Touch a minor while lecturing them, become a sex offender?

[peacefuljeffrey]

Jeeper wrote:

With all the recent coverage of crimes against kids the DA wanted to make a statement with this. The guy got bent over. I think the law is inane as applied but still within Illinois right to create.

Yes, there has been recent coverage of crimes against kids. Does that mean that the example has to be made out of a non-applying situation? Should we throw the book at a jaywalker and put him in prison for five years to "make an example" to red-light runners? Where's the logical connection? If he is an example here, he is an example to others who might grab a kid by the arm, because that's what he did. He is not an "example" to child molesters, because he didn't DO that!

Quote:
There is a big segment of society that defines Constitutionality by SCOTUS decisions, or the lack thereof.


To have a society governed by law there must be a final authority on what is constitutional. That is SCOTUS. A civilized society couldnt be had without a final say.

Take my example again. The Congress passes a law that says, "The people may not petition the government for redress of grievances."

Can you not say, WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE USSC TO SAY IT, that this law IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL!?

There is no equivocation necessary. While it may be a bit clearer of a decision than many constitutionality questions typically are, it underscores the truth that laws can be clearly unconstitutional without having been found so by the USSC. Where is it written in the U.S. Constitution that all laws are to be deemed constitutional until and unless they have been deemed unconstitutional by the USSC?

THere reason was that there is an outlet to redress the constitutionality of the law. You need to follow the process.

As far as I am educated about it, the USSC did not even always enjoy the role as "official arbiter of the Constitutionality of laws." In fact, lower (state) courts CAN and DO ALSO throw out laws as unconstitutional!


-Jeffrey

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

Now about your picture, again, why? Exactly how does photographic evidence in a murder case link to a trumped up assault case where the court couldn't even get convictions on their primary charges?

He thinks that grabbing an arm for ANY reason is tantamount to grabbing it for the reason of stuffing her off into a windowless van to take her home, have sex with her, strangle her, and bury her in a garbage bag.

He is not capable of making the intellectual distinction that just because two eventual acts begin with the same cursory action, they are not necessarily equivalent.

And the legal system in IL agrees.

-Jeffrey

 

[El Rojo]

Are you saying that the law as I quoted it is NOT unconstitutional until the USSC hears a case on it and declares it as such?!

Yeah, sure. Why not? Look at the emminient domain ruling. What is obviously unConstitutional to all of us was not ruled as such by the USSC. So at this time it is legal for local government to sieze property for private use. In theory it is wrong and I am sure the Founding Fathers would not be too fond of this ruling; however, this government of ours is a living breathing monster. We need to put it in check or you can kiss theory good bye as past practice and application take theory's place. We are probably in agreement about individual rights and liberty. Don't get me wrong.

What I am saying is unless we do something about it, Constitutionality has nothing to do with anything. Maybe I just lost faith in our system with this most recent ruling and the upcoming battle for the next Supreme Court justice. This thing has nothing to do with what is good for liberty or with our unalienable rights. It has everything to do with politics and sticking to a party line. I don't know about any of you, but it is depressing.

How much more clear does it need to be that slavery was unConstitutional?

If it was unConstitutional, then why was this in the Constitution? Article I, Section 2. "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. Is the Constitution itself unConstitutional because it called for counting some people as less than others?

If we are truly endowed with unalienable rights, then should there be any government at all? Should we live without a system? Can a Constitution with the preamble to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" really be justified since the purpose of government is to tax us and restrict our personal liberty all in the name of the "common good"?

The Constitution is a good document. It has its flaws. I guess I just lost faith in it with its being desecrated by politicians and Supreme Court justices. It seems to me to be nothing more than an empty shell anymore. We will always have our unalienable rights, but they are only as good as long as we are willing to fight for them. As is evident in original topic of this thread, equal protection from the Constitution is out. The emminient domain case is a perfect example of how the original meaning behind the Constitution is dead.

We talk a mean game on here about the line in the sand. For once, I can honestly say I think it is getting closer and I am not just spouting rhetoric.

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

Regardless of whether we think it makes sense, if the guy held the girl's arm for more than a few seconds, his actions probably fell within the technical definition of the Illinois law on unlawful restraint of a child - or at least a jury thought so.

Come on, now, it is VERY clear that there is a history in jurisprudence of the judiciary interpreting "what the legislature was intending" when it wrote a specific law.

