Why do we allow a defendant to question every relevant aspect of an accuser outside of their sexual preferences?
According to a friend of mine, who is a law student, we don't. There's a MASSIVE list of rules lawyers must follow with regards to trying to call a person's credibility/character into question. "You're not allowed to discuss their sex life without a really good reason" is only one of MANY rules.
As has been said, if there's a specific aspect of the accuser's sexual history that is relevant to a coherent defense, that's admissible. Rape shield laws do not trump the Sixth Amendment.
However, something like "the accuser has had many sexual partners, therefore they probably consented to this one" is not a coherent defense. That's just speculative nonsense.
According to a friend of mine, who is a law student, we don't. There's a MASSIVE list of rules lawyers must follow with regards to trying to call a person's credibility/character into question. "You're not allowed to discuss their sex life without a really good reason" is only one of MANY rules.
I should probably have been a bit more technical in my explanation, sorry
As far as federal rules of evidence are concerned, as long as the part of the accuser character is a "pertinent trait," it can be called into question, as long as they are not there simply to say "This person has done X before, therefore they have done X now." If the evidence is called in order to prove ANYTHING else - motive, absence of mistake or accident, intent, it is allowed. The ONLY exception to this relates specifically to sex cases, where the accuser is completely shielded from any character questions relating to sexual history or preference, even in pursuit of a legitimate claim. For example, "the accuser admitted to attending frat parties regularly to engage in anonymous drunken intercourse" would be admissible without the sex case exception (but is inadmissible with it) and I feel would be very important to include in the interest of justice.
Ladyluck - While they are MANY rules when it comes to evidence, the sex case exception is the only one when it comes to questioning the character of the plaintiff or defendant.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
the accuser is completely shielded from any character questions relating to sexual history or preference, even in pursuit of a legitimate claim.
This is just flatly untrue. I've already posted the text of the relevant laws.
If you're referring to the "constitutional rights" exception, you're wrong. The way the law is written varies from state to state, but the standard for admission is extremely high and very difficult to get around. Furthermore, most statutes, yours included, actively discourage judges from admitting this kind of evidence. Pursuit of a legitimate claim (say, motive like in my above example) is not on its face constitutionally protected and doesn't mandate admission of evidence so long as the judge believes barring it is not "unduly infringing upon the defendant’s right." (according to the fairly lax rule you quoted). Many other states encourage even more limiting of admitting this kind of evidence, and defendants have been screwed by these laws many times. So, unless the defendant has the money and time to appeal that decision, hes SOL.
More to the point, my larger why shouldn't sex cases fall under the exact same rules as every other case? Why do they get a special standard that very obviously harms the defendants ability to have a fair trial?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
If you're referring to the "constitutional rights" exception, you're wrong. The way the law is written varies from state to state, but the standard for admission is extremely high and very difficult to get around. Furthermore, most statutes, yours included, actively discourage judges from admitting this kind of evidence. Pursuit of a legitimate claim (say, motive like in my above example) is not on its face constitutionally protected and doesn't mandate admission of evidence so long as the judge believes barring it is not "unduly infringing upon the defendant’s right." (according to the fairly lax rule you quoted) So, unless the defendant has the money and time to appeal that decision, hes SOL.
The statutes discourage judges from admitting irrelevant evidence. They clearly instruct the admission of this sort of evidence when it is relevant to a legitimate defense. If you believe my example from Massachusetts (which is essentially the same as the federal rules, upon which many other states have based their own laws) is not reflective of rape shield laws across the country, why don't you offer your own example?
If you'd like to argue that these laws result in an infringement, why don't you give some sort of evidence to that effect, instead of just insisting on it?
More to the point, my larger why shouldn't sex cases fall under the exact same rules as every other case? Why do they get a special standard that very obviously harms the defendants ability to have a fair trial?
There are lots of different rules of evidence. They deal with a wide variety of types of evidence. Many different things are afforded their own "special" rule.
The statutes discourage judges from admitting irrelevant evidence. They clearly instruct the admission of this sort of evidence when it is relevant to a legitimate defense. If you believe my example from Massachusetts (which is essentially the same as the federal rules, upon which many other states have based their own laws) is not reflective of rape shield laws across the country, why don't you offer your own example?
If you'd like to argue that these laws result in an infringement, why don't you give some sort of evidence to that effect, instead of just insisting on it?
I'm quoting the statute here: "...a trial judge should consider the important policies underlying the rape-shield statute...should exclude evidence of specific instances of a complainant’s sexual conduct in so far [sic] as that is possible without unduly infringing upon the defendant’s right". That does not discourage irrelevant evidence. That discourages relevant evidence if there is other relevant evidence that the judge deems sufficient. The statute does not describe inadmissible evidence in these cases as irrelevant. This is, plain and simple, prioritizing the social comfort of the accuser over a fair trial for the defendant. I'd be happy to find real-life cases of this happening, but that will have to wait till tomorrow evening, if you don't mind.
There are lots of different rules of evidence. They deal with a wide variety of types of evidence. Many different things are afforded their own "special" rule.
Please show me examples of other special exceptions that you're referring to. To my knowledge, in the federal rules and in (most, if not all) states, character evidence only has a special exclusion for accusers in sex cases.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
I'm quoting the statute here: "...a trial judge should consider the important policies underlying the rape-shield statute...should exclude evidence of specific instances of a complainant’s sexual conduct in so far [sic] as that is possible without unduly infringing upon the defendant’s right".
That's not a quote from the statute. That's a quote from a relevant Massachusetts court case. If you go and look at the context of the quote, they are only talking about excluding evidence once sufficient evidence of bias has been shown:
We emphasize that we do not depart from the long held view that prostitution is not relevant to credibility. [Note 8] Commonwealth v. Vandenhecke, 248 Mass. 403 (1924). Nor do we depart from the policy of the statute in viewing prostitution or the lack of chastity as inadmissible on the issue of consent. Where, however, such facts are relevant to a showing of bias or motive to lie, the general evidentiary rule of exclusion must give way to the constitutionally based right of effective cross-examination. See Davis v. Alaska, supra; Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973); State v. DeLawder, 28 Md. App. 212 (1975); State v. Jalo, 27 Or. App. 845 (1976). Furthermore, we do not reach consideration of the admissibility of evidence of the specific factual circumstances underlying the prostitution complaints. [Note 9] Without intimating the proper result, we observe that under the common law the trial judge retains broad discretion to control the scope of cross-examination, and to limit that scope once the jury have been "adequately exposed" to the issue of bias. Commonwealth v. Dougan, 377 Mass. 303 , 309-310 (1979). Commonwealth v. Hicks, 377 Mass. 1 , 8 (1979). In the exercise of this discretion a trial judge should consider the important policies underlying the rape-shield statute. He should exclude evidence of specific instances of a complainant's sexual conduct in so far as that is possible without unduly infringing upon the defendant's right to show bias.
