Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   Indiana Supreme Court: "Yes, we agree that the law is pants-on-head stupid, but seeing as it is the law, off to prison with you"   ( arstechnica.com) divider line
    More: Stupid, Supreme Court, Indiana Supreme Court, Pornography, Supreme Court of the United States, Sexual intercourse, Jury, Law, child porn  
•       •       •

12771 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Oct 2017 at 6:39 AM (9 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



61 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-10-06 05:43:46 AM  
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

That's called BEING AN ADULT.

Farking Dumbass.
 
2017-10-06 06:08:17 AM  
The defendant has a point, I guess. But I don't care.
 
2017-10-06 06:08:17 AM  
Okay, so let me get this straight. In Indiana, it is legal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old, but can't disseminate sexual content to them online (sexting, nude photos, etc) until they are 18. Okay, that's inconsistent law, and should be addressed by the Legislature, not the State Supreme Court. So I can see where they were coming from by reinstating the charges on this guy.

But here's the kicker: She's not just 16, but a former student of his. He's a 40-year old teacher. She's also in Oregon now, where it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old, and he sent the nude pic to her across state lines, which brings up why he isn't facing Federal charges? Now the whole thing is a whole lot more icky overall, and although he only faces up to three years in prison, he deserves a whole lot more in the Hole.
 
2017-10-06 06:08:39 AM  
I totally read that as "India" and not "Indiana" and thought it was some weird "it's okay to rape a girl if she's not a virgin" law.

This isn't THAT much better.
 
2017-10-06 06:15:14 AM  
s.movie.asView Full Size

"Well, there's the law; and, there's what's right.  I'm going to do what's right"

Too obscure?  Good!
 
2017-10-06 06:20:02 AM  
The courts are supposed to protect us against Unconstitutional laws not stupid ones.  That's the job of the legislature (yep, we're all boned)
 
2017-10-06 06:43:36 AM  
I have a feeling the legislature is more likely to raise the age of consent to 18 than legalize sexting to minors. Then again, this is Indiana.
 
2017-10-06 06:49:51 AM  
The one that I find hilariously stupid is one of the ones mentioned in the article - two "kids" (16/17) who have had sex with each other and sent each other explicit texts, were found to both victims and perpetrators of child porn because they had pictures of themselves on their phones.  So does that mean that any time a kid looks at him/herself in the mirror while naked mean they're peeping toms?  WTF!

\prosecutor should have been shot out of a cannon into the sun for that one
 
2017-10-06 06:51:45 AM  
FTA:
"The Indiana ruling is among a string of cases in which sexting laws are clearly nonsensical. Last month, for example, the Washington Supreme Court upheld the conviction under state child porn laws of a 17-year-old boy who sent a picture of his own erect penis to a 22-year-old woman"
&
"Then there was the 2015 case of two North Carolina teens charged with child porn accusations for consensually sexting one another. One of the teens was accused of possessing child pornography because he had nude photos of himself on his phone. The arrest warrant for the boy's girlfriend described her as both a victim and a perpetrator."
 
2017-10-06 06:53:20 AM  
I read the headline as "India,"  and thought, "well yeah, but that's just India."
 
2017-10-06 06:53:40 AM  

Pazuzu Smith-Jones: The defendant has a point, I guess. But I don't care.


Most people don't care about stuff.
Until it happens to someone they care about.

/a few actually try to change things
//not condoning sexting minors
///or any pre-marital sex for that matter. Username up front should have told you
 
2017-10-06 06:54:58 AM  

Next week's Tom Sawyer: I have a feeling the legislature is more likely to raise the age of consent to 18 than legalize sexting to minors. Then again, this is Indiana.


Well, with MJ being decriminalized, the prison system needs a new stream.

/as I was writing that it actually made more and more sense
 
2017-10-06 06:55:21 AM  
FFS.  I know enough not to be a teacher.  I'm too much of a perv.  I stay away from high school aged girls because I know even if I behave, they won't.

This guy?  Farking idiot.  Don't let the cell door leave marks on your ass on the way in.
 
