Law and Order: Criminal Intent

Interesting post,especially on a subject no one wants to touch. As with most other laws,the judge has some leeway,and should also here. The BIGGEST ingredient lacking in most of these types of cases is COMMON SENSE.A 30yr.old man,getting a 13yr.old,SHOULD be hammered and STOUTLY. A 19yr.old,and a 17yr.old,not so much,again,you have to look at the circumstances.

Thanks for the comments! Like I said, there needs to be some ability of the judges to take everything into account in these cases. Like with the 19 & 17 situation, it may be a technical violation of the law, but in many cases it is never prosecuted. I think what we should also have is prosecutors who have the couage to NOT allow themselves and their offices to be used because a parent disagrees with the choice in boyfriend/girlfriend of their children. Laws like these make it too easy to abuse the system for personal reasons.

Giving judges some say in the matter is the right thing to do. The case involving your family is obviously one of those situations.

As for registering and publicizing sex offenders...that's another time where the judge should have a say, but for the REAL sex offenders, I agree with the registration and public notices, since those folks have such a high recidivism rate. Most murderers who have served their time have outgrown their anger and want to be a functioning citizen again (if they were convicted of murder 1, which carrys a longer term than say murder 3 or manslaughter). Rapists, peeping toms, pedophiles, and kiddie porn folks don't get over their urges while serving their light to moderate sentences. They remain a danger to society.

My problem remains that we are tagging people and tracking them for their entire lives for crimes that they have "paid their debt to society" for; if we want the state to be involved longer, give them longer sentences. I simply do not like the idea of the state being able to track you, and your having to live the entorety of your life paying for a past crime. I understand the recidivism rate of sexual predators, and I understand the emotion of wanting to do SOMETHING to keep our society safe...but if allow them to be put in a position where the G controls them forever, what is to stop the G from deciding that some other class of crime should get this treatment? Once you start down the road to giving government this power over any citizen, where does the road lead, and where will it end?

I am talking myself right out of the campaign, looks like I may end up being "Ferraro-ed" out of the Crawfish campaign..LOL!

I think there are some good points in your essay, but I disagree with some of it, too.

First of all, in decrying the registry aspect, you call for longer sentences for offenders. Well, another way to look at registry IS as a longer sentence of a non-incarceration nature.

From the standpoint of practicality, in most of this type of case the defense attorney simply got out-negotiated; it happens all the time. A Public Defender who's swamped wants the quickest resolution possible, and the deal usually boils down to "no time or less time, but registered offense status", an easy sell by the PD to the loser who's charged. Private attorneys don't fall for this; they don't have to. They're getting actually paid by the defendant. They typically play harder ball, though there are many of THEM who simply aren't very good.

Further, the reality of the criminal system is that there are always going to be people who get harsher or lighter sentences than others charged with the same crime; nature of the beast.

As to the fact that "it's not really stat rape because they got married later"; so what? The law says it is; the guy should have kept his pants zipped. "The girl's parents even bought the birth control"; so what? They're lousy parents; should the law use THAT as an excuse to let the guy go? CPS should have taken the kid away from the parents, obviously.

Would YOU buy YOUR 13-year-old daughter birth control pills?

A kid under the age of consent, by law, is not able to make binding decisions on buying a car; we're supposed to make exceptions about when they can consent to sex? Is 12 okay? 10? There's going to be a line, and it's defined by statute.

When I worked as a PI, I had one case where the perp molested a 6-month old baby. What if HE had tried to claim the baby gave consent? What if the mother had been another pervert who hadn't minded?

Obviously, that's an extreme example, but I think it makes my point.

You're still one of my advisors. I like people who aren't yes-men. On some issues, you'll be my designated devils advocate.

I agree with Brian that the registry is part of the sentence, but a non-incarceratory type.

As for Gerry F, she got booted for telling the truth, albeit in a sloppy manner. Typical action from that side of the aisle. Obama brought race into the campaign by claiming to be the black candidate, when he's more of a white guy (half black, half white, and raised by the white side of the family). His pastor fans the flames with a flamethrower. How can Obama subscribe to the tenants of that church when he's not a fully black guy? Any time someone slams him or questions him harshly, they are branded as racist. Of course, anybody who doesn't bow down and kiss the feet of Her Majesty is either a sexist bigot or a Nazi.

i can't argue what the law says, but I am arguing that there HAS to be some common sense involved here. I know that a person under a certain age cannot give legal consent to a sexual act, but there has to be a way to handle that w/o it bieng classified a crime in all instances. Because if the law is the law, then why is it that females are never charged with stat rape when they are also having sex with someone under the legal age of consent? Why is it that only men are treated as sexual criminals for having sex with their underaged girlfriends, when THEY are underaged as well? Obviously the law ISN'T the law in those instances.

