Posted on 05/25/2006 10:56:41 AM PDT by acad1228
Pandering to constituents with un-Constitutional laws is the very definition of "grandstanding."
But if (as you say) the people of Oklahoma want this law, then they well deserve the massive legal bills that will arise from the futile effort to defend it in court.
On what do you base that assessment?
He's a DUmbocrap. And he's no Zell Miller.
"On what do you base that assessment?"
It has been said on this thread that the Supreme Court overturned death penalty statutes for rape. Why do you suppose this would be any different?
I would much rather my tax dollars go for something like this.
Any law can be challenged in court, even the law that says I must drive 65, it doesn't mean the politicians were grandstanding when they passed it. Once again, believe me, the people of Oklahoma are glad this bill was written and passed.
So what do you do when children are encouraged by one parent to testify against another in court?
"why not spend some money trying to save children from predators?"
I'm not sure that this will do any such thing.
I've yet to hear a good reason why this won't lead to child molestors deciding that witnesses shouldn't be left alive. In for a penny, in for a pound.
This doesn't seem to actually address the problem, just make people feel better. I despise the philosphy of emotionalism over logic.
The crime must still be proven and people in Oklahoma still have common sense, even those that sit on juries, so I have faith in the people of Oklahoma to make sure this law is administered correctly.
OMG....nuff said.
But then again, he is up for re-election this year and would not want to be seen as soft on child predators, at least not in Oklahoma. However, even if he does sign it, I am still not voting for him...:)
"It's not a question of striking it down so much as it is a question of overruling their previous decision in Coker v. Georgia, which basically struck down the death penalty for anything other than murder. It doesn't look like there are five votes on the Court to do that."
---
And guess who filed a filed a brief in that case urging reverasal: "Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Melvin L. Wulf, Marjorie Mazen Smith, and Nancy Stearns filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. as amici curiae urging reversal."
Good for OK. Hopefully, other states will follow.
Under Oklahoma law, a 15 year old having sex with a 14 year old is not a rape. The perpetrator must be over the age of 18. Unless the rape is forceable. Then age doesn't matter. But if the act is consentual, then there is no statutory rape if the perp is under 18. So 2 high school kids having sex is not rape under Oklahoma law. As far as lewd molestation, then the perp must be at least 3 years older than the victim, and the victim must be under the age of 16. So, in your first hypothetical, there is no lewd molestation since the kids aren't 3 years apart. So a 19 year old having consentual sex with a 16 year old is not a crime either. A 17 year old having sex with a 15 year old is not a crime either.
As to the peeping through a hole in the locker room, as long as the age difference is less than 3 years, or the victim is over 16, there is no molestation. And the exhibitionist example, as long as the kids are over 16, no crime. If the kids are under 16, and the perp is over 3 years older, then it is a crime. But not one I believe is ennumerated in the death penalty statute.
Actually, there's a second reason as well: It will reduce reporting of sex crimes against children. Much of this stuff that goes on is from a family member or family friend. Many people might be willing to send creepy old Grandpa to the slammer for a few, but are they willing to see him die for it? Many people would think twice before involving the authorities, if the perp was someone close to them.
she charged him with rape. Supposedly she is the one who brought the date rape drug with her. Then after she had sex, she told her mother that they raped her. There were 2 boys involved.
I am serious.
What's the age of consent in Ok? If it's 16, then anyone who has sex with a minor is guilty of a sex offense of one sort or another
But will JUDGES allow it to happen?
Bubba is so happy that he's not from Oklahoma and he's alive to shout it.
There will always be straw arguments against any and all laws, especially those that have a moral overtone. The left loves to play that game. (Not that I am accusing you of being a lefty, just a side note.)
Not a straw argument, but a real question: with the passage of this law, why shouldn't a child molestor kill his victim?
He's already earned the death penalty, eliminating the witness can't hurt him any more and leaving the witness alive can only harm him.
That's why I have a problem with this law. It's about emotion over reason. It claims to protect children, but could well do the opposite.
I know it's hard to keep a clear head when considering crimes against children, but we must not let our emotions override our good judgment.
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.