2017-10-06 06:57:40 AM  

MmmmBacon: Okay, so let me get this straight. In Indiana, it is legal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old, but can't disseminate sexual content to them online (sexting, nude photos, etc) until they are 18. Okay, that's inconsistent law, and should be addressed by the Legislature, not the State Supreme Court. So I can see where they were coming from by reinstating the charges on this guy.

But here's the kicker: She's not just 16, but a former student of his. He's a 40-year old teacher. She's also in Oregon now, where it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old, and he sent the nude pic to her across state lines, which brings up why he isn't facing Federal charges? Now the whole thing is a whole lot more icky overall, and although he only faces up to three years in prison, he deserves a whole lot more in the Hole.


Wait, stop-- you mean I should have held off on my outrage because there was more to this story than the headline implied? I'm shocked!
 
2017-10-06 07:18:14 AM  
Pants-On-Head-Stupid is not the courts purview.  If the law is dumb, change the law.

- Niel Gorsuch
 
2017-10-06 07:20:14 AM  
FTA:  Dissemination Statute

Phrasing?
 
2017-10-06 07:24:56 AM  
I see they pulled the legal equivalent of "It's the policy" defense. Man gives logical and sensible argument against it. The official response, "Oh, that does make sense. In fact we agree, but 'fraid that's not the policy/law, which is of course immutable and unchangable and definitely not selectively enforced by us."
 
2017-10-06 07:28:42 AM  

SpaceyCat: The one that I find hilariously stupid is one of the ones mentioned in the article - two "kids" (16/17) who have had sex with each other and sent each other explicit texts, were found to both victims and perpetrators of child porn because they had pictures of themselves on their phones.  So does that mean that any time a kid looks at him/herself in the mirror while naked mean they're peeping toms?  WTF!

\prosecutor should have been shot out of a cannon into the sun for that one


$$$.

money to the system to defend yourself, and if you are found guilty, well hell that's even MORE money.
 
2017-10-06 07:41:35 AM  
This is because there is a conflict in "age of consent" for various things.

There's age of consent for having sex, and there's age of consent for participating in commercial pornography.  (Just like there's a law about the age one has to be to purchase alcohol).

The idea is that pornographers might exploit minors, so one must be 18+ to enter into a contract to perform and license pornography.  This is actually business contract law -- and is the basis for all underage porn convictions.   There's no distinction between pornography for personal use and pornography for money when underage individuals are involved -- because if it's illegal, then it can be considered a part of a black market & its very existence makes it a "thing of value" on the global black market.

So, yes..  a 16 year old can have sex legally with any other 16+ consenting partner in states where the age of consent is at least 16, but if anyone films the act, they're committing a state crime & if they use the internet to transfer a copy or cross state lines with it, it's a federal crime.

Some states have taken measures to protect minors from sexting laws -- many choose to simply not prosecute minors even if they're guilty.  The real remedy is to fix the laws.   The laws were written to protect minors from predatory pornography corporations and sexual abusers, not from their legally consenting sexual partners if they're of legal age (unless those partners share those files without their permission).

I say we just make 16 the age of consent, voting, joining the armed forces, marrying, entering into other contracts, buying alcohol, and doing porn -- other countries have, and the world didn't end for them.  Make it consistent.
 
2017-10-06 07:49:47 AM  
Not sure about the Indiana case, but the case at the bottom of the article ... That's a special kind of stupid.

FTA: "One of the teens was accused of possessing child pornography because he had nude photos of himself on his phone. The arrest warrant for the boy's girlfriend described her as both a victim and a perpetrator."
 
2017-10-06 08:08:13 AM  

Pazuzu Smith-Jones: The defendant has a point, I guess. But I don't care.


k
 
2017-10-06 08:14:49 AM  
Yeah, that's laws for you.
 
2017-10-06 08:19:23 AM  

MmmmBacon: Okay, so let me get this straight. In Indiana, it is legal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old, but can't disseminate sexual content to them online (sexting, nude photos, etc) until they are 18. Okay, that's inconsistent law, and should be addressed by the Legislature, not the State Supreme Court. So I can see where they were coming from by reinstating the charges on this guy.

