Unintended Consequences

You're correct in that we cannot let this behavior go unchecked and we do need predator laws,expecially concerning kids.In this case,it seems the PC attitude has taken over good old common sense.Indeed,God save us from ourselves.

little boy suspended from school for giving a girl a peck on the cheek?

People have gone crazy, and common sense is dead.

First, you must understand that from a nation of justice, we have moved to a nation of laws.

In the origin, many of the laws were based on what a reasonable and moral person would do. This has changed to lawyers finding loopholes to get absolutely guilty people free. As they did this, laws began to be written to eliminate all loopholes. So, for a law against murder, we can no longer say "Thou shalt not kill", we must now define what Thou, shalt, not, and Kill mean. We must define exceptions to that (self defense, capital punishment, military). We also set gradiations of degree and the law that began as 4 words becomes 100 pages of legaleze.

To avoid that, the zero tolerance folks decided that they would not let you kill flies, gnats, or frogs and if you do, they will punish you as if you had killed your mom. It saves them from having to navigate the crap that congress has written.

Add to that the truth that to be re-elected, legislators must write legislation (even if all necessary laws are already in place) and you have what we have today.

As parents are becoming less and less parental (discipline), in come laws to fill the vacuum allowing parents to become less parental.

Then add in what Husker Jeff stated and it never ends.

I have an 11 year old son that is getting to that age where he's really noticing girls, and I can see this type of stuff coming from him. It's not that I have taught it to him, it's just the natural progession of boys to young men, and to think that if he ran up against some absolutist DA he could be charged with a crime---well, it just boggles the imagination!

As for what Jeff was saying, we could eliminate all of the foolishness of the laws if we had a part time legislature---as was intended. Here in NC we have a slew of laws, but because our legislature is part time we don't have all of the knee jerk laws that happen at the national level. They come together in session and do work that is really important, for the most part. Then they go home until the next session, unlike our national legislators that spend all their time in DC writing laws we do not need.

Common sense being thrown out with the trash. Everything is such PC BS, that I cannot stand it. Let's see. As a brownie leader, I was not allowed to take home a scout for fear of harm as perceived by the GSC. How did htings operate before the ERA of PC? That kid lived in my n'hood and saved a trip for the Ma. I tell ya, the outrage!!!

I'm currently reading a book, "The War Against Boys" by Christina Hoff-Summers. This isn't an accident or an overindulgence of PC, it is part of a bigger plan to emasculate boys under the theory that boys and girls are exactly the same except for how they are socialized, and if boys act like boys, it must be stifled and corrected. Any bahavior like this is met with a particularly harsh response in order to send a message to other boys and to protect the fragile self-esteem of girls.

Also, notice that when we were kids, there were male teachers, something that has gone the way of the horse and buggy. The schools are increasing becoming a bastion of feminine rule under feminist theocracy.

I no longer believe that these are unintended consequences of good intentions. After learning about so many major pieces of legislation that were influenced (i.e. La Raza and scamnesty) or drafted by special interest groups with well defined agendas (i.e. VAWA), any claimed good intentions are just PR as far as I'm concerned.

My experience with those who enforce these laws (police, children's aid) also demonstrated that good intentions form no part of enforcement either. And I was on the side of the angels in each and every case.

I haven't read the book, but I have heard a lot about it and agree with the basic premise. There is a war on boys going on, and it has been for a long, long time. I have read Kate O'Beirne's book "Women Who Make the World Worse" and it touches on it as well.

I also understand the frustration of seeing legislation influenced by lobbies of all types, but that is in many ways the way the founders wanted it. They saw the need to have as many people and voices involved as possible, in order to keep the legislators from doing whatever they wanted with no input from the governed. The problem is that now it seems that only the richest lobbies get to have a voice.

But I see this as a real case of unintended consequences; I think the laws written were done with the best of intentions---to punish the sexual predators among us, and to protect society from them. The laws were not intended to be used in this manner, but with the power of law enforcement to use them as they please, they will get misued.

I have a personal story along these lines, and I have shared on the threads before. My wife has a cousin, a very good guy that has never meant harm to anyone that I know of. He graduated from high school and a couple of years later he went to work at his old school as a member of the maintenence staff. He was 19 or 20 at the time, and there was a girl there that began to pusue him---she was a senior, but was only 17 at the time. She called his home, came out to his house, all on her own. Eventually they "hooked up" and did their thing; no harm no foul. But when her parents found out about it, and thet he was a black kid, they pushed the DA into prosecuting him for statutory rape and trying to send him to prison, even though there was no force or even coercion involved. He was persuaded to take a plea that convicted him of a sex abuse offense and requires him to be registered as a sex offender. The law as witten was not the real problem, the application was. And that is the type of situation that I see with this case; understandable laws, poor execution of them.

A few years old:

"The Death of Common Sense in America".

a well-written law can be poorly applied. If following a law leads to a pattern of a poor dispensation of justice (as this type of law seems to have done), then it needs to be changed or scrapped.

From what you described, it sounds like your cousin likely did violate the statutory rape law as written. If not he should be able to appeal his conviction. My general understanding is that with so many restrictions placed on enforcement and sentencing, things that would be included in the written law originally or as amended, that there is very little room in many cases in terms of how to apply it to particular situations, starting with the investigating officer up to the sentencing judge.