That does not discourage irrelevant evidence. That discourages relevant evidence if there is other relevant evidence that the judge deems sufficient. The statute does not describe inadmissible evidence in these cases as irrelevant. This is, plain and simple, prioritizing the social comfort of the accuser over a fair trial for the defendant. I'd be happy to find real-life cases of this happening, but that will have to wait till tomorrow evening, if you don't mind.
The motive for rape shield laws is absolutely not "social comfort of the accuser", but rather a fair trial. The reason freewheeling exploration of the accuser's sexual history is not allowed is because it has a severe biasing effect on the jury.
Please show me examples of other special exceptions that you're referring to. To my knowledge, in the federal rules and in (most, if not all) states, character evidence only has a special exclusion for accusers in sex cases.
EDIT: I also note with amusement that you have declined to acknowledge my request to produce another rape shield law which you feel is unacceptably strict.
That's not a quote from the statute. That's a quote from a relevant Massachusetts court case. If you go and look at the context of the quote, they are only talking about excluding evidence once sufficient evidence of bias has been shown:
The motive for rape shield laws is absolutely not "social comfort of the accuser", but rather a fair trial. The reason freewheeling exploration of the accuser's sexual history is not allowed is because it has a severe biasing effect on the jury.
EDIT: I also note with amusement that you have declined to acknowledge my request to produce another rape shield law which you feel is unacceptably strict.
I meant I'd reply later. I was expecting to get some sleep, but I'm not tired. So, here we go
That its a quote from a relevant case doesn't make it insignificant. While the original intent of rape shield laws was to protect an accuser from being mischaracterized, modern rape shield rules actively encourage judges from excluding evidence that is relevant if they deem it unnecessary and result in a less than fair trial.
Above: The most restrictive laws prevent ANY EVIDENCE that does not directly relate to the accuser's sexual history with the defendant, even if it is relevant. Furthermore, the source cites cases where overzealous enforcement of the rape shield law was overturned on appeal, and if I had the time I'm sure I could find many more cases where the law was (mis)applied but the defendant was unable to appeal for financial or other reasons.
Fact is, rules of evidence for character generally prohibit excess, and the "she did it before so shes doing it now" argument is disallowed without a special exception. By adding an additional layer of scrutiny to sex cases you do more harm than good, considering that the vast majority of the problems that rape shield laws seek to correct are covered by the standard rules of evidence. You're only focusing on the most extreme and missing that a huge number of "other" cases get swept up under these shield laws as well.
Finally, I want to point out that your religious example has nothing to do with the character of a defendant or accuser, which we were discussing. I wasn't claiming that there are NO other rules of evidence, just that there are none in the federal and state character evidence rules. More to the point, it does not bar otherwise admissible statements of fact that may be relevant to a case the way that rape shield laws do. (Like, say "Accuser texted friend that night saying she was going to hook up with a random guy at the party")
I ask you again, can you think of a defense that involves exploring the sexual history of the accuser, that does not fall under one of the exceptions listed (and thus would be allowed), that does NOT amount to "she sleeps around a lot, therefore lies"?
And let's also not miss this gem from Doku's source:
These cases demonstrate how rape shield laws are continually contested within courts and how the sexual history of a rape victim may still be used as evidence if it is proven to be relevant to the defense.
Gosh, that sounds awfully familiar. Let's just rewind to me two pages ago:
Hell, the text that I quoted cites multiple cases in which such laws were deemed to have violated the rights of the accused. That's exactly my point - the judicial system protects the right of the accused to present their defense, and rape shield laws that attempt to tread on those rights get overturned.
Oh great, a citation about the state of the law more than 20 years ago. Got anything remotely current?
The book is from 2009 - it wouldn't cite a source if it still wasn't current. I can find more examples tonight if that isn't enough. The "gem" you pulled is discussing how the sexual history is used ON APPEAL, in spite of rape shield laws, and how the rape shield laws simply make it more difficult. Bold the first half of that sentence and it makes my point and discredits yours. Keep in mind that this book is written from a VERY pro-victim perspective, and this is the most favorable light they can cast rape shield laws in.
I do note, that you've ignored pretty much every point I've made in favor of mildly mocking me? At least show you're paying attention
I ask you again, can you think of a defense that involves exploring the sexual history of the accuser, that does not fall under one of the exceptions listed (and thus would be allowed), that does NOT amount to "she sleeps around a lot, therefore lies"?
Yes, I can. Under many state rape shield laws, something like "Accuser texted friend before alleged rape occurred indicating desire to sleep with a random person at a party." would be completely inadmissible despite being a strong indicator of intent (doesn't directly relate to the sexual history accuser has with defendant), and in every other state it would be up to the judge to decide if it is admissible, and can be made inadmissible if either side can produce any other evidence of bias on the part of the accuser.
EDIT: More on rule 412, from the federal notes "...barring evidence relating to the alleged victim's sexual behavior ... except in designated circumstances in which the probative value of the evidence significantly outweighs possible harm to the victim.
Basically, this flat out states that personal harm to the accuser is much more important than a fair trial for the defendant (Hence the "significantly outweighs" standard)
The book is from 2009 - it wouldn't cite a source if it still wasn't current.
Yeah, I'm sure the half-page entry in some goofball victimology handbook is super current.
I can find more examples tonight if that isn't enough. The "gem" you pulled is discussing how the sexual history is used ON APPEAL, and how the rape shield laws simply make it more difficult. Bold the first half of that sentence and it makes my point and discredits yours. Keep in mind that this book is written from a VERY pro-victim perspective, and this is the most favorable light they can cast rape shield laws in.
I do note, that you've ignored pretty much every point I've made in favor of mildly mocking me? At least show you're paying attention
I think we've all agreed that rape shield laws as written back in the 70s came into conflict with the accused's right to present their defense. Luckily, those issues have already been ironed out in courts. A large amount of case law exists at both the state and federal level, all the way up the Supreme Court, which affirms the fact that rape shield laws cannot supersede the accused's rights to a fair trial.
Yes, I can. Under many state rape shield laws, something like "Accuser texted friend before alleged rape occurred indicating desire to sleep with a random person at a party." would be completely inadmissible despite being a strong indicator of intent (doesn't directly relate to the sexual history accuser has with defendant), and in every other state it would be up to the judge to decide if it is admissible, and can be made inadmissible if either side can produce any other evidence of bias on the part of the accuser.
Wrong. Even if you find a law that as written would disallow that (I'm still waiting on you to cite an actual law you find objectionable), case law is abundantly clear that that is perfectly admissible.
