  |
 |
Posted on 03/11/2006 3:24:52 AM PST by JohnHuang2
No thanks.
I can well attest to the above fact due to ten years working as a Probation Officer.
If it's done right, it is.
|
|
Under current law, having actual intercourse with someone between 16 and 18 does not mean that you have to register as a sex offender... But having oral sex with (presumably) somebody between 16 and 18 does mean you have to register as a sex offender
It makes no sense to treat oral sex more harshly than actual intercourse.
It is not proper for the court to decide whether legislative actions are sensible. On the other hand, it would IMHO be appropriate to examine legislative history.
If, e.g., there were a number of sex-related crimes in different sections of the California Code, and the legislature decided to reduce the punishments for some of them, it would be possible that the legislature forgot one. Such things have been known to happen.
Although the state should never be allowed to convict someone for disobeying something that should have been a law but wasn't, it does not seem unreasonable to let someone go or reduce their sentence if there is clear evidence of legislative intent favoring such action.
I have no idea what evidence of intent exists in the extant case.
Yup. Missed the word case. Thanks.
On second thought, I agree with your position. Although it made little sense to treat oral sex more harshly than real intercourse, it was not the court's job to legislate from the bench
"It's [oral sex] still lewd and lascivious behavior, even for adults (or isn't it??) "
Of course, oral sex is STILL lewd and lascivious behavior, even for adults, especially if done in public places like pc, photographs and with out CONSENT. Consent seems to be the important word. Now minor can give consent for oral sex?? ........at age 16 or if both are 18?? With two 18 years old, which one is the pedaphile? (both). I thought age of consent was 21 years. Never understood the 16 years for girls. 16 year old girls should not be having babies without parents consent, but now can get abortions without parents consent that prevent them from having babies later in life. Good reason for making abortion illegal.
But seems you wish to make light of such a tragic situation, funny hahaha??
"When our leaders don't protect us, it is our God-given duty to protect ourselves and especially our children"
You're absolutely right, parents need to look up and "smell the coffee". It takes aware, alert,caring parents to protect their children from child molesters,and sex traffickers not a village.
Problem is the neighborhood, school, do-gooders et al take over the parents authority behind parents back with this stupid consent" by minors" who think the child is being punished by "mean parent" (probably because child goes running to neighbor, etc crying wolf for something child knew was forbidden, by not letting child do illegal "childish-behavior". Many times the person the child goes running too is "conned" into doing more illegal behavior with them, like pedaphiles.
Now judge is changing law on the bench based on his feeling sorry for the child misbehavior and do-gooders, especially if do-gooders are on PTA are influencial in neighborhood. Child grows up mentally ill much of the time.
Neither are pedophiles. They are both adults in California at 18. In Texas, they would both be adults at 17.
And oral sex between an adult married couple MAY be lewd and lascivious, but in a good way.
Just to elaborate a bit, if your 18 year old son had sex (of any sort) with an 18 year old girl, you would be right to tell him to find his own place, but he is neither a criminal or pedophile.
And if he at 18 has sex with a 17 year old girl in a state where 18 is an adult, then I would fine him but not jail or brand him for life, unless you want to jail and brand half the teenagers in the country.
"My mother has a photo of me and my brother in the tub at ages 4 and 1....NEKKID!
Does that make her a sicko?"
In my opinion, yes! w/o child's and parents' consent! and yes according to the law! Where do we draw the line? Would you like that photo posted on internet? or pasted on public billboard or worse yet, SOLD to a pedaphile to lust over?
Hope photo does not show your body parts, but probably does. It is illegal to reproduce photographs of naked or porn-photo of adult or child. So law was broken when photograph was reproduced! Did you take lewd photos of your children?? Problem is there is no clear cut rules for what is legal or not because population is also undecided, so judge makes personal decision, not legal decision. One rule for parents, another for non-parent of child, like pedaphiles.
This is totally disgusting and irresponsible.
The rationale as described in the article is weak and IMHO inadequate. But I'm not familiar with the legislative history of the laws in question. I doubt that the term "unconstitutional" would really be applicable in any case, though I'm not sure what term would be more appropriate.
Let me offer an analogy. Two people, Bob and Charlie, are brought before a judge in Fredonia for sentencing, having been convicted of violating 514(b) and 514(c), respectively. Section 514 as passed in 1980 listed four forbidden activities: 514(a), 514(b), 514(c), and 514(d). Section 618, passed at the same time, described the penalties: 514(a) and (b) were petty offenses; 514(c) was a felony; 514(d) was a misdemeanor. In 1985, 514(a) was deleted and the remaining crimes in the section were relabeled; section 618 was not touched.
How should the people be sentenced?
IMHO, the judge should sentence Bob for a petty offense. Although the legislators certainly originally meant for Bob's actions to be a felony, and there's nothing to suggest they deliberately changed their minds, the fact that a literal reading of the law makes it a petty offense should limit Bob's sentence to that level.
On the other hand, just regarding the crimes in the abstract, it would seem Charlie should be sentenced for a misdemeanor. Even though a literal reading of the law suggests he should be prosecuted for a felony, the lack of legislative intent should limit Charlie's punishment to that of a misdemeanor.
If 514(b) and (c) are totally different crimes, (e.g. (b) is theft of $500-$5,000 and (c) is drunk and disorderly conduct) the fact that Bob gets punished less severely than Charlie even though the legislature meant for his crime to be punished more severely should not in any way let Bob off the hook. It may be rather odd to regard drunk and disorderly conduct as more severe than theft of $500-$5,000 but there's nothing contradictory about it. The legislature clearly meant to punish Charlie's crime as at least a misdemeanor, and so such punishment would be appropriate.
Things get trickier, however, if Charlie's crime is a subset of Bob's. Suppose, for example, that 514(b) is theft of $1,000 or more and 514(c) is theft of $100-$999. The notion that the theft of $1,000 or more is a lesser crime than the theft of $100-$999 is sufficiently contradictory that it simply cannot stand. Otherwise you'd have people confessing to imagined crimes for the purposes of reducing their sentences. It's a lot easier to say "I didn't steal $500--I stole $1,500" than to say "I wasn't drunk and disorderly--I stole $1,500."
If the judge here is using the latter logic, the major question would be whether there is anything that legally defines oral sex as a lesser and included offense with intercourse. The judge may regard it as a lesser offense, but that's not what matters--what counts is whether there's anything that legally defines it as such.
To put it another way: suppose someone engaged in both oral sex and intercourse with a 17-year-old. Could such a person be charged with both oral sex and intercourse, or are the statutes written so that one charge explicitly includes the other? If the latter, the judge's decision may be correct, though again I'd regard the issue of being a poorly-written law rather than an unconstitional one: if the legislator wanted to explicitly say that having oral sex with a 17-year-old would require registration in the sex-offender registry unless the person also had intercourse, which action would be deemed to reduce the severity of the offense, the legislature should have the power to do so.
Would you like that photo posted on internet?
You know, I have read most of your posts on this article and I have come to the conclusion that your sister was right. You have a dirty mind. No one else (surely not my own mother) looked at it as a sexual thing.
But you did that for them.
The jig is up, trublu. Have mom turn herself in; her smut-peddlin' days are over. She can bring her shawl but leave the knitting needles at home.
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.