it back, or to ostensibly gain it for the first time. They may believe there are many different ways of claiming their sovereignty and that somehow they need to hold on to their version of it in order to be true to themselves. I suggest that sovereignty has value only insofar as it enhances the welfare, well-being, and progress of both the individual and mankind in toto.
Take into consideration, for example, the family. Which would we prefer? (and I do mean prefer, not what we feel we have to do, or what others may have forced us to do): to go through life totally on our own (and that includes financial help and even a place to sleep), or to have the backup of our entire family? The same would hold true for individual states and even individual nations. Should a war erupt, having the backup and support of the larger global family would be to everyone’s advantage, since an aggressor would likely not attack in the first place with such a totally united defense.
On a smaller note, one’s individual right of self-determination is bound to clash sooner or later with another’s perceived right of
self-determination, just as one nation or one culture’s perceived right of self-determination has already been known to cause untold suffering to those who see it in a different light.
When any one person, group, religion, government, or country perceives itself as better than all the rest, and therefore holds himself or his entity up as above all the laws, rules, and regulations meant to keep harmony and peace and ward off individual or international chaos and damaging superiority, we can continue to expect dissention, disharmony, and even disaster.
So, what is the answer?
* * * * *
Maramis Choufani is the Managing Editor of the Las Vegas Tribune. She writes a weekly column in this newspaper. To contact Maramis, email her at firstname.lastname@example.org.