Yeah, I'm sure the half-page entry in some goofball victimology handbook is super current.
I think we've all agreed that rape shield laws as written back in the 70s came into conflict with the accused's right to present their defense. Luckily, those issues have already been ironed out in courts. A large amount of case law exists at both the state and federal level, all the way up the Supreme Court, which affirms the fact that rape shield laws cannot supersede the accused's rights to a fair trial.
Wrong. Even if you find a law that as written would disallow that (I'm still waiting on you to cite an actual law you find objectionable), case law is abundantly clear that that is perfectly admissible.
Right. I'm done with you. Once your arguments degrade into "durhurr old cite" without bothering to even look at the source, you've lost and this isn't a debate. Thanks for playing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Right. I'm done with you. Once your arguments degrade into "durhurr old cite" without bothering to even look at the source, you've lost and this isn't a debate. Thanks for playing.
If you'd like to give up, that's certainly your prerogative.
Going back to the statutory issue brought up by Captain Morgan (I think).
I wonder if it would work to have some kind of sliding scale. For example in MN (if I am remembering right, sex ed was a long time ago) age of consent is 16 but until you are 18 there can be no more than a 2 year difference between the participants.
It seems to me that it might make sense to re-work the laws so a 16-year old isnt sleeping with daddy's buddy, or the teacher but wouldn't punish drunk college freshman that didnt think to ask to see some ID before sleeping with the girl he met at a party.
Also in the age of web-cams, picture messages and sexting, the child porn laws need a serious overhaul. But that's probably for another thread.
It seems to me that it might make sense to re-work the laws so a 16-year old isnt sleeping with daddy's buddy, or the teacher but wouldn't punish drunk college freshman that didnt think to ask to see some ID before sleeping with the girl he met at a party.
I think this would be a good way to go. However, passing those kinds of laws might be difficult in right-leaning states
Also in the age of web-cams, picture messages and sexting, the child porn laws need a serious overhaul. But that's probably for another thread.
Yeeeep. You hear about 1 or 2 cases a year where some dumb kid either sends or gets caught with pictures of an ex and becomes branded for life. What would you do, though? Some sort of sliding-scale decriminalization on possession? What about if someone actually takes the pictures? The problem I see with both is that if you decriminalize it, there will be someone who takes advantage of the law to start a legal child porn website.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Isn't debate more about delving into the details of an issue, to come to a well-informed conclusion that accounts for all sides of the issue? Not a competition with "winners" and "losers"? I think you'll find that approaching a debate in that fashion is guaranteed to be unenlightening and unsatisfying...
But, that aside, I concur with Tiax - your example would be admissible because one can easily establish the relevance of it to the specific actions the court is trying to sort out. Also, I don't think it's about "personal harm to the accuser is much more important than a fair trial for the defendant". It's that you're not allowed to cause someone else harm if it's not clearly relevant to the case. Otherwise, courtrooms would turn into giant mudslinging arenas, in which defendants punitively try to smear the character of the complainants as retribution for their accusations (and potentially vice versa). So again, a person's character by default is not up for discussion in a courtroom unless lawyers can clearly demonstrate that such a discussion is relevant to the case, regardless of whether its murder, rape, theft, or any other crime.
@Fluffy_Bunny: I like the sliding scale idea. There are two issues underlying statutory rape laws, to my understanding. The first is that we deem minors to be incapable of making sufficiently informed decisions regarding consent. The second is that an implicit power differential exists between an adult and a minor; such a power differential makes it impossible for there not to be a level of coercion going on when an adult initiates a sexual interaction with a minor. This 2nd factor is non-existent in the case of a narrow age gap (16-17 year old with 18-19 year old), and the law should probably acknowledge it.
Isn't debate more about delving into the details of an issue, to come to a well-informed conclusion that accounts for all sides of the issue? Not a competition with "winners" and "losers"? I think you'll find that approaching a debate in that fashion is guaranteed to be unenlightening and unsatisfying...
Debate is also about respect, and Tiax has made it clear that he isn't offering any. I simply don't bother with people like that after a while.
But, that aside, I concur with Tiax - your example would be admissible because one can easily establish the relevance of it to the specific actions the court is trying to sort out.
This in incorrect. In several states, the only admissible evidence is of past sexual contact between the two parties and nothing more, regardless of its relevance. In other states, the judge can still bar the evidence (and does, and such evidence is later allowed on appeal as per my source), if the judge feels that there is other evidence that can show bias.
Also, I don't think it's about "personal harm to the accuser is much more important than a fair trial for the defendant". It's that you're not allowed to cause someone else harm if it's not clearly relevant to the case.
But it is. How else would you interpret the "significantly outweighs" standard discussed in the notes? The way I look at it is this; if we were to reverse the language and say that all evidence is allowed unless the harm to the accuser significantly outweighs the benefit to the defendant, would that be fair? (I think not) If so, we need to reevaluate the standard to make it fair regardless of who it is applied to. Heck, I'd settle for a balancing interests test where whichever interest prevails in significance (>50%) is favored.
Otherwise, courtrooms would turn into giant mudslinging arenas, in which defendants punitively try to smear the character of the complainants as retribution for their accusations (and potentially vice versa). So again, a person's character by default is not up for discussion in a courtroom unless lawyers can clearly demonstrate that such a discussion is relevant to the case, regardless of whether its murder, rape, theft, or any other crime.
I agree that cases shouldn't be about mudslinging. But shouldn't the standard then equally weigh the benefit to the defendant and the harm to the accuser? My issue isn't that I want to make cases a no holds barred thing - only that the standard for admission of evidence is equally fair to both sides, a notion which the language of the federal rules clearly contradicts.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
This in incorrect. In several states, the only admissible evidence is of past sexual contact between the two parties and nothing more, regardless of its relevance. In other states, the judge can still bar the evidence (and does, and such evidence is later allowed on appeal as per my source), if the judge feels that there is other evidence that can show bias.
Source? The cited examples by Tiax suggest otherwise, and those whom I know with explicit legal training also suggest otherwise. Given that you have not presented any legal credentials, nor any official sources, I kind of feel obligated to trust and believe those who have.
How else would you interpret the "significantly outweighs" standard discussed in the notes?
I would interpret it to mean that you have to be very clear why you need to cause personal harm to the other party before dragging in evidence that does do. If a legal proceeding is to cause harm, it must be without question that said harm is outweighed by the benefits. This seems not unlike the law's dislike of wrongfully imprisoning someone who is innocent - whenever possible, the law should do no harm.