But here's the kicker: She's not just 16, but a former student of his. He's a 40-year old teacher. She's also in Oregon now, where it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old, and he sent the nude pic to her across state lines, which brings up why he isn't facing Federal charges? Now the whole thing is a whole lot more icky overall, and although he only faces up to three years in prison, he deserves a whole lot more in the Hole.


If they were viewed on an UN-moored vessel would this be a case for the Admiralty Court?
 
2017-10-06 08:20:39 AM  

MmmmBacon: Okay, so let me get this straight. In Indiana, it is legal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old, but can't disseminate sexual content to them online (sexting, nude photos, etc) until they are 18. Okay, that's inconsistent law, and should be addressed by the Legislature, not the State Supreme Court. So I can see where they were coming from by reinstating the charges on this guy.

But here's the kicker: She's not just 16, but a former student of his. He's a 40-year old teacher. She's also in Oregon now, where it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old, and he sent the nude pic to her across state lines, which brings up why he isn't facing Federal charges? Now the whole thing is a whole lot more icky overall, and although he only faces up to three years in prison, he deserves a whole lot more in the Hole.


Also, legal to have consentual sex doesn't mean legal to send photos the other isn't consenting to. I doubt this girl consented to being sent these photos. Thats a very different thing from her physically consenting to sex.
 
2017-10-06 08:29:22 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-10-06 08:30:26 AM  

MindStalker: Also, legal to have consentual sex doesn't mean legal to send photos the other isn't consenting to. I doubt this girl consented to being sent these photos. Thats a very different thing from her physically consenting to sex.


I read a couple of articles trying to figure out if she asked for these pictures, or if they were chatting and he thought "If I just send her a pic of my dick, she'll want me bad" and sent them on his own.  I suspect the latter.

And if she didn't ask for them, then I have no sympathy for him at all.  Even if she did, he's 40 and should know better.
 
2017-10-06 08:37:37 AM  
Instead of "illogical" the perp should have declared that sexting IS sex, therefore legal with a 16 year old. I mean, pictures on a computer screen is all the sex I ever get, so what the hell.
 
2017-10-06 08:39:07 AM  
Huh. You'd think conservative states would pass conservative laws about sex, rather than the opposite.
 
2017-10-06 08:47:55 AM  

SpaceyCat: The one that I find hilariously stupid is one of the ones mentioned in the article - two "kids" (16/17) who have had sex with each other and sent each other explicit texts, were found to both victims and perpetrators of child porn because they had pictures of themselves on their phones.  So does that mean that any time a kid looks at him/herself in the mirror while naked mean they're peeping toms?  WTF!

\prosecutor should have been shot out of a cannon into the sun for that one


Instead they'll be shortlisted for Federal appointment possibilities.  We have people trying to create a very dark America.  They want judges that will enforce unjust law because it is a very unjust world that they are trying to create.
And they're winning.

You're going to be so tired of winning it will make you sick.
 
2017-10-06 08:49:47 AM  

bacchanalias and consequences: I see they pulled the legal equivalent of "It's the policy" defense. Man gives logical and sensible argument against it. The official response, "Oh, that does make sense. In fact we agree, but 'fraid that's not the policy/law, which is of course immutable and unchangable and definitely not selectively enforced by us."

*for you, anyways.  If you didn't want to go to prison, you should have had rich parents.

 
2017-10-06 09:02:34 AM  

SpaceyCat: The one that I find hilariously stupid is one of the ones mentioned in the article - two "kids" (16/17) who have had sex with each other and sent each other explicit texts, were found to both victims and perpetrators of child porn because they had pictures of themselves on their phones.  So does that mean that any time a kid looks at him/herself in the mirror while naked mean they're peeping toms?  WTF!

\prosecutor should have been shot out of a cannon into the sun for that one


"Those young kids are having sex with each other, why can't *I* have sex with young kids? So unfair. Well I'll just send them to jail then."
 
2017-10-06 09:07:00 AM  
The courts are empowered to strike down unconstitutional laws. They cannot strike down a law simply for being dumb.

What exactly were they supposed to do?
 