Clearly, unlawful restraint is intended to address TAKING a child, KEEPING a child, unlawfully. Not "keeping a child's ATTENTION," which is what this guy was doing. He did not have her cooped up in a basement dungeon, or in a barn in the country, or the back of his van. Do you -- does anyone -- really think that the intent of a statute on "unlawful restraint of a child" has anything to do with holding an arm? Or is it more likely that it's about chaining a kid to a radiator as punishment, or keeping a kid locked in a closet, or forcibly keeping a kid from escaping your clutches during the course of a kidnapping?!

I have no opinion (really) on whether the guy in the case should be crucified or nominated for sainthood, but reality is probably somewhere between those extremes.

Gee, thanks. So now we at least know that the answer lies somewhere between "absolutely YES," and "absolutely NO." Greaaaaat.

-Jeffrey

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

You basically have 2 wrongs commited here. Her stupidity and his battery.

Jeeper, would you please now relate that to his BEING FORCED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER?!


You know, to keep this germane.

Because no reasonable person should believe that he should be considered a sex offender when he neither intended nor initiated a sex offense in the TRUE sense of the term (regardless of how the a$$#0le IL legislature chooses to torture the definition) -- and when all his actions had in common with a sex offense is that in each, physical contact is made between the perpetrator and the victim.

-Jeffrey

 

[2nd Amendment]

I think almost everyone agrees you can't, logically, relate it to a sex offense. I'd be happy to see it related to battery. Yeah, I know, if that's all it was we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion. Still, the mind boggles.

 

[joab]

It's better than your "the-State-can-do-no-wrong-because-it's-the-State-and-it-makes-the-definitions-of-right-and-wrong" idiots' paradise.

OK once again where have I even remotely said that the state could do no wrong here. As opposed to my actually stating in several posts that the state did make a mistake
RIF son RIF

He thinks that grabbing an arm for ANY reason is tantamount to grabbing it for the reason of stuffing her off into a windowless van to take her home, have sex with her, strangle her, and bury her in a garbage bag.

OK so now you are trying, unsuccessfully, to read my mind instead of reading my post outlining my reason.

Maybe we could argue about your abysmal grammar, instead?

This coming from a guy who couldn't read and comprehend the instructions on a book of matches

Jeeper, would you please now relate that to his BEING FORCED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER?!

And this proves my point. Jeeper has also come out against the sentencing.

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

OK once again where have I even remotely said that the state could do no wrong here. As opposed to my actually stating in several posts that the state did make a mistake

You very clearly and repeatedly have said that the state does what the state does and that's all there is to it because the state does indeed have the right to make these decisions.

If that is not a defense of the state being right simply because it is the state, I don't know what is.

Mistake or not, you have made clear that as long as it is the law, you feel that the state is entitled to screw up this guy's life with an inappropriate punishment that is not related to what he actually has done. And you put it in his lap and said that he was the one who got himself into that mess in the first place.

Now you are backpedaling, for all to see. Keep it up. Your credibility is like the little hourglass in a game of Boggle. Except you won't be able to turn this one over.

-Jeffrey

 

[Jeff]

Jeeper:

I am not saying that you need to accept the ruling as constitutional and sit on your hands.

EXACTLY! That's what I've been saying all along. I'm not trying to make any claims that there are other ways of overturning the laws other than what you have outlined. We agree on that. But you go one step further and apply the label of "constitutional" to it because it has gone through this specific legal process, or it has yet to go through that specific legal process.

El Rojo:

If it was unConstitutional, then why was this in the Constitution? Article I, Section 2. "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. Is the Constitution itself unConstitutional because it called for counting some people as less than others?

Thanks for pointing that out; yet another example of contradictory or dichotomous clauses, in regards to other portions of the Document.

However, the preamble's language is clear and direct; and speaks directly about an important concept. Art 1 sec 2 merely has language that, when interpreted, suggests the existence of slaves. It doesn't address their constitutionality/morality directly, only suggests they exist.

Most of the delegates did not own slaves and many of them knew slavery violated the principles of freedom, liberty, and the Constitution. But they could not solve the problem overnight. Such language existed that alluded to slaves, but only to address other concerns of law. They were optimistic that the general spirit of the DOI and BOR would eventually lead to legal recognizance of EVERYONE'S freedom.

If we are truly endowed with unalienable rights, then should there be any government at all? Should we live without a system? Can a Constitution with the preamble to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" really be justified since the purpose of government is to tax us and restrict our personal liberty all in the name of the "common good"?