That being said, you keep proclaiming that there is a double standard between the complainant and the defendant. But according to Tiax this is not so - the complainant must also demonstrate that the needs of their case outweigh the harm caused by the evidence they ask to introduce. Can you provide a citation of a recent (last 10 years preferably) law, or a case, that clearly demonstrates otherwise?
Source? The cited examples by Tiax suggest otherwise, and those whom I know with explicit legal training also suggest otherwise. Given that you have not presented any legal credentials, nor any official sources, I kind of feel obligated to trust and believe those who have.
For credentials: I'll be graduating summa *** laude from law school this summer. While my focus is in business law, I got a Cali award in evidence. Oh, I've also got clinical experience in criminal defense (hated it, though), two years clerking at a law firm, and a year as an associate. ;P
As for official sources on the actual statutes, here are all states 2011 statutes: http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/NCPCA%20Rape%20Shield%202011.pdf
For one, Colorado states that only evidence of the accuser's previous sexual contact with the defendant or evidence showing that the alleged rape was done by someone else are allowed, and even those submissions may be deemed inadmissible, end of story. Too lazy to go down the list, but plenty of states have similar rules.
I would interpret it to mean that you have to be very clear why you need to cause personal harm to the other party before dragging in evidence that does do. If a legal proceeding is to cause harm, it must be without question that said harm is outweighed by the benefits. This seems not unlike the law's dislike of wrongfully imprisoning someone who is innocent - whenever possible, the law should do no harm.
That being said, you keep proclaiming that there is a double standard between the complainant and the defendant. But according to Tiax this is not so - the complainant must also demonstrate that the needs of their case outweigh the harm caused by the evidence they ask to introduce. Can you provide a citation of a recent (last 10 years preferably) law, or a case, that clearly demonstrates otherwise?
I get what you're saying, but this isn't a question of understanding, nor is it a double standard. It is an unfair weighing of interests in determining whether or not to admit character evidence in a sex case. In the language of the notes in the federal statute, the burden is far greater on the defendant than it is on the accuser. Simply, If the accuser simply proves that both the harm done to the accuser and the benefit to the defendant are equal, the accuser wins (Accuser wins even if the benefit outweighs the harm, if not significant enough). This part isn't a question of case law - its written in plain english. I'm a bit lazy to find a case right now, but if I come across one today I'll be happy to post it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
It seems to me that it might make sense to re-work the laws so a 16-year old isnt sleeping with daddy's buddy, or the teacher but wouldn't punish drunk college freshman that didnt think to ask to see some ID before sleeping with the girl he met at a party.
I think this would be a good way to go. However, passing those kinds of laws might be difficult in right-leaning states
Also in the age of web-cams, picture messages and sexting, the child porn laws need a serious overhaul. But that's probably for another thread.
Yeeeep. You hear about 1 or 2 cases a year where some dumb kid either sends or gets caught with pictures of an ex and becomes branded for life. What would you do, though? Some sort of sliding-scale decriminalization on possession? What about if someone actually takes the pictures? The problem I see with both is that if you decriminalize it, there will be someone who takes advantage of the law to start a legal child porn website.
For starters, we need to stop identifying teenagers as children. The concept of Minor has been scaled up in recent years to even up age of 26 years for healthcare, and the whole mess of charging "children as adults." I mean what we used to call "child" has evolved to tween, teen, twixter (or some attempts therein but they keep dying), young adult and on and on up to the 35 which I frankly think that middle age starts at 25 but I digress.
We do not call an insect in the pupa stage a larva, we call it a pupa. We call the adult form by the adult form name. Why don't we just concede that adolescents are adolescents and get over that already?
Which goes back to the concept of a sliding case in terms of maturation, and severity. The question is to have the laws be defined by the culture rather than the culture by the laws. Such as having everyone video tape sex, as one person actually did on Law and Order (it's drama/satire but it gets to the point) or a different episode on Simpsons where Homer is charged with sexual harassment and didn't have the problem because Willie was video taping Homer and the woman out of nowhere. While those are media and comedy and drama respective, they're made to start a conversation. That you should not need to video tape or to verify everyone at every point.
For starters, if you're married the statutory laws do not even apply. Why? Because your parents gave consent to the action and no longer have custody of you. Which means that we do have concepts of emancipation and the capacity for a youngster to maintain an adult level relationship within a context.
However, there are times whenever a younger teen sleeps with an older teen and the mother or father gets angry and has the person charged. There was one report of a man, who lives with his girlfriend now wife, who he had slept with and his mother in law had him charged and branded for life as a sex offender which has curtailed his employment status for life. Why should a parent have that much power over their daughter's future, even if she makes a bad decision in case... in case what happens if she makes the right decision for herself and the parent makes the wrong decision.
At some point policing a young woman's ****** is strange, even as a parent, but at some point you have to step back and let them back their own stupid decisions and help them repair their lives.
Now comes the question between age brackets and the history of the relationship. In a one night stand scenario where two parties "hook up" and engage in sex, it should be arguably up to the person to police their own privates as a part of personal responsibility to the person that they are having sex with. Without evidence of coercion, abuse, or power structure issues (teachers, police, ect.) then if the two people made a mistake then their own shame should be enough to let the issue go and be held responsible. Otherwise, the "child" or rather adolescent in the scenario should be held responsible with a fine.
The other part of the issue is whether people are going to farm the material and make a website. In my own view, sexting with teenagers is troublesome in the same way that a child tries to do weed. You punish them at the home for taking advantage of your trust, and maybe force them to do some community service or pay a fine working some miserable job for a summer on the municpal level.
We can just as easily divest ourselves by differentiating between peer to peer sexting, betwixt two teenagers, which should be a misdemeanor irregardless.Dirty old man Cummings and Fast Cindy the 15 year old hooker online, yea whole different ball game. Then we have some enterprising young woman at age 15 setting up a "hotteentitties.whatever" and charging by the hour on webcam "services." That is the one to prosecute severely and make an example of the people involved. The one, while not harmless yet very stupid, is akin to the teenager who got into your liquor cabinet the other is the equal of the person who broke into a wine store and store thousands of dollar in liquor. The crimes are not the same, therefore the punishments for either young woman should not be the same. The first may very well be best handled in house or with small court intervention without overreaching, the second has already evolved to a point to where the police must be involved.
The punishment must meet the crime for the individual, not for an "example to the community." If we want that to occur, you have a prosecutor make a back end deal for the person to go around and make a concession speech to youngsters about being stupid or make a youtube video campaign or something along with volunteering or whatever.
Interventions and the like do not always work, but if a youngster is engaging in promiscuity to a large degree and is endangering people in their majority. Then that person should be held accountable and be treated for acting out sexually in such a manner. I'm not condemning all teenage sex, just the people who are mainly troubled like a 13 year old having a sugar daddy that's 55. Rather than the 13 year old sleeping with the 16 year old, creep still? Yes, yet it happens. If it's two teenagers having sex, what interest is it to my tax dollars to police the 13 year old's ***** and the 16 year old's ****** and prosecute either?