2017-10-06 09:18:16 AM  

pueblonative: The courts are supposed to protect us against Unconstitutional laws not stupid ones.  That's the job of the legislature (yep, we're all boned)


We have a legal system, not a justice system.  Everyone would be well served to keep that in mind at all times.

Laws don't have to be logical or morally acceptable, and often aren't.  Many laws are passed as a knee jerk reaction to a specific event often without consideration for how similar yet different situations in the future may be affected.  Remember that when people scream "We have to do something now" in response to some grievous event.  Often what gets passed isn't well thought out.  You end up with a 17 year old getting labeled a child pornographer for sending someone over 18 a dick pic.
 
2017-10-06 09:22:43 AM  

grumpfuff: The courts are empowered to strike down unconstitutional laws. They cannot strike down a law simply for being dumb.

What exactly were they supposed to do?


I would say this borders on cruel and unusual to imprison him for 3 years when had he actually had sex with her no such punishment would be warranted. I could see people falling on either side of that argument but there's certainly something disproportionate about it.
 
2017-10-06 09:29:45 AM  

Callous: pueblonative: The courts are supposed to protect us against Unconstitutional laws not stupid ones.  That's the job of the legislature (yep, we're all boned)

We have a legal system, not a justice system.  Everyone would be well served to keep that in mind at all times.

Laws don't have to be logical or morally acceptable, and often aren't.  Many laws are passed as a knee jerk reaction to a specific event often without consideration for how similar yet different situations in the future may be affected.  Remember that when people scream "We have to do something now" in response to some grievous event.  Often what gets passed isn't well thought out.  You end up with a 17 year old getting labeled a child pornographer for sending someone over 18 a dick pic.


Horse puckey. It's not like you can sit down and write something and in twenty minutes you have a new law. State laws are a patchwork of things and ages and because one law has a different age than another one here would not of been caught if they had another six months to think about it.

The biggest surprise I saw reading it is we all need to give our kids a heads up because, technically, if they take a picture of themselves they could be charged with child porn.
 
2017-10-06 09:42:34 AM  

MmmmBacon: Okay, so let me get this straight. In Indiana, it is legal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old, but can't disseminate sexual content to them online (sexting, nude photos, etc) until they are 18. Okay, that's inconsistent law, and should be addressed by the Legislature, not the State Supreme Court. So I can see where they were coming from by reinstating the charges on this guy.

But here's the kicker: She's not just 16, but a former student of his. He's a 40-year old teacher. She's also in Oregon now, where it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old, and he sent the nude pic to her across state lines, which brings up why he isn't facing Federal charges? Now the whole thing is a whole lot more icky overall, and although he only faces up to three years in prison, he deserves a whole lot more in the Hole.


ARE we NOT doing PHRASING anymore???
 
2017-10-06 09:50:00 AM  
Sex is temporal, pictures are forever.

makes sense to me

The disparity is odd, but I believe the pictures are the greater violation of the two.
 
2017-10-06 09:55:25 AM  

jpcerutti: Callous: pueblonative: The courts are supposed to protect us against Unconstitutional laws not stupid ones.  That's the job of the legislature (yep, we're all boned)

We have a legal system, not a justice system.  Everyone would be well served to keep that in mind at all times.

Laws don't have to be logical or morally acceptable, and often aren't.  Many laws are passed as a knee jerk reaction to a specific event often without consideration for how similar yet different situations in the future may be affected.  Remember that when people scream "We have to do something now" in response to some grievous event.  Often what gets passed isn't well thought out.  You end up with a 17 year old getting labeled a child pornographer for sending someone over 18 a dick pic.

Horse puckey. It's not like you can sit down and write something and in twenty minutes you have a new law. State laws are a patchwork of things and ages and because one law has a different age than another one here would not of been caught if they had another six months to think about it.


Are you saying that thinking a potential law over for 6 months and considering it's potential unintended consequences before passing it cannot produce a better law then just passing something produced quickly in a knee jerk reaction to a specific event?

