In Arizona, Parents Could Go to Jail for Changing Their Kids' Diapers

reason.com ^ | Sep. 19, 2016 1:00 pm | Lenore Skenazy

[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.

[Carriage Hill]

You’d be charged with a felony under the Toxic Substances Act (or some law like that).

[COBOL2Java]

What about physicians who give physical exams to boys and girls under the age of 15?

Hopefully physicians will be able to afford good attorneys who can fight this. It's the low-income young couples who will be caught up in this. Their lawyers will advise them to settle - "it's the best avenue for you to follow, to avoid a trial" - they'll be told. Then down the road, BOOM, Dad finds out he's registered for the rest of his life as a sex offender.

[Jim W N]

Case laws of course ARE legally binding but limited ONLY to the parties involved and any other case with the same facts and question of law. That is what precedent/stare decisis means. Precedent/stare decisis does not give a court power to make state or national law. That is patently unconstitutional.

Common law is a centuries-old series of decisions compiled over a long time that is useful for cases with similar facts and questions of law. ONE CASE may add to the common law for a particular set of facts and questions of law, but does not make sweeping national law

Our country has reeled WAY off course here.

[Mr. Jeeves]

This would involve prosecutorial discretion - so a defendant probably wouldn’t be charged unless there were some extraordinary circumstances like him or her being a Republican running for office. /s

[JimRed]

What about physicians who give physical exams to boys and girls under the age of 15?

Or takes a rape kit on a victim.

[MrEdd]

We would really have to have had entirely different legislatures for the past fifty years for me to assume this article is misleading.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Now all we have to do is find a government that cares what is or isn't Constitutional.

WE are the government and this crap should not be allowed to stand. It will end badly.

[SgtHooper]

No, it is the dam congresscritters that worded and passed it.

[TigersEye]

We are the sovereigns who choose our government and allow or disallow it to persist.

[PapaBear3625]

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.

A friend took a plea on a drug possession charge, in exchange for no jail time. Then he finds out that having a felony conviction means you WILL NOT BE HIRED in any professional capacity. He was screwed for life.

[COBOL2Java]

A friend took a plea on a drug possession charge, in exchange for no jail time. Then he finds out that having a felony conviction means you WILL NOT BE HIRED in any professional capacity. He was screwed for life.

Exactly. Anyone who says "Oh, this will be overturned," neglects the shattered lives of those who will be the victims of this horrible decision until it is overturned. All it takes is some sadistic DA. Once you're on the federal sex offender registry, you're pretty much there for life.

But hey, gotta break a few eggs for good governance to occur, eh? Sigh...

[polymuser]

Aren’t layers and lawyer’s turned judges the best kind of people?

[Mrs. Don-o]

:o/

[Nifster]

Agreed but the court upheld such broad language

[SgtHooper]

True! Good point! Thx.

[RobinOfKingston]

My mother used to have a saying, when bathing children of that intermediate age after infancy and before bathing on their own. She would tell them, “I’ll wash up as far as possible, then I’ll wash down as far as possible, then you wash possible.”