Judge: No credible evidence underage sex always harmful

Witchita Eagle ^ | 2/9/6 | ROXANA HEGEMAN

[swain_forkbeard]

It may be the State Attorney General who is the activist here. Apparently, the "Legislature wrote the statute to say that doctors and others must have a 'suspicion of injury' caused by abuse and neglect to trigger mandatory reporting". So, absent injury caused by abuse and neglect, there would be no requirement to report. The Attorney General wants to remove all discretion and require reporting in all cases. Looks to me like the judge is trying to apply the law AS WRITTEN, and not as someone wishes it had been written.

[swain_forkbeard]

Is it the judge's position you find disgusting or sex between adolescents?

[bvw]

The finding of "not always harmful" is the role of the legislature, it is not reveiwable by the Judge, in most cases.

[Galveston Grl]

I read the article, but know there is much ommitted from the article and I will discuss that as well. If we were limited to discussing a liberal's articles and their rationalizations, we would be as stupid as they are. : )

[ArGee]

Kline testified that only significant penetrative sexual acts, such as sexual intercourse, needed to be reported. He even said on the stand that an underage girl performing oral sex on a boy need not be reported, but that a boy performing oral sex on a girl may need to be reported.

Was that Kline or Klinton? I bet I know where he was going with that thought.

Shalom.

[swain_forkbeard]

Yes it is the judge's business to establish injury because the law governing the reporting only rquires reporting in the case of injury.

[Drammach]

The judge's job is to make sure the law is enforced.

No, enforcement is the job of the Law Enforcement Agencies within the state..

A judge's job is to interpret the law..
A judge determines if the law is "legal" in the first place, that is to say, whether it falls within established law and does not conflict with it..
Then a judge determines whether the law is being properly applied to the case at hand.

Seems to me that is what this judge was doing..

As to legislatures acting on it's opinion, well, that's why the judiciary is a seperate branch of the government..
It's a balance of power intended to constrain that very legislature from enacting all sort of laws without restraint...
Legislatures can enact laws, but they must be "lawful"..
They must be constitutional, first of all..

[swain_forkbeard]

Careful there. You are not right-thinking. Right-thinking will be rewarded. Wrong-thinking will be as quickly punished. You will find this an effective combination.

[Oztrich Boy]

And how, pray tell, would a judge determine such a thing?
I mean, by using the legitimate tools of a judge, acting within his constitutional powers

The law passed by the legislators required doctors and others to report underage sex when they determined there was a "suspicion of injury"

The Attorney General issued an edict removing their discretion to report on the grouds that there was always injury.

It doesn;t seem out of place for the judge to determine whether thr AG had any basis to issue such edict.

[RockinRight]

See:

Lewis, Jerry Lee

[Sandy]

Here's a judge who rejects the legislator's conclusions that, for reasons the LEGISLATOR decides to accept, certain acts should be illegal.

Oh please. It's not the legislature's conclusions; it's the attorney general's conclusion.

The law requires reporting when a person "has reason to suspect that a child has been injured as a result of...sexual abuse".

The attorney general recently decided that "any pregnant female under the age of 16 has been injured as a result of sexual abuse" and therefore needs to be reported under the statute.

His opinion is ridiculous and deserves to be rejected.

[Drammach]

If groping a girl could get you sent to jail a lot of teenage boys would become suicidal thinking they have nothing to live for.

It is my personal belief that girls would find a way to re-define "groping" or find a way to provide opportunities for something akin to it..

The need (or desire) for physical and sexual contact is a part of our biological makeup, and the hormonal drives that dictate sexual behaviour become strongest with the onset of puberty..
Legislation and laws will not change nature..
Anyone that goes through puberty has to deal with it, and nature will have it's way..

[wagglebee]

I also agree with what some other people have said here, I don't think some teenage boy "feeling up" his girlfriend (of the same approximate age) is a crime that needs to be reported to the authorities.

[little jeremiah]

Many of us would be criminals.

[Windsong]

There is no credible evidence that polygamy is always harmful.

Heh, tell that to God in the Old Testament. He obviously had no problem with it.

[rzeznikj at stout]

I see enough of my classmates pregnant at the junior college I'm attending. Several of them I know from high school--I graduated almost two years ago in a class of 360.

I believe the key is educating our youth, but the traditional mores our country has held, and that were eradicated from the schoolhouse have to be set back into prominence.

[rzeznikj at stout]

Usually, I'm pretty darned good at "Reading the Articles"

Though, I've been slipping lately ;)

[rzeznikj at stout]

Theoretically, they do. In practice, no.

The XXVI Amendment only says that no one above the age of 18 can be denied the right to vote on account of age. It doesn't say that states cannot set a voting age lower than 18. No state has exercised this though, and to my knowledge it has never been brought up in any legislative organ in America since the Amendment was ratified.

[GOPJ]

Does the judge have a beard?

Hate to state the obvious, but the judge is speaking outside his area of expertise. I would no more ask a judge about human sexuality than ask for an explanation of a complex legal interpretation from a sex therapist.

[wagglebee]

I'd have been in all sorts of trouble!