And who makes these laws? Do the teenagers themselves make the laws or have any real representation here as to what they view as normal? Not really, arguably through the parent but if the child is charged as an adult without voter representation then we are directly denying the rights of the child as they do not have the same recourse as an adult voter. The lawmakers are typically older males and female, often they're in their 40+ range at the state level and at the federal level are even older if in the Senate. Far removed from the teenage years.
I think the issue of teenage sex is something that Goldwater may have had right, that it is in part sexual experimentation much like drugs. Obama has said, I paraphrase, "Yes I've inhaled marijuana, many times, with the intention to get high" or something therein versus Clinton's, "I smoked but did not inhale."
If we're honest as adults with ourselves with what we did as a youth and understand the extreme situations. For example, two teenagers in an abusive relationship or strange relationships such as the previous one I highlighted with the male under age lover and the young college woman. Those are strange, weird, and at some point would require a mediator in order to look at a best outcomes scenario.
But this is why we have police acting as case workers and psychologists. Back in the day with hostage negotiators we used to have a "John Wayne" way of policing. Then a psychologist and the FBI asked if there was a better way because of the high death rate. So they came up with some methods, that while not totally refined, were much more effective than the old "go in and shoot the bad guy and hope enough people live scenario." In today's hostage negotiation world, there are many more good outcomes than bad. Is it expensive? Certainly, but so is the value of a human life or so we say it is.
When we begin to cheap skate justice and universal all scenarios into little blocks, we get strange cases. For example this young man's strange story:
In the Dixon case it statutory rape, the father went ahead and pressed for it, the jury found him innocent... yet the prosecutor was creative and found that he had Dixon charged under statutory rape with a 10 year prison sentence. If he had been found guilty of rape it would have been 4 years.
Which brings up another problem, why was it even a felony if there was no forced penetration or grooming or not even alcohol? For starters, anyone who has raised a teenager knows that they're going to do what they want when they want and they will make mistakes. The same with young adults, stop believing in fairy tales about "prevention" for using fear. Because these cases don't last long in the media, they just end up stagnating one person's life.
Could Dixon have been charged with a misdemeanor, made to pay a fine, and told to next time card his next fling? Sure, and no one would've cared and the vindictive parent and the moralizers in the world would have been happy. Instead, with mandatory laws and other such shenanigans we end up wasting $40k a year to house some young black man who was horny and fornicated some little, horny white girl. It's a waste of my time as a tax payer, and today Dixon is an NFL player earning more money than I can dream and paying huge dividends to society without having engaged in a ruckus like some other players have these days.
So in all, I agree with the quoted person about decriminalization. These cases should be left to courts that actually are trained to deal with strange relationship scenarios and vindictive parents rather than sending someone to jail with a "creative" prosecutor. The War on Drugs was lost, the same with the War on Sex. You know who really won the Culture War? The people who are still alive today and living their broken, yet functional American Dreams.
And many of those moralizers from the 70's and 80's and 90's are? Well many of them have been found to be divorced, dealing with gay male prostitutes on bathroom floors, and on and on. Before we as the older Americans expect our juniors to stop fornicating and engaging in strange, sexual forays we need to stop and look our wrinkly selves first buck naked in truth of ourselves before moralizing about every ***** and ****** we do not control. And then to reflect control our penises and vaginas to act as a good example to youngsters.
I may not agree with someone's sexual activity like MikeyG's or even care for his choices in partners, but at least what he writes he engages in a level of honor and morality with people as full adults engaged in an adult activity. For people who engage in a lot of sexual activity having good, clean standards who are honest brokers should also be allow to speak their peace to the youth. Rather than those like myself who went through abstinence and no sex before marriage. There's different people out there, while I fully support abstinence we need to let the individual make their own choices and be there for them as a community.
Let the individuals pick their own path within reason. When they mess up, let's be there to pick up the pieces and hold them accountable so that the individual learns. We waste time worrying Johnny McPenis shagging Shirly McVagina three states over and having some federal law mandating this or that as a way to discourage activity. To make sure something isn't kosher, you must enculturate and educate rather than always dominate. Then, when we have enough information, make an educated and experienced decision on what to do about the failures.
And we need to get used to the fact that justice isn't cheap, yet neither is incarceration and the New Jim Crow.
The scenario I was more envisioning with the possession of "child porn" thing would be some enterprising ******* makes a website where people pay to sign up, claim they're 18 (or whatever the decriminalized age is for child porn), and they can trade or view other's pics peer-to-peer. While the site could easily protect itself from legal trouble, it'd be creating a child porn ring that is easy to access and I just don't think there is a way around that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
The scenario I was more envisioning with the possession of "child porn" thing would be some enterprising ******* makes a website where people pay to sign up, claim they're 18 (or whatever the decriminalized age is for child porn), and they can trade or view other's pics peer-to-peer. While the site could easily protect itself from legal trouble, it'd be creating a child porn ring that is easy to access and I just don't think there is a way around that.
That kind of stuff already exists. It is not hard to find things on the internet. It would still be illegal anyway since distributing those kinds of pictures of individuals without their consent is a crime. Which is why those ex gf revenge type sites get taken down whenever one becomes kind of popular.
According to a friend of mine, who is a law student, we don't. There's a MASSIVE list of rules lawyers must follow with regards to trying to call a person's credibility/character into question. "You're not allowed to discuss their sex life without a really good reason" is only one of MANY rules.
I should probably have been a bit more technical in my explanation, sorry
As far as federal rules of evidence are concerned, as long as the part of the accuser character is a "pertinent trait," it can be called into question, as long as they are not there simply to say "This person has done X before, therefore they have done X now." If the evidence is called in order to prove ANYTHING else - motive, absence of mistake or accident, intent, it is allowed. The ONLY exception to this relates specifically to sex cases, where the accuser is completely shielded from any character questions relating to sexual history or preference, even in pursuit of a legitimate claim. For example, "the accuser admitted to attending frat parties regularly to engage in anonymous drunken intercourse" would be admissible without the sex case exception (but is inadmissible with it) and I feel would be very important to include in the interest of justice.
Ladyluck - While they are MANY rules when it comes to evidence, the sex case exception is the only one when it comes to questioning the character of the plaintiff or defendant.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
This is just flatly untrue. I've already posted the text of the relevant laws.
