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 ...
Heed your own advice and read it ...
I don't live in Arizona, nor do I have any underage children.
You may, but I would not want to take the chance.
And ?
And ?
Doesn't matter. The point is your life is ruined long before a jury issues a verdict. The prosecutors know this and will make sure you know it. You cannot prove a negative. This gives a corrupt prosecutor immense power over anyone he wants to target.
As has been demonstrated many times in the last 8 years, laws such as these are used frequently to target political opposition and those that don't toe the party line. Think IRS. Think asset forfeiture laws. Think BLM. And so on.
What is vague?
And what? Are you one of those Freeper a__holes who just like to start useless arguments?
Have a nice day!
No. Just saying the courts cade a good decision contrary to your claim that it was an insane decision which you reached without reading the decision.
This is so they arrest anybody they want at any time for any reason. Gets the arrest statistics numbers up, making it appear that the politicians are fighting crime.
-—What is vague?-—
The article doesn’t say, but I think the tripwires when you break them means you have broken the law, they were kept blurry to entrap people who were molesting children not to give them an defense...
Of course the same law can be interpreted as a crime giving your child a bath..
Read the decision ....
Yes I did.
Case laws can be just as binding as legislated laws.
” Since the U.S. legal system has a common-law system, higher court decisions are binding on lower courts in cases with similar facts that raise similar issues. The concept of precedent, or Stare Decisis, means to follow or adhere to previously decided cases in judging the case at bar.”
For me, the answer is easy: such a cynical use of law could only originate in the mind of a character like Dr. Ferris.
BTW, I have one of the Project F binders used in AS III. My wife and kids think I'm crazy for buying it and another item from the producers...maybe I am, but I really don't care.
O/T, I heartily recommend the audio book version of AS. It brings to life many memorable passages within the novel. The treatment of Cherryl Taggart by her husband is chilling.
Then you read it after your #2.
A nice protest would be to drop off a pile of used diapers at the Court Office.
No.
For judges to write tha at they don’t expect people to be charged in the course of normal duties is insane. The judges can’t and won’t control who is charged. And out of control DA is all it takes
What about physicians who give physical exams to boys and girls under the age of 15?
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.