<stupidestthingivereadallday.png>
 
2017-10-06 10:08:21 AM  

Callous: jpcerutti: Callous: pueblonative: The courts are supposed to protect us against Unconstitutional laws not stupid ones.  That's the job of the legislature (yep, we're all boned)

We have a legal system, not a justice system.  Everyone would be well served to keep that in mind at all times.

Laws don't have to be logical or morally acceptable, and often aren't.  Many laws are passed as a knee jerk reaction to a specific event often without consideration for how similar yet different situations in the future may be affected.  Remember that when people scream "We have to do something now" in response to some grievous event.  Often what gets passed isn't well thought out.  You end up with a 17 year old getting labeled a child pornographer for sending someone over 18 a dick pic.

Horse puckey. It's not like you can sit down and write something and in twenty minutes you have a new law. State laws are a patchwork of things and ages and because one law has a different age than another one here would not of been caught if they had another six months to think about it.

Are you saying that thinking a potential law over for 6 months and considering it's potential unintended consequences before passing it cannot produce a better law then just passing something produced quickly in a knee jerk reaction to a specific event?

<stupidestthingivereadallday.png>


I'm saying if you can't catch that there's a difference in ages between two laws in the first thirty times you read it another thirty readings and all the time in the world aren't going to help. Won't somebody think of the children isn't applicable, unless you think we owe the forty year old guy texting dick picks to underage former students a break because he had a creative lawyer.

If the judges dropped the charge would they have been "legislating from the bench"? I have no problem with them punting it back to the legislature to fix an inconsistency. That's how the system is supposed to work and part of what it is there for.
 
2017-10-06 10:12:07 AM  

Mr. Shabooboo: MmmmBacon: Okay, so let me get this straight. In Indiana, it is legal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old, but can't disseminate sexual content to them online (sexting, nude photos, etc) until they are 18. Okay, that's inconsistent law, and should be addressed by the Legislature, not the State Supreme Court. So I can see where they were coming from by reinstating the charges on this guy.

But here's the kicker: She's not just 16, but a former student of his. He's a 40-year old teacher. She's also in Oregon now, where it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old, and he sent the nude pic to her across state lines, which brings up why he isn't facing Federal charges? Now the whole thing is a whole lot more icky overall, and although he only faces up to three years in prison, he deserves a whole lot more in the Hole.

If they were viewed on an UN-moored vessel would this be a case for the Admiralty Court?


WHAR GOLD FRINGED NEW WORLD ORDER
 
2017-10-06 10:16:47 AM  
I have no idea what the article said, I'm just here to post this image.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-10-06 10:17:16 AM  
I have no problem with this. If we are going to have laws then we need to enforce them, otherwise we will eventually end up with a lawless society where every law is selectively enforced depending on race, whether the judge likes the defendant or other random factors. If we think the law is irrational or inconsistent then we can change it. However, until it is it should be enforced.
 
2017-10-06 10:32:00 AM  
Stupid legislators making stupid laws results in stupid outcomes.  Not news.  I'm more surprised that a lower court needed to be overruled and didn't have the ability to apply the law as written - that's some mighty poor jurisprudence down there at the Circuit Court.

The fake moral panic over sexting is similar to the differential sentencing guidelines for crack vs. cocaine.  It makes no damn sense, but hey, your idiot state legislature can feel better about itself having dealt with the most important issues of the day.
 
2017-10-06 10:36:46 AM  

jpcerutti: Callous: jpcerutti: Callous: pueblonative: The courts are supposed to protect us against Unconstitutional laws not stupid ones.  That's the job of the legislature (yep, we're all boned)

We have a legal system, not a justice system.  Everyone would be well served to keep that in mind at all times.

Laws don't have to be logical or morally acceptable, and often aren't.  Many laws are passed as a knee jerk reaction to a specific event often without consideration for how similar yet different situations in the future may be affected.  Remember that when people scream "We have to do something now" in response to some grievous event.  Often what gets passed isn't well thought out.  You end up with a 17 year old getting labeled a child pornographer for sending someone over 18 a dick pic.

Horse puckey. It's not like you can sit down and write something and in twenty minutes you have a new law. State laws are a patchwork of things and ages and because one law has a different age than another one here would not of been caught if they had another six months to think about it.