If you're referring to the "constitutional rights" exception, you're wrong. The way the law is written varies from state to state, but the standard for admission is extremely high and very difficult to get around. Furthermore, most statutes, yours included, actively discourage judges from admitting this kind of evidence. Pursuit of a legitimate claim (say, motive like in my above example) is not on its face constitutionally protected and doesn't mandate admission of evidence so long as the judge believes barring it is not "unduly infringing upon the defendant’s right." (according to the fairly lax rule you quoted). Many other states encourage even more limiting of admitting this kind of evidence, and defendants have been screwed by these laws many times. So, unless the defendant has the money and time to appeal that decision, hes SOL.
More to the point, my larger why shouldn't sex cases fall under the exact same rules as every other case? Why do they get a special standard that very obviously harms the defendants ability to have a fair trial?
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
The statutes discourage judges from admitting irrelevant evidence. They clearly instruct the admission of this sort of evidence when it is relevant to a legitimate defense. If you believe my example from Massachusetts (which is essentially the same as the federal rules, upon which many other states have based their own laws) is not reflective of rape shield laws across the country, why don't you offer your own example?
If you'd like to argue that these laws result in an infringement, why don't you give some sort of evidence to that effect, instead of just insisting on it?
There are lots of different rules of evidence. They deal with a wide variety of types of evidence. Many different things are afforded their own "special" rule.
I'm quoting the statute here: "...a trial judge should consider the important policies underlying the rape-shield statute...should exclude evidence of specific instances of a complainant’s sexual conduct in so far [sic] as that is possible without unduly infringing upon the defendant’s right". That does not discourage irrelevant evidence. That discourages relevant evidence if there is other relevant evidence that the judge deems sufficient. The statute does not describe inadmissible evidence in these cases as irrelevant. This is, plain and simple, prioritizing the social comfort of the accuser over a fair trial for the defendant. I'd be happy to find real-life cases of this happening, but that will have to wait till tomorrow evening, if you don't mind.
Please show me examples of other special exceptions that you're referring to. To my knowledge, in the federal rules and in (most, if not all) states, character evidence only has a special exclusion for accusers in sex cases.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
That's not a quote from the statute. That's a quote from a relevant Massachusetts court case. If you go and look at the context of the quote, they are only talking about excluding evidence once sufficient evidence of bias has been shown:
The motive for rape shield laws is absolutely not "social comfort of the accuser", but rather a fair trial. The reason freewheeling exploration of the accuser's sexual history is not allowed is because it has a severe biasing effect on the jury.
For one random example: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_610
WHY DO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS GET SOME SPECIAL RULE???
See how easy this game is?
EDIT: I also note with amusement that you have declined to acknowledge my request to produce another rape shield law which you feel is unacceptably strict.
I meant I'd reply later. I was expecting to get some sleep, but I'm not tired. So, here we go
That its a quote from a relevant case doesn't make it insignificant. While the original intent of rape shield laws was to protect an accuser from being mischaracterized, modern rape shield rules actively encourage judges from excluding evidence that is relevant if they deem it unnecessary and result in a less than fair trial.
Since you wanted a source:
http://books.google.com/books?id=5Ofl-XjBbnMC&pg=PA219&lpg=PA219&dq=most+restrictive+rape+shield+law&source=bl&ots=RYPdCTg4fH&sig=hAxk3HL4C8ecpP2qm4cCwuaBSCs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4yHmUpOvGufPsASN2YGwAg&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=most%20restrictive%20rape%20shield%20law&f=false
Above: The most restrictive laws prevent ANY EVIDENCE that does not directly relate to the accuser's sexual history with the defendant, even if it is relevant. Furthermore, the source cites cases where overzealous enforcement of the rape shield law was overturned on appeal, and if I had the time I'm sure I could find many more cases where the law was (mis)applied but the defendant was unable to appeal for financial or other reasons.
Fact is, rules of evidence for character generally prohibit excess, and the "she did it before so shes doing it now" argument is disallowed without a special exception. By adding an additional layer of scrutiny to sex cases you do more harm than good, considering that the vast majority of the problems that rape shield laws seek to correct are covered by the standard rules of evidence. You're only focusing on the most extreme and missing that a huge number of "other" cases get swept up under these shield laws as well.
Finally, I want to point out that your religious example has nothing to do with the character of a defendant or accuser, which we were discussing. I wasn't claiming that there are NO other rules of evidence, just that there are none in the federal and state character evidence rules. More to the point, it does not bar otherwise admissible statements of fact that may be relevant to a case the way that rape shield laws do. (Like, say "Accuser texted friend that night saying she was going to hook up with a random guy at the party")
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Gosh, that sounds awfully familiar. Let's just rewind to me two pages ago:
The book is from 2009 - it wouldn't cite a source if it still wasn't current. I can find more examples tonight if that isn't enough. The "gem" you pulled is discussing how the sexual history is used ON APPEAL, in spite of rape shield laws, and how the rape shield laws simply make it more difficult. Bold the first half of that sentence and it makes my point and discredits yours. Keep in mind that this book is written from a VERY pro-victim perspective, and this is the most favorable light they can cast rape shield laws in.
I do note, that you've ignored pretty much every point I've made in favor of mildly mocking me? At least show you're paying attention
Yes, I can. Under many state rape shield laws, something like "Accuser texted friend before alleged rape occurred indicating desire to sleep with a random person at a party." would be completely inadmissible despite being a strong indicator of intent (doesn't directly relate to the sexual history accuser has with defendant), and in every other state it would be up to the judge to decide if it is admissible, and can be made inadmissible if either side can produce any other evidence of bias on the part of the accuser.
EDIT: More on rule 412, from the federal notes "...barring evidence relating to the alleged victim's sexual behavior ... except in designated circumstances in which the probative value of the evidence significantly outweighs possible harm to the victim.
Basically, this flat out states that personal harm to the accuser is much more important than a fair trial for the defendant (Hence the "significantly outweighs" standard)
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Yeah, I'm sure the half-page entry in some goofball victimology handbook is super current.
I think we've all agreed that rape shield laws as written back in the 70s came into conflict with the accused's right to present their defense. Luckily, those issues have already been ironed out in courts. A large amount of case law exists at both the state and federal level, all the way up the Supreme Court, which affirms the fact that rape shield laws cannot supersede the accused's rights to a fair trial.
Wrong. Even if you find a law that as written would disallow that (I'm still waiting on you to cite an actual law you find objectionable), case law is abundantly clear that that is perfectly admissible.
Right. I'm done with you. Once your arguments degrade into "durhurr old cite" without bothering to even look at the source, you've lost and this isn't a debate. Thanks for playing.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
If you'd like to give up, that's certainly your prerogative.
I wonder if it would work to have some kind of sliding scale. For example in MN (if I am remembering right, sex ed was a long time ago) age of consent is 16 but until you are 18 there can be no more than a 2 year difference between the participants.
