Posted on 02/10/2006 6:52:36 AM PST by ZGuy
By the way, the rationale for the law is that children under a certain age are damaged by sexual intercourse at that age. The primary purpose of the law is to identify those individuals to help alleviate that damage not simply to punish the violator of the law.
I don't think so Sandy, the purpose of the law is twofold. One to punish the adult for sure. But secondly to identify and " to extend services to the victim and implement necessary legal steps to protect the victim from further harm, including the possibility of legal prosecution against the perpetrator."
IIRC Kentucky did just that.
It gives you hexagonal wheels...
The judge will say, "that's the law, take it up with your legislators."
Q: What do you call a lawyer with and IQ of 70?
A: Your Honor...
Many constitutional challenges are designed not to prod legislatures to make clearer definitions of the law but to to subvert and wholly nullify the exercise of legislative power that might intrude into a particular judge's "enlightened and progressive" notions of how society ought to be structured.
As I said, I'm no defender of this judge.
"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."
Most law enforcement agencies answer to the courts. Courts have the authority to give law enforcement agencies direct orders.
It is true that a judge interprets the law and determines whether it is constitutional, but a judge does not have the right to make or invalidate law based on personal preference.
I think this judge has the jurisdiction to evaluate the attorney general's interpretation of the law in question, but it sounds as if the law might be thrown out based on the judge's opinion that there is no evidence of sex harming minors. That is not within the court's authority. Many laws are based on opinion with little supporting evidence. It is the legislature's responsibility to make these laws. A court's authority to apply a Constitutional test or make sure that there is no conflict of law, does not constitute a veto power.
" It's a balance of power intended to constrain that very legislature from enacting all sort of laws without restraint... "
True, but the judiciary branch does not serve the exclusive purpose of checking the other branches. The primary purpose is to ensure that laws are enforced and applied. That this must be done in a lawful manner is a given.
True, that's the purpose of the reporting law. However, the sex-offense laws make it a crime for a person (the perp) to have sex with someone under 16 (the victim). What's weird about the circuit court's opinion is that it treats the underage pregnant girl as if she's the perp (and thus subject to loss of privacy rights) rather than the victim.
I don't know if you've read the opinion, but here it is. The screwy part starts on page 33. After concluding that minors do have a right of informational privacy (meaning a right to avoid disclosure of personal matters), the court follows up with this:
[T]here is Tenth Circuit precedent that indicates that minors may not have any privacy rights in their concededly criminal sexual conduct. Our cases have held that a validly enacted law places citizens on notice that violations thereof do not fall within the realm of privacy. Criminal activity is not protected by the right to privacy.... Kansas laws criminalize all sexual conduct with minors.... [Therefore], minor patients and clients have no right to privacy in their illegal sexual activity.So, are the girls victims in need of state protection and services, or are they criminals subject to loss of privacy rights? The state can't have it both ways, which is why I think the state's going to lose this.
All that aside, do you agree with the state that any time a person under 16 has sex, that person is the victim of sexual abuse (meaning a 15-year-old having sex with another 15-year-old is both a victim of sexual abuse *and* a sexual abuser subject to prosecution)?
Do you agree with the state attorney general that any time a person under 16 has sex, that person is the victim of sexual abuse (meaning a 15-year- old having sex with another 15-year-old is both a victim of sexual abuse *and* a sexual abuser subject to prosecution)?
Thanks for the link, I haven't read the full decision, only excerpts.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Time to check the judge's sock drawer...
Aggreed there is a huge difference between teens having sex and pre-pubescent children. Not so long ago a girl was an old maid if she was not married by the time she was 20.
I like what the apostle Paul said about two people who were having sex. "let them marry".
When I was in high school a girl and her boyfreind got married at 16. Today they are still married after 23 years, and have three children.
Of course they said to me that if both sets of parents had not allowed them to marry and supported them, they would have ended up having children out of wedlock. A very bad sin.
I have to say that if I had a daughter and she was 15 or 16 and a young man wanted to marry her I would consider it on the following criteria...
Is he a Christian man in good standing with the Church? (must be a yes answer).
Does he work hard? (Must be a yes answer)
Does he drink Alcohol or take drugs? (Answer better be "NO")
Are his parents good Christians in good Standing in the Church and do they approve of the marriage? (must be yes and yes).
I know it is old fashioned but completely allowable under God's laws to allow a teenager to marry. It is not sinful or wrong in any way. Now if you are a parent and you allow your son or daughter to run around alone with people of the opposite sex without supervision you are a fool.
Like my preacher says, you take a young boy and a girl and put them together alone, don't be suprised if a baby is on the way.
since world war 2 I think only Kentucky. Before 1860 practically everywhere.
I always equate slavery with having sex don't you?
The point I was making boys and girls was that it's wasn't Kensey who started "underage" sex. If underage means say 12-16.
Is it necessary to label it a crime to do that?
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.