Are you saying that thinking a potential law over for 6 months and considering it's potential unintended consequences before passing it cannot produce a better law then just passing something produced quickly in a knee jerk reaction to a specific event?

<stupidestthingivereadallday.png>

I'm saying if you can't catch that there's a difference in ages between two laws in the first thirty times you read it another thirty readings and all the time in the world aren't going to help. Won't somebody think of the children isn't applicable, unless you think we owe the forty year old guy texting dick picks to underage former students a break because he had a creative lawyer.

If the judges dropped the charge would they have been "legislating from the bench"? I have no problem with them punting it back to the legislature to fix an inconsistency. That's how the system is supposed to work and part of what i ...


There's no inconsistency.  That law says what it says.  The court can only overturn the conviction if the law is not Constitutional or if the law was not applied as it is written.  The law is Constitutional and it was applied as it's written.

My point is that laws are not always well thought out and knee jerk reaction laws often are not.  When something is passed in haste to "do something about it" and calm the angry mob, unintended consequences often result.  Such as the case I mentioned earlier of a 17 year old that sent a dick pic facing 10 years in prison.
 
2017-10-06 10:54:11 AM  
Callous:

There's no inconsistency.  That law says what it says.  The court can only overturn the conviction if the law is not Constitutional or if the law was not applied as it is written.  The law is Constitutional and it was applied as it's written.

My point is that laws are not always well thought out and knee jerk reaction laws often are not.  When something is passed in haste to "do something about it" and calm the angry mob, unintended consequences often result.  Such as the case I mentioned earlier of a 17 year old that sent a dick pic facing 10 years in prison.


I know where you're going and I think you're actually undermining your own argument here. The issue isn't that they didn't spend enough time thinking about new legislation, the issue is they didn't go back and fix old legislation to fit a new law. Spending eons pondering the possibles isn't going to fix that. Going back and fixing an old law will. This will force the legislature to address with certainty if they really want 16, "as the original drafters of the law intended", or 18 to be the age of consent here.

Knee jerk is a catchy phrase for legislation you don't like and trying to cookie cutter it from one argument to another just makes it look silly. Waiting wouldn't and isn't going to fix anything about this one AND the system is actually functioning as designed.
 
2017-10-06 11:16:49 AM  

zepillin: Sex is temporal, pictures are forever.

makes sense to me

The disparity is odd, but I believe the pictures are the greater violation of the two.


...You know the adult sent HIS dick right?

"Dissemination of harmful material to a minor" is the charge, how in the hell can a pic of a dick that she's seen and LEGALLY(albeit grossly) interacted with in person be harmful to her?

"Harmful material" is vague so they should've drawn a narrow distinction here that minors who can legally have sex aren't harmed by sexual content.

In reality prosecutors should drop ridiculous cases like "boy charged for his own dick pic" but they've all lost their goddamn minds.
 
2017-10-06 11:34:57 AM  

jpcerutti: Callous:

There's no inconsistency.  That law says what it says.  The court can only overturn the conviction if the law is not Constitutional or if the law was not applied as it is written.  The law is Constitutional and it was applied as it's written.

My point is that laws are not always well thought out and knee jerk reaction laws often are not.  When something is passed in haste to "do something about it" and calm the angry mob, unintended consequences often result.  Such as the case I mentioned earlier of a 17 year old that sent a dick pic facing 10 years in prison.

I know where you're going and I think you're actually undermining your own argument here. The issue isn't that they didn't spend enough time thinking about new legislation, the issue is they didn't go back and fix old legislation to fit a new law. Spending eons pondering the possibles isn't going to fix that. Going back and fixing an old law will. This will force the legislature to address with certainty if they really want 16, "as the original drafters of the law intended", or 18 to be the age of consent here.

Knee jerk is a catchy phrase for legislation you don't like and trying to cookie cutter it from one argument to another just makes it look silly. Waiting wouldn't and isn't going to fix anything about this one AND the system is actually functioning as designed.


