Well, I understand the legal part of it just fine!
It's the reasoning behind that aspect of the law that I'm questioning. Kids, while vulnerable, are not as vulnerable as an unconscious person, someone in a coma, someone on severe narcotics, or someone who is mentally retarded. That's what I don't get about it. Kids can actually resist, they can say 'no' (though many won't to an authority figure, I know), they can tell others about what happened (though many won't believe or listen to them, again, I know)... that's a lot more than someone who's unconscious or in a coma can manage!
Are you serious with this? How is a six-year old child any different from a mentally retarded adult? As someone on severe narcotics? Is a six year old fully cognizant of what it means to consent to sex?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_Ridge_rape
This was a gangrape by jocks of a mentally retarded girl who had the mental capacity of a ten year old. Read the transcripts of the court proceedings. They promised her she would get to go on a date with her crush if she let them put bottles and bats in her vagina.
"I just wanted them to like me. I know they don't care, but I consider them my friends."
Are you actually serious with your line of reasoning?
But I did! You offered what you believed to be legal precedence without actually showing how pedophilia was equivalent. The specific case said that a person must be diagnosed with a mental disorder as well as being deemed, by a medical professional, to be a danger to himself or others. You can't do that for all pedophiles and the only argument you offer is nonsense about how all pedophiles desire something illegal therefore they're a danger therefor it meets the standard. It's an unsupported illogical assertion.
Where have you ever explained why it is unconstitutional.
I offered what
is legal precedence. There is no question about that. You sound dense because you keep arguing with your opinion and feelings and pixie dust; I am arguing with legal principles that form the foundation of our society today.
Let me break it down to "babby understands lawz".
Fundamental Liberty Interest: An individual in the United States has a fundamental liberty interest, which are the "inalienable" rights listed in the Constitution. These include the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Registering pedophiles and would-be kiddy diddlers into a database would infringe on these rights, as would monitoring them and chemically castrating them.
Unfortunately for me, you were too dense to realize that me citing Korematsu and Guantanamo Bay was showing you that pedophiles are not a protected
suspect class, but EVEN IF THEY WERE, it wouldn't necessarily kill my proposal.
In Korematsu and Guantanamo Bay, the court used the strictest standard to judge the case (because the people harmed by those policies were being discriminated against by race) and
STILL said it was okay to lock them up indefinitely.
How do you not see the connection between the three?
(1) It must be a compelling governmental interest (protecting kids/country/war time)
(2) It must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal (registration system/ship prison/registration and concentration camp)
(3) There must not be less restrictive means to achieve that goal.
Do you know how to read? I sketched this in one of my first posts. I said all a hotshot lawyer needs to do is argue that protecting children from pedophiles is a compelling governmental interest.
My proposal doesn't even require the
strict scrutiny standard.
I gave you a handicap, yet you still can't string together a coherent argument. Once again, my proposal doesn't even
require strict scrutiny standard, it just needs the rational basis standard: " the government has a legitimate reason for a law or regulation that is rationally linked to it."
Jesus Christ. Explain and give precedents as to why it is de facto unconstitutional, or concede the point. Not. Hard.
P.S. Addington was not a strict-scrutiny standard case.
You would need to certify each individual as not only being a pedophile but also being dangerous. I say all because than any pedophile who didn't meet this standard wouldn't make it onto your list or the line to be castrated, which breaks your proposal.
Where in American jurisprudence does it say that
in order to establish a registration or database system logging a category of persons, we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they belong on the database or registration system. And not the fucking dicta or dissenting opinions. I want majority or concurring opinions, or statutes.
If you're using Addington as the basis, all I would have to do is show by the "clear and convincing evidence" standard that that pedophile could be dangerous. Not is. COULD BE.
Should we be able to tap someone's phone because they have some hypothetical mental condition that predisposes them to money laundering? Your only source of suspicion is the mental condition, not any expressed feelings or past activities. It's thought crime plain and simple.
Is pedophilia a hypothetical mental condition?
How is money laundering, a crime of moral turpitude vs. property, the same as rape, a crime of moral turpitude vs. humans?
How is tapping someone's phone the equivalent of registrating suspected pedophiles?
Is giving a cheek-swab the same violation of privacy as an outsider invasively listening to conversations which are held under a reasonable assumption of privacy?
If your answer is yes, please cite precedents.
Why would you respond with such a flimsy, drooling, poorly thought-out argument?
Desiring sex is a very base human characteristic. It does not take into account additional factors that lead a society to deem something rape. The desire is not formed under the rules of law so they have no impact.
Red herring. Irrelevant. No need for me to comment.
Oh wait. "additional factors that lead a society to deem something rape." I am now very curious on how you view rape, since there are clear discrepancies between society's view of rape and your pet definition that you supply in the next paragraph.
I see no difference here. A pedophile wants to have a sexual relationship with a child, but that does not prevent them from feeling that rape is wrong. They are two separate, discrete thoughts inside the human brain. The argument that in any civilized society you cannot have sex with a child without it being rape doesn't change this fact.
This has nothing to do with strict liability or age of consent or the definition of statutory rape. If you think it does that should be a sign to yourself you still do not comprehend the argument.
It's not that I don't comprehend the argument, it's that the argument is fatally flawed, poorly thought-out, and makes no sense on its face.
Having sex with a child is rape. It doesn't matter if you pin the child down, it doesn't matter if you bribe them with cookies, it doesn't matter if the 5 year old says "yes". It is Rape. Period. End of. By definition.
This has
everything to do with strict liability and age of consent. If you want to have sex with a child, you want to commit rape.
That's all there is to it. There's really no other angles to look at it. You can sugar-coat it all you want, which is what you're doing, but we'll see how well that holds up in a court of law.
Or are you one of those Republican types that are "hurrr welll it isn't really rape" types? In which case, wow.
Your pie example and sex example is clearly indicative of your utter juvenile failure at grasping concepts.
Eating pie does not affect anyone else.
New Year's Resolution is not a law.
Pie example is irrelevant, and discarded.
Having sex with an intoxicated or sober girl is not prima facie rape.
Having sex with an intoxicated girlfriend turns on several factors, including whether or not she gave you explicit permission to have sex with her while drunk.
Sex example is irrelevant, and discarded.
Pedophile has three choices:
(1) He can not desire to have sex with a child ===> He can not desire to rape
(2) He can desire to have sex wit ha child ====> He can desire to rape
(3) He can have these feelings simultaneously.
But let's not sugar coat it; what he wants to do is rape. Unless he was sedated.