We live in Republic that is designed to uphold a Constitution. We elect legislative officials in the hopes they will create laws that do not infringe on those unalienable rights, and perhaps create laws that will protect our rights even more. The elected officials then appoint members of the judiciary whom we hope will uphold the laws that are constitutional.

Therefore, when some rich, scummy land developer with special interests in mind, raises a grievance on buying a bunch of inhabited properties, the Justices uphold the Constitution-- has it is clearly written-- and deny the devloper his immoral land grab.

This doesn't happen, and instead we have judicial activism run amok, and an interpretation of the 5th amendment that is ludicrous, immoral and unConstitutional.

We need government for a few roles, but not many. We need a national defense, a judicial system, a public road system, and a clean water system, among a few other things.

We do have unalienable rights, El Rojo, or the founding fathers would not have taken the time to record a Bill Of Rights which enumerates what the government cannot do.

And we remain constantly vigilant that those rights will not be violated by the elected and appointed officials, yet they frequently are.

 

[Jeeper]

As far as I am educated about it, the USSC did not even always enjoy the role as "official arbiter of the Constitutionality of laws." In fact, lower (state) courts CAN and DO ALSO throw out laws as unconstitutional!

The vast majority of "unconstitutional" ruling come from lower federal (and state) courts. A small percentage come from appeals courts(the district court ones are upheld here) and then a tiny percent from SCOTUS. That route still is the correct legal way to challenge a law. There are a lot of law on the books that are flagrantly unconstitutional. There are mainly never enforced so there isnt a challenge.

Jeeper, would you please now relate that to his BEING FORCED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER?!

He met the elments of a crime that is classified as a sex offense. That sex offense is within the rights of illinois to define. It is like public urination if the kid never saw your goods. It is still a sex offense in some places. The punishment as related to the act has to be grossly, grossly disproportionate to the act to be overturned under the 8th.

I dont think what he did was a sex offense as I would define it but I can easily see how the elements of the crime could be.

I would really like to know more info about this case. A transcript would really be good for this situation. Maybe the appeals decision will be published and we can get a hold of it.

 

[joab]

You very clearly and repeatedly have said that the state does what the state does and that's all there is to it because the state does indeed have the right to make these decisions.

I don't remember ever saying that, maybe you could copy and paste some examples.

 

[DRZinn]

The personal insults are getting really tiring, joab. And they don't help your position even a little bit.

 

[Jeeper]

EXACTLY! That's what I've been saying all along. I'm not trying to make any claims that there are other ways of overturning the laws other than what you have outlined. We agree on that. But you go one step further and apply the label of "constitutional" to it because it has gone through this specific legal process, or it has yet to go through that specific legal process.

I got ya. This is a thin line as to how you define a law. There are cases that laws are facially unconstitutional where the police would be in violation because it is apparent to anyone that they shouldnt enforce it( say that you can rape a woman wearing red shoes while searching her at a traffic stop). The label of "constitutional" is more of a legal label in my mind as to the status of a law. Until it is labeled by a court as unconstitutional it really legally isnt. Laws have affect until overturned. I really dont see how else it would work. There really are only two alternatives.

All laws are constitutional when drafed until a decision overturning them or

All laws are unconstitutional until upheld.

I think that the first case really is the basis of how our legal system works. That process has been mentioned in a few SCOTUS cases as how the sytem deals with the constitutionality of laws. How else could it work? How could you ever trust that a law would be followed.

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

He met the elments of a crime that is classified as a sex offense. That sex offense is within the rights of illinois to define. It is like public urination if the kid never saw your goods. It is still a sex offense in some places. The punishment as related to the act has to be grossly, grossly disproportionate to the act to be overturned under the 8th.

Wrong.

It is NOT within a state's POWERS (states and governments have POWERS, not "RIGHTS") to wrongly define one crime as another, when empirically the two are not the same. Grabbing is not sexual abuse -- unless the grabbing is of the sexual parts. This guy did not sexually abuse the girl, but he is treated under the law as though he did simply because what he did is also often part of what sex offenders do when they sexually abuse someone. You might as well give your approval of the state sentencing him for blinking while in the presence of the girl, since I'm sure that sex offenders and molesters also blink while they molest.

The state, despite your protestations, is not in the right when it defines a grandfather with tits put on him as a grandmother.

I dont think what he did was a sex offense as I would define it but I can easily see how the elements of the crime could be.