I understand why we have these laws, and ostensibly it is to protect our young people from sexual predators, but these laws are too often used to simply hammer people for moral failings that we have tried to make criminal. No one wants to see real predators walking free to molest or rape again, but I cannot pretend that these laws or their application is fair. Just because I would not want my daughter having sex with her high school boyfriend, if that day ever comes I seriously doubt that I would go running to the cops to have the kid prosecuted and registered as a "sex offender". It always takes two to tango, but we have set up a system where the responsibility is too often a solo dance.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, and thabnks for assuring me there is a place for me in the campaign. As you know, I am far from a "yes man"!

As for "The New Adventures of Old Geraldine", she simply said publicly what everyone has been thinking privately. This is a guy with NO qualifications to be President, yet the press fawns over him like he's Stephen Douglas or William Jennings Bryant! He's is LIVING off the fact that he's black and people are too PC to say anything negative about him, because they know any criticism of Barak will be immediately construed as racist. That allows him to coast along, no matter what real gaffes he commits, with nary a peep being said about it. I heard that clown this morning on NPR talking about how he made a tough decision to vote against President Bush's troop funding proposals, even though he feels that the troops in the field deserve the best equipment, etc. despite the politics of the war. Huh? When John Kerry said basically the same thing ("I voted for it...before I voted against it")he was rightly called a flip-flopper, but when Obama says it the media...if it reacts at all...will treat this as some principled stand. What is principled about denying the troops involved in a war the funding they need to succeed in order to further your political ambitions?

Clyde beat me to the punch.Common sense is lacking and the reason it is lacking is because the scumbag lawyers would tear it apart.That's the main reason laws are as complicated as they are.Good essay....

Females ARE charged with stat rape; there have been several cases over the last few years of teachers being charged and convicted of it; haven't you read about them in the news?

Most teenage girls aren't going to bother with younger boys; if you had a teenaged daughter, you'd know that "older" guys of 19 or 21 or whatever are "hot"; thay also have access to cigarettes and booze, etc. NO teenage girl would be caught dead with a younger guy; dating older is KEWL!

Further, you wrote: "there has to be a way to handle that w/o it bieng classified a crime in all instances."

No, not when it's a violation of criminal statutes. You want to change that, then you can decriminalize it, which would be a blanket act. Is that what you want? You want to make it simply a civil tort? A civil judgement which would be uncollectable? Is that the message we as a society want to send? No harm, no foul, just fork over some money, if you can afford it?

NAMBLA would simply LOOOOVE that!

Further, notice that Themis (the statue of Justice) is blindfolded. The law applies equally to all. You want to create some kind of favored class?

How about a misdemeanor? You want it decriminalized to something equivalent to drunk driving? Is that a step UP?

Again, the vaaaaaast majority of these cases are really depraved. But there's a reason that the "age of consent" is defined by law; kids under a certain age cannot make intelligent and informed decisions.

Now, notice that two underage kids can bang their brains out with no consequences at all. But once one of the parties has reached the "age of consent", that person is presumed by law to know enough to keep the zipper zipped. That's just the way it is, and rightfully so in my opinion.

My point is not to decrimnalize the acts, and I have read about the female teachers charged with stat rape; my point is one that YOU raosed when you say that 2 underaged kids can bang away with no consequence. Tell me this, why is it okay for two 17 year olds to get by with having sex with one another? Isn't that a violation of the stat rape laws, or does the system decide that it's okay for two underage kids to consent to sex with one another...but it is a crime if one of the kids is 18 and the other 17? Because that is exactly what is happening in far too many places, and the sex act is not considered or prosecuted as a crime...even though the laws do not stipulate that there is no criminal act if the two involved are BOTH underaged!

I know that justice is supposed to be blind, but it shouldn't be stupid...and in many cases we can rightly argue that she isn't even blind. Blind justice sees no difference in anyone that commits a crime...all are supposed to get equal treatment. But when we allow for two underaged kids to have sex with no criminal repercussions, then we are selectively applying the laws. I know that's how the real world works, but that doesn't make it right. And I still say that the criminal justice system is not set up to be used for a parent to exact revenge on a kid they don't like, and I have personally seen this done to people. If the purpose of the laws are to protect society, tell me how society benefits from labeling an 18 year old boy a sex offender, tracking him till he dies, and alerting others to his crime when all he is may be truly guilty of is premarital sex...but he is prosecuted b/c his 17 year old girlfirend's parents dislike him?