It seems to me that it might make sense to re-work the laws so a 16-year old isnt sleeping with daddy's buddy, or the teacher but wouldn't punish drunk college freshman that didnt think to ask to see some ID before sleeping with the girl he met at a party.
Also in the age of web-cams, picture messages and sexting, the child porn laws need a serious overhaul. But that's probably for another thread.
I think this would be a good way to go. However, passing those kinds of laws might be difficult in right-leaning states
Yeeeep. You hear about 1 or 2 cases a year where some dumb kid either sends or gets caught with pictures of an ex and becomes branded for life. What would you do, though? Some sort of sliding-scale decriminalization on possession? What about if someone actually takes the pictures? The problem I see with both is that if you decriminalize it, there will be someone who takes advantage of the law to start a legal child porn website.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
But, that aside, I concur with Tiax - your example would be admissible because one can easily establish the relevance of it to the specific actions the court is trying to sort out. Also, I don't think it's about "personal harm to the accuser is much more important than a fair trial for the defendant". It's that you're not allowed to cause someone else harm if it's not clearly relevant to the case. Otherwise, courtrooms would turn into giant mudslinging arenas, in which defendants punitively try to smear the character of the complainants as retribution for their accusations (and potentially vice versa). So again, a person's character by default is not up for discussion in a courtroom unless lawyers can clearly demonstrate that such a discussion is relevant to the case, regardless of whether its murder, rape, theft, or any other crime.
@Fluffy_Bunny: I like the sliding scale idea. There are two issues underlying statutory rape laws, to my understanding. The first is that we deem minors to be incapable of making sufficiently informed decisions regarding consent. The second is that an implicit power differential exists between an adult and a minor; such a power differential makes it impossible for there not to be a level of coercion going on when an adult initiates a sexual interaction with a minor. This 2nd factor is non-existent in the case of a narrow age gap (16-17 year old with 18-19 year old), and the law should probably acknowledge it.
This in incorrect. In several states, the only admissible evidence is of past sexual contact between the two parties and nothing more, regardless of its relevance. In other states, the judge can still bar the evidence (and does, and such evidence is later allowed on appeal as per my source), if the judge feels that there is other evidence that can show bias.
But it is. How else would you interpret the "significantly outweighs" standard discussed in the notes? The way I look at it is this; if we were to reverse the language and say that all evidence is allowed unless the harm to the accuser significantly outweighs the benefit to the defendant, would that be fair? (I think not) If so, we need to reevaluate the standard to make it fair regardless of who it is applied to. Heck, I'd settle for a balancing interests test where whichever interest prevails in significance (>50%) is favored.
I agree that cases shouldn't be about mudslinging. But shouldn't the standard then equally weigh the benefit to the defendant and the harm to the accuser? My issue isn't that I want to make cases a no holds barred thing - only that the standard for admission of evidence is equally fair to both sides, a notion which the language of the federal rules clearly contradicts.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Source? The cited examples by Tiax suggest otherwise, and those whom I know with explicit legal training also suggest otherwise. Given that you have not presented any legal credentials, nor any official sources, I kind of feel obligated to trust and believe those who have.
I would interpret it to mean that you have to be very clear why you need to cause personal harm to the other party before dragging in evidence that does do. If a legal proceeding is to cause harm, it must be without question that said harm is outweighed by the benefits. This seems not unlike the law's dislike of wrongfully imprisoning someone who is innocent - whenever possible, the law should do no harm.
That being said, you keep proclaiming that there is a double standard between the complainant and the defendant. But according to Tiax this is not so - the complainant must also demonstrate that the needs of their case outweigh the harm caused by the evidence they ask to introduce. Can you provide a citation of a recent (last 10 years preferably) law, or a case, that clearly demonstrates otherwise?
For credentials: I'll be graduating summa *** laude from law school this summer. While my focus is in business law, I got a Cali award in evidence. Oh, I've also got clinical experience in criminal defense (hated it, though), two years clerking at a law firm, and a year as an associate. ;P
As for official sources on the actual statutes, here are all states 2011 statutes: http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/NCPCA%20Rape%20Shield%202011.pdf
For one, Colorado states that only evidence of the accuser's previous sexual contact with the defendant or evidence showing that the alleged rape was done by someone else are allowed, and even those submissions may be deemed inadmissible, end of story. Too lazy to go down the list, but plenty of states have similar rules.
I get what you're saying, but this isn't a question of understanding, nor is it a double standard. It is an unfair weighing of interests in determining whether or not to admit character evidence in a sex case. In the language of the notes in the federal statute, the burden is far greater on the defendant than it is on the accuser. Simply, If the accuser simply proves that both the harm done to the accuser and the benefit to the defendant are equal, the accuser wins (Accuser wins even if the benefit outweighs the harm, if not significant enough). This part isn't a question of case law - its written in plain english. I'm a bit lazy to find a case right now, but if I come across one today I'll be happy to post it.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
For starters, we need to stop identifying teenagers as children. The concept of Minor has been scaled up in recent years to even up age of 26 years for healthcare, and the whole mess of charging "children as adults." I mean what we used to call "child" has evolved to tween, teen, twixter (or some attempts therein but they keep dying), young adult and on and on up to the 35 which I frankly think that middle age starts at 25 but I digress.
We do not call an insect in the pupa stage a larva, we call it a pupa. We call the adult form by the adult form name. Why don't we just concede that adolescents are adolescents and get over that already?
Which goes back to the concept of a sliding case in terms of maturation, and severity. The question is to have the laws be defined by the culture rather than the culture by the laws. Such as having everyone video tape sex, as one person actually did on Law and Order (it's drama/satire but it gets to the point) or a different episode on Simpsons where Homer is charged with sexual harassment and didn't have the problem because Willie was video taping Homer and the woman out of nowhere. While those are media and comedy and drama respective, they're made to start a conversation. That you should not need to video tape or to verify everyone at every point.
For starters, if you're married the statutory laws do not even apply. Why? Because your parents gave consent to the action and no longer have custody of you. Which means that we do have concepts of emancipation and the capacity for a youngster to maintain an adult level relationship within a context.
However, there are times whenever a younger teen sleeps with an older teen and the mother or father gets angry and has the person charged. There was one report of a man, who lives with his girlfriend now wife, who he had slept with and his mother in law had him charged and branded for life as a sex offender which has curtailed his employment status for life. Why should a parent have that much power over their daughter's future, even if she makes a bad decision in case... in case what happens if she makes the right decision for herself and the parent makes the wrong decision.
At some point policing a young woman's ****** is strange, even as a parent, but at some point you have to step back and let them back their own stupid decisions and help them repair their lives.