I have a great deal of sympathy for your cousin, and I don't think he should be where he is. But his situation also points out another very arbitrary side of the judicial system. I note that her parents pushed the DA to prosecute (for motives that might even be racist). I infer then that had the case not been reported and/or pursued, nothing would have come of this situation. And I'll even bet that this is probably what happens more often than not in such instances. In other words, your cousin is in the spot he's in because of a decision not even made by the justice system. I find that arbitrary justice, and do not support laws that lead to arbitrary justice.

In short, I think your cousin was screwed by both the law and its application. Although I gotta ask, how close was she to her 18th birthday anyways?

"Flag, I have a problem understanding how
a well-written law can be poorly applied."

Huh? It is plain in the Constitution that you cannot abridge political speech. McCain Feingold anyone?

The courts find penumbras, eminations, and other things to justify what they want. Lawyers find tiny loopholes that are not really loopholes unless you torture the language to make them so.

The law is written so you cannot abort unless there is danger to the mother... But mental danger is danger... But being a social outcast is danger. So, you can abort any time.

The law says you cannot descriminate, but we define descrimination as something whites can do to others, not the other way around.

You were kidding, please tell me that.

Of this post is that I have a new one at my blog.

I am really looking for input on it. Title is "The Case FOR Comprehensive Immigration Reform"

I understand what you're saying about the Constitution and the un-Constitutional laws and rulings that have arisen nonetheless, but I wasn't thinking about the Constitution but the laws passed by Congress, etc. I agree with the rest of what you wrote.

I think the disconnect has to do with the fact that what I would consider a well-written law is one that does not lend itself to having its meaning suborned or perverted. Certainly we have things being invented, i.e penumbras, etc., that have nothing to do with the law concerned as written, but if that's the case then how well a law is written is academic.

I think that in the case Flag raised, it would appear to me that the law is being followed as written and has led to a very poor and unjust result, and that this is not an isolated incident. That is why I have difficulty with Flag saying 'the law as written was not the problem', and conclude that the law was poorly written if, when followed as written, it leads to such results.

What I am trying to say here is the statutory rape laws are needed, and when applied correctly serve to protect the public. In the case I mentioned, I do not think the law was poorly written or unnecessary, but that when PEOPLE get involved injustice can ensue. My wife's cousin broke the law, but it is a law that is broken thousands of times daily and not even considered a crime---it is usually enforced when there is a child or minor involved that cannot really consent. The law was written to protect those people, not to prosecute teenagers (mostly male) for having sex with a willing teenage partner.

I am not saying that laws should not be enforced, just that they should be enforced fairly---and within the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law in my cousin's case and in the case of these boys in Oregon was to protect the innocent from sexual predators, not to put 13 year old kids on the sexual offender registry.

And we all know that once people come into the picture, even the most tightly written laws can be massaged to get the result they want. DA's have wide discretion in what, if any charges, they bring---in this case no charges were appropriate, and to charge them is technically a correct application of the law, but flouts the spirit of the law.

...brought to you liberalism - now available in the extra-large, massive, ever growing, gargantuan size.

Two concepts are at work here. The first is that a slight misstatement has been taken literally and expanded by liberals. This country was supposed to be a nation of "law" - governed not by whim but by simple, easily followed rules - as opposed to som many "laws" that you can't swing a dead cat (which probably breaks at least three laws by itself) without hitting one.

The second is the abandonment of proportionality. Whether it be zero-tolerance policies or strict guidelines making no allowance for judgment, the conscious decison to go along rather than simply saying "we'll talk to the kids parents but let's not - literally - make a federal case out of it".

I've been there. My son was in middle school and we were getting ready to go on a scout camping trip the next day. All of the camping supplies were laid out in the living room so that I could pack when I got back from work and my son had done his homework in the same room. When he scooped his books into his bookbag, he accidentally scooped his scouting book and his pocketknife into his bookbag.

When he realized it at school he turned it into his teacher explaining what happened but the school STILL wanted to suspend him for 10 days - zero tolerance, after all.

We got him back into class after two days off (that's how long it took to get a meeting with the school board) but it wouldn't have been necessary if someone had been given the authority and had exercised the judgment that the situation required.

that book is on deck waiting on my coffee table right now. I got the clue on it from the Evan Sayet talk at the Heritage Foundation video.

Zero tolerance policies are for people with zero discretionary reasoning ability.

The left revels in these kindred bromides as well.
War is always wrong
Poverty causes crime
Republicans are 'evil'

It's as if you must check your brain at the door as the price of admission.

You'll laugh, when you're not crying.

Another good one: "Men in Black", about SCOTUS.

It's by Mark Levin.

I loved Men in Black, it gave me some great insights on what is going on with the courts. The problem is, as stated above, the lack of common sense in our laws. They cover all sorts of situations, but a zealot of a prosecutor can usually turn a well written, well intentioned law on its head!

Does the name Nifong come to mind?

Since we concur that the media's framing of much of what is reported is a big part of the problem, may I recommend the book "The Marketing Of Evil". I think you'll find it right up your alleyd. Good religious references, clear exposition of his points, well presented. It's really happening and it ain't no accident.

Also, I have a new post up over at the Heartland when you get a minute.