I understand why there is and needs to be an age of consent, but even that is arbitrary in how it is chosen. In some places the age of consent may be 16, in others 18...but what is about 18 that really makes you an adult? What is about September 16, 1989 that made me suddenly more prepared to consent to anything than September 15, 1989? I know that I was not prepared to live on my own at 16, but I knew some people that were...and were doing just that! So were they, who were living alone and supporting themselves at 16, not prepared to consent to sex? the courts had decided that they could live as adults on their own, but they weren't prepared to say yes or no to a sexual relationship?

Again, I understand that we have to have clearly demarcated lines of consent and all that, but if we aren't willing to enforce the laws against everyone that runs afoul of them, what's the point of having the laws? When we say that two underaged kids having sex is not a crime, but a 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old is we have some holes in the system to fill, because something isn't right there.

As for the "cool older guy" thing, I have sisters so I know how that goes. What I am saying is that if the laws is to be applied equally, then if you have an 18 year old girl having sex with a 17 year old boy then she should be charged. Likewise, if you have two 17 year olds having sex with one another then both should be charged...since both are technically breaking the law. But I am not going to hold my breath waiting on that to happen.

Of course we can't have common sense injected into the criminal justice system, that would prevent the brilliant trial lawyers from finding shadows in penumbras!

That's right, two underage kids can bang away, and it's not stat rape because NEITHER was old enough to make an informed decision. It's the same reason why kids under a certain age can literally get away with murder; in the eyes of the law they're not old enough to legally have the capacity to form criminal intent.

So, they're treated as juvenile offenders -- as would be the case with the two underage kids having sex -- and subjected to the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system.

There's no inconsistency there at all.

As to the "age of consent" being arbitray: not at all. It's rightfully a state issue, and each state makes its own determination as to where the line's drawn.

Would you have it be FEDERAL issue, just for the sake of consistency? I know the answer to that question, if I know you at all.

Each state defines the levels of homicide to its own standards, too, and there's not unanimity there, either. Nor is there in the sentencing, nor -- for that matter -- in almost any other STATE criminal issue.

You want the Feds taking over all criminal justice?

Another rhetorical question, of course.

I can't speak for all states, obviously, but I do know for a fact that there indeed ARE differing levels of offense that can be charged, as well as different statutes under which the offense(s) can be charged, here in California.

There's sex with a minor, oral copulation with a minor, lewd and indecent behavior with a minor, statutory rape, as well as several others. The severity of the offense varies with the charge.

So.......... the news story you referenced may also not tell the whole story.

Liberals have a tendency to find a heartrending story of some poor schmuck "screwed over by the system", then use that one example as a reason to impose radical change on the overall structure of society.

The college educated guy who somehow is homeless, living in his car with his dog and his kid, a great example of how heartless we are, and why we need universal healthcare or some such BS.

As conservatives, we rightfully point out the anecdotal nature of such stories, and how they don't justify the societal change the left is calling for, nor do they justify leftism at all.

Are we then going to turn around and do the same thing when it's our own ox that's being gored?

I take your points, and I understand that in many a case there are differing standards that prosecutors CAN choose, but too often they go for top count indictments and press for sex offender registration for ANY sexual "crime." I have seen it over and over in my state and locality and it stinks to high heaven!

And I don't want there to be some national standard, what I am attempting to point out is how many differing standards there are...and how there is no consistency in charging the crimes. And i still find it inconsistent that for sexual acts between two 17 year olds there is a juvenile offense, but if you have an 18 year old and a 17 year old it suddenly leaps into the superior court system.

Like I said before, I am not looking for the laws to be rescinded, I just want to see a little more common sense involved in the system. I know that many times that common sense doesn't have much place in the court system, but when you look around and see so many cases where the laws are being misused to further political agendas or personal vendettas you realize just how rancid the system has become.

And this is a very interesting and fun discussion.

There is absolutely a LOT of prosecutorial discretion in how most crimes are charged and prosecuted. Generally, the prosecutor will charge the highest tier for which he feels he can make his case and win; sometimes there's also an element of how it's going to be used in the plea negotiations, as most cases never actually make it to trial.

And again, in referencing a case that was in the news, I feel pretty confident the article doesn't tell the entire story. News articles, by definiton, focus on the anomalies .... otherwise they wouldn't be "news", obviously.

I'm curious as to your reactions to Obama's race speech. I've got the whole thing posted, with my usual biting commentary.

He actually had a few things to say that would not normally be said by liberals, but he tempered it with plenty of bovine excrement.