Posted on 10/03/2016 9:39:22 AM PDT by COBOL2Java
What's the difference between a parent changing his baby's diaper and a child molester fondling a 12-year-old's breasts?
In Arizona, that's a trick question—because, legally, there is no difference. In a state Supreme Court ruling that came out last week, the justices determined that intentionally or knowingly touch the private parts of a child under age 15 is automatically a felony.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
The courts are just plainly insane
I’d really have to see the wording of the actual law before I’d swallow this particular hook.
I’m not sure if this is an “I’m Spartacus!” moment or an opportunity for the Dr. Floyd Ferris quote from “Atlas Shrugged”.
Did you click on the link? The story includes a link to State vs. Holle. You can see for yourself.
Somehow I doubt a jury would convict anyone over changing diapers.
But a real loon can sic CPS on anyone for it and make their lives a real cluster.
“...if defendants can prove that they were “not motivated by sexual interest,” then they can avoid being deemed sex offenders. But this places the burden of proof on the accused to prove their innocence, not the state to prove their guilt. The state no longer has to demonstrate that the contact was non-sexual—the accused party has to prove that.”
As the article says, going to court is not the big fear...
“...90 percent of all cases never go to trial and are determined by plea bargain, this gives prosecutors a giant scythe to dangle over any citizen: Are you going to go to court to prove you’re not a sex offender? Or are you going to take a plea?”
Now all we have to do is find a government that cares what is or isn't Constitutional.
My take is that, though this is somewhat disturbing, it’s a bit like being on the Titanic and breaking a nail.
So the poor kid is going to get nasty diaper rash because no one can apply Desitin? Insanity doesn’t cover it.
What utter legal nonsense and heresy.
The SCOAZ decision reaches no further than the parties involved and any other case with the same facts and questions of law.
WHY DO PEOPLE CONTINUALLY WANT TO GIVE THE COURTS LEGISLATIVE POWER??? The power of the courts is limited to INDIVIDUAL CASES AND CONTROVERSIES.
This decision does NOT create statewide law!!!
That’s a point.
Then, the defense attorney will tell the young couple "Just take plea bargain; it's the easiest way out."
Everything's fine until years later, when Dad finds out he's a registered sex offender.
Precisely the problem.
As the article notes, it will be of most use to prosecutors as a threat: you plead guilty to A or we haul you into court for B. Proscutorial discretion + ambiguous law = no end of hellish tyranny.
-—The Arizona law that triggered this decision deliberately keeps the tripwires vague. And the state Supreme Court had no problem with that, relying on what it believes will be the impeccable restraint of all prosecutors throughout the state:——
Ok...that made me chuckle...
Prosecutors restraint... LOL...
Tell that to the 100,000’s overcharged or innocently railroaded that have been jailed...
Another reason for men to dodge the baby trap.
You obviously did not read the decision...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.