Yes, but you're using that as a jumping-off point to saying that it's okay that the state incorrectly defined what he did as falling into the category of a sex crime. IT IS NOT A SEX CRIME. This is just merely another example of a "zero-tolerance"-type mentality taken much too far.

You "can easily see how the elements of the crime could be" defined as a sex offense? Does that MAKE it a sex offense? Because surely his actions ought to BE a sex offense before they are PUNISHED as a sex offense.

I could pile up some tires, an old engine block, a couple of seats and a steering wheel on my lawn. They are easily said to be ELEMENTS of a car. ARE they a car??

-Jeffrey

 

[Jeeper]

It is NOT within a state's POWERS (states and governments have POWERS, not "RIGHTS") to wrongly define one crime as another, when empirically the two are not the same. Grabbing is not sexual abuse -- unless the grabbing is of the sexual parts. This guy did not sexually abuse the girl, but he is treated under the law as though he did simply because what he did is also often part of what sex offenders do when they sexually abuse someone.

They didnt charge him with sexual abuse. He fell into a class of crimes. Really it is irrelevant what the definition is. They could call it a crime against turtles. The only way to go after this law from a constitutional basis is by going after the punishment. That is under the 8th amendment and is an impossible standard.

You might as well give your approval of the state sentencing him for blinking while in the presence of the girl, since I'm sure that sex offenders and molesters also blink while they molest.

Not quite the same. There is no denying that he did at least two illegal acts, grabbing and restraining. Blinking isnt illegal.

States can definae a class of crimes all they want. The only bar on them is in punishment.

 

[joab]

DocZinn
My personal insults are getting tiresome?

Perhaps you should go back through the thread and review the insults aimed at me.

Most of them for things that I have not said or implied.

If making sure that my words and meaning are not purposely distorted by those who disagree with my position undermines my position with you, then so be it.

 

[gc70]

The variety of thoughts on the constitutionality of laws is very interesting.

I gues I am somewhat of an idealist in the way I prefer to see the world around me, but I am thoroughly a pragmatist in the way in which I function in the world around me.

Some laws are logically unconstitutional, some are morally and ethically unconstitutional, and some will eventually be formally recognized as unconstitutional by the courts. But, while laws are on the books, you either have to abide by them, try to get them changed, or risk your life and liberty by breaking them.

While I think there are a number of utterly unconstitutional laws on the books, I don't break those laws because I don't want to have a new friend or roommate named Bubba.

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

They didnt charge him with sexual abuse. He fell into a class of crimes. Really it is irrelevant what the definition is. They could call it a crime against turtles. The only way to go after this law from a constitutional basis is by going after the punishment. That is under the 8th amendment and is an impossible standard.

The so-called "class of crimes" is ERRONEOUS, then. What if they had lumped stealing candy from a candy store in with the sex crimes. You're okay with them charging a person who steals candy as a sex criminal, just because -- ERRONEOUSLY -- the state had thus classified that act?

Quote:
You might as well give your approval of the state sentencing him for blinking while in the presence of the girl, since I'm sure that sex offenders and molesters also blink while they molest.

Not quite the same. There is no denying that he did at least two illegal acts, grabbing and restraining. Blinking isnt illegal.

States can definae a class of crimes all they want. The only bar on them is in punishment.

You seem to be tacitly going along with that. So does Joab. That's why I keep calling you on it and saying that you seem to be agreeing with it.

You are saying that states can define crimes however they want and there is nothing we can or should do about it EVEN WHEN there is no sound logical or intellectual truth to the way they have classified certain crimes.

That, friend, is B@LLS#!T !!

-Jeffrey

 

[joab]

You seem to be tacitly going along with that. So does Joab. That's why I keep calling you on it and saying that you seem to be agreeing with it.

Actually , no.
I have not even entered that area of the discussion.
But I have stated repeatedly that I disagree with the sentencing and that maybe he should have been charged with the lesser crime of assault, and only have been sentenced to a couple of years probation.
You might have heard about that.

I see that you have posted twice since my asking you to post examples of statements I have made to back up your comments

You very clearly and repeatedly have said that the state does what the state does and that's all there is to it because the state does indeed have the right to make these decisions.

If it would be easier I could post examples of what I actually said

 

[Art Eatman]

There are about four pages here that I just now read through. If I'd cleaned up the insults, I'd get no sleep tonight.

So, this sucker's done for.

Art