Now comes the question between age brackets and the history of the relationship. In a one night stand scenario where two parties "hook up" and engage in sex, it should be arguably up to the person to police their own privates as a part of personal responsibility to the person that they are having sex with. Without evidence of coercion, abuse, or power structure issues (teachers, police, ect.) then if the two people made a mistake then their own shame should be enough to let the issue go and be held responsible. Otherwise, the "child" or rather adolescent in the scenario should be held responsible with a fine.
The other part of the issue is whether people are going to farm the material and make a website. In my own view, sexting with teenagers is troublesome in the same way that a child tries to do weed. You punish them at the home for taking advantage of your trust, and maybe force them to do some community service or pay a fine working some miserable job for a summer on the municpal level.
We can just as easily divest ourselves by differentiating between peer to peer sexting, betwixt two teenagers, which should be a misdemeanor irregardless.Dirty old man Cummings and Fast Cindy the 15 year old hooker online, yea whole different ball game. Then we have some enterprising young woman at age 15 setting up a "hotteentitties.whatever" and charging by the hour on webcam "services." That is the one to prosecute severely and make an example of the people involved. The one, while not harmless yet very stupid, is akin to the teenager who got into your liquor cabinet the other is the equal of the person who broke into a wine store and store thousands of dollar in liquor. The crimes are not the same, therefore the punishments for either young woman should not be the same. The first may very well be best handled in house or with small court intervention without overreaching, the second has already evolved to a point to where the police must be involved.
The punishment must meet the crime for the individual, not for an "example to the community." If we want that to occur, you have a prosecutor make a back end deal for the person to go around and make a concession speech to youngsters about being stupid or make a youtube video campaign or something along with volunteering or whatever.
Interventions and the like do not always work, but if a youngster is engaging in promiscuity to a large degree and is endangering people in their majority. Then that person should be held accountable and be treated for acting out sexually in such a manner. I'm not condemning all teenage sex, just the people who are mainly troubled like a 13 year old having a sugar daddy that's 55. Rather than the 13 year old sleeping with the 16 year old, creep still? Yes, yet it happens. If it's two teenagers having sex, what interest is it to my tax dollars to police the 13 year old's ***** and the 16 year old's ****** and prosecute either?
And who makes these laws? Do the teenagers themselves make the laws or have any real representation here as to what they view as normal? Not really, arguably through the parent but if the child is charged as an adult without voter representation then we are directly denying the rights of the child as they do not have the same recourse as an adult voter. The lawmakers are typically older males and female, often they're in their 40+ range at the state level and at the federal level are even older if in the Senate. Far removed from the teenage years.
I think the issue of teenage sex is something that Goldwater may have had right, that it is in part sexual experimentation much like drugs. Obama has said, I paraphrase, "Yes I've inhaled marijuana, many times, with the intention to get high" or something therein versus Clinton's, "I smoked but did not inhale."
If we're honest as adults with ourselves with what we did as a youth and understand the extreme situations. For example, two teenagers in an abusive relationship or strange relationships such as the previous one I highlighted with the male under age lover and the young college woman. Those are strange, weird, and at some point would require a mediator in order to look at a best outcomes scenario.
But this is why we have police acting as case workers and psychologists. Back in the day with hostage negotiators we used to have a "John Wayne" way of policing. Then a psychologist and the FBI asked if there was a better way because of the high death rate. So they came up with some methods, that while not totally refined, were much more effective than the old "go in and shoot the bad guy and hope enough people live scenario." In today's hostage negotiation world, there are many more good outcomes than bad. Is it expensive? Certainly, but so is the value of a human life or so we say it is.
When we begin to cheap skate justice and universal all scenarios into little blocks, we get strange cases. For example this young man's strange story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Dixon
In the Dixon case it statutory rape, the father went ahead and pressed for it, the jury found him innocent... yet the prosecutor was creative and found that he had Dixon charged under statutory rape with a 10 year prison sentence. If he had been found guilty of rape it would have been 4 years.
Which brings up another problem, why was it even a felony if there was no forced penetration or grooming or not even alcohol? For starters, anyone who has raised a teenager knows that they're going to do what they want when they want and they will make mistakes. The same with young adults, stop believing in fairy tales about "prevention" for using fear. Because these cases don't last long in the media, they just end up stagnating one person's life.
Could Dixon have been charged with a misdemeanor, made to pay a fine, and told to next time card his next fling? Sure, and no one would've cared and the vindictive parent and the moralizers in the world would have been happy. Instead, with mandatory laws and other such shenanigans we end up wasting $40k a year to house some young black man who was horny and fornicated some little, horny white girl. It's a waste of my time as a tax payer, and today Dixon is an NFL player earning more money than I can dream and paying huge dividends to society without having engaged in a ruckus like some other players have these days.
So in all, I agree with the quoted person about decriminalization. These cases should be left to courts that actually are trained to deal with strange relationship scenarios and vindictive parents rather than sending someone to jail with a "creative" prosecutor. The War on Drugs was lost, the same with the War on Sex. You know who really won the Culture War? The people who are still alive today and living their broken, yet functional American Dreams.
And many of those moralizers from the 70's and 80's and 90's are? Well many of them have been found to be divorced, dealing with gay male prostitutes on bathroom floors, and on and on. Before we as the older Americans expect our juniors to stop fornicating and engaging in strange, sexual forays we need to stop and look our wrinkly selves first buck naked in truth of ourselves before moralizing about every ***** and ****** we do not control. And then to reflect control our penises and vaginas to act as a good example to youngsters.
I may not agree with someone's sexual activity like MikeyG's or even care for his choices in partners, but at least what he writes he engages in a level of honor and morality with people as full adults engaged in an adult activity. For people who engage in a lot of sexual activity having good, clean standards who are honest brokers should also be allow to speak their peace to the youth. Rather than those like myself who went through abstinence and no sex before marriage. There's different people out there, while I fully support abstinence we need to let the individual make their own choices and be there for them as a community.
Let the individuals pick their own path within reason. When they mess up, let's be there to pick up the pieces and hold them accountable so that the individual learns. We waste time worrying Johnny McPenis shagging Shirly McVagina three states over and having some federal law mandating this or that as a way to discourage activity. To make sure something isn't kosher, you must enculturate and educate rather than always dominate. Then, when we have enough information, make an educated and experienced decision on what to do about the failures.
And we need to get used to the fact that justice isn't cheap, yet neither is incarceration and the New Jim Crow.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
That kind of stuff already exists. It is not hard to find things on the internet. It would still be illegal anyway since distributing those kinds of pictures of individuals without their consent is a crime. Which is why those ex gf revenge type sites get taken down whenever one becomes kind of popular.