The prosecutor using an obscure law to potentially send a 14-year-old Pennsylvania boy away for two years because of an immature, yet harmless, prank has some skeletons of his own it seems.
The boy, who has not been named by police because he is a juvenile, took some pictures of himself being silly with a statue of Jesus. The photos, which have gone viral on social media, show the teen simulating oral sex with the statue.
While the prank is certainly in bad taste, no damage was done to the statue and no one was harmed.
In fact, it was just as senseless and immature as, say, a child “desecrating” other statues because kids are kids, and they can be downright perverted at times, don’t chaknow?
Just like the “Jesus” picture, this is equal parts harmless and stupid.
Unfortunately for the kid who chose Jesus rather than Ronald McDonald, Bedford County district Attorney Bill Higgins wants to use an obscure law regarding the desecration of venerated objects to punish the kid in a manner that is wildly disproportionate with his “crime.”
Higgens claimed that the “troubled young man” offended community morals with his photographs, and he intends to waste taxpayer dollars prosecuting him to the fullest extent of the “rarely-used” 1972 law.
A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if he:
(1) intentionally desecrates any public monument or structure, or place of worship or burial;
(2) intentionally desecrates any other object of veneration by the public or a substantial segment thereof in any public place; …
Definitions. — “Desecrate.” Defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action.
“His actions constitute a violation of the law, and he will be prosecuted accordingly,” Higgins said. “If that tends to upset the ‘anti-Christian, ban-school-prayer, war-on-Christmas, oppose-display-of-Ten-Commandments’ crowd, I make no apologies.”
Higgins, however, should be apologizing — for his hypocrisy. The prosecutor has done far more to offend Christian morals than a 14-year-old boy having a bit of fun with an inanimate object. After all, it’s not like he gave a convicted child molester the opportunity to justify his crimes in a Christian Journal op-ed, enacted a crowdfunding effort to eliminate the President of the United States by force, enjoyed some good old-fashioned adult videos or committed adultery.
The latter two items on that short list of ways supposed Christians have offended their own morality are more the prosecutor’s style. Six years ago, Higgins admitted to having an extramarital affair in his local courthouse office with a woman after a Bedford County Republicans meeting.
The woman said that her encounter with Higgins, who was the vice-chair at the time, was consensual, but later filed a criminal complaint against him, accusing the prosecutor of sexual assault. Charges were eventually dropped.
In any case, surely these acts would “offend” community morals more than a teenager shoving his genitals against some concrete.
The prosecutor has also recently posted “adult-themed” content on Twitter — an interview with adult film star Nick Manning and Howard Stern, in which Manning discusses “dropping loads.”
Interestingly, the church did not pursue charges — it was all police and Higgins. A spokesman for Love in the Name of Christ told RawStory that they did not ask police to press charges, though they do not condone the teen’s actions, saying:
“And repercussions that have come from this have been because of what he has posted on Facebook. We have asked for prayer for this young man. And Love Inc. did not press charges against him. So, what is happening is from the police. It is not from the ministry. It’s really sad. It’s just sad.”
Let’s get this straight: Having extramarital sex is perfectly fine, according to the moral compass of District Attorney Higgins and the community he represents, but a 14-year-old boy just being a little bit of a pervert (like most 14-year-old boys are sometimes) is somehow a crime that necessitates the removal of this dangerous criminal from the public?