I'm not undermining my point, you don't understand how laws are made.
Courts don't fix laws, courts don't write laws,  legislatures do.  And had they thought this one out more before they passed it than they may have accounted for situations like this.  Laws are only fixed by passing new laws that replace or amend the old ones.  And no one is reading old laws and proposing amendments until after a problem like this occurs.  So it's imperative that they take their time and get it right the first time.  Even if they change the law now, without a pardon, this guy is still farked as the law was what it was when he violated it.

Knee jerk is a term for an unconscious reaction.  It's used to describe hastily written legislation that wasn't well thought out before it was passed.

Your entire argument revolves around legislatures just passing hastily written bad legislation and expecting them to fix it later before someone gets caught up in it.  That's an incredibly stupid idea followed by an even stupider expectation.
 
2017-10-06 11:49:55 AM  

theregoesthat: zepillin: Sex is temporal, pictures are forever.

makes sense to me

The disparity is odd, but I believe the pictures are the greater violation of the two.

...You know the adult sent HIS dick right?

"Dissemination of harmful material to a minor" is the charge, how in the hell can a pic of a dick that she's seen and LEGALLY(albeit grossly) interacted with in person be harmful to her?

"Harmful material" is vague so they should've drawn a narrow distinction here that minors who can legally have sex aren't harmed by sexual content.

In reality prosecutors should drop ridiculous cases like "boy charged for his own dick pic" but they've all lost their goddamn minds.


Prosecutors care about getting convictions(winning) not fairness.  That's why I cringe when I hear a prosecutor say things like, "In 20 years I never lost a case".  Great, you either put innocent people in jail because you knew that you could win or you let guilty people go because your 100% conviction rate was more important than justice.
 
2017-10-06 11:57:31 AM  
The law and reality, may the two never meet.
 
2017-10-06 12:15:54 PM  

Callous: I know where you're going and I think you're actually undermining your own argument here. The issue isn't that they didn't spend enough time thinking about new legislation, the issue is they didn't go back and fix old legislation to fit a new law. Spending eons pondering the possibles isn't going to fix that. Going back and fixing an old law will. This will force the legislature to address with certainty if they really want 16, "as the original drafters of the law intended", or 18 to be the age of consent here.

Knee jerk is a catchy phrase for legislation you don't like and trying to cookie cutter it from one argument to another just makes it look silly. Waiting wouldn't and isn't going to fix anything about this one AND the system is actually functioning as designed.


I'm not undermining my point, you don't understand how laws are made.
Courts don't fix laws, courts don't write laws,  legislatures do.  And had they thought this one out more before they passed it than they may have accounted for situations like this.  Laws are only fixed by passing new laws that replace or amend the old ones.  And no one is reading old laws and proposing amendments until after a problem like this occurs.  So it's imperative that they take their time and get it right the first time.  Even if they change the law now, without a pardon, this guy is still farked as the law was what it was when he violated it.

Knee jerk is a term for an unconscious reaction.  It's used to describe hastily written legislation that wasn't well thought out before it was passed.

Your entire argument revolves around legislatures just passing hastily written bad legislation and expecting them to fix it later before someone gets caught up in it.  That's an incredibly stupid idea followed by an even stupider expectation.


How you got that out of my argument wins you points for creativity. I am vaguely familiar with the terms and functions involved here but don't care much for arguing semantics so I won't. Out of curiosity, why are you picking a creepy 40 year old guy with a lawyer (who is actually earning his money) to make your stand here?

What are you arguing specifically? That they didn't intend 18 to be the age that applies, that they should of taken the time to word the law to apply specifically to 40 year old men and each and every other individual they wanted to target, or that it is a travesty of justice that this guy will have a conviction? How will spending more time in pondering and committee fix any of this law or prevented it from happening? The only unintended consequence I see here is they have to go back and make the laws consistent. BOTH are functioning as intended when they were put in place and the unforeseen knee-jerk consequence is that they conflict with each other.

If anything, spending time to thoughtfully consider legislation to prevent future possible unintended consequences just means more time between making the two laws consistent here. If all you are saying is "knee-jerk is bad", okay, but that doesn't apply here.
 
Displayed 50 of 61 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report