Um, "attempted sexual battery" would fit the bill, for those with cognitive difficulties. Why are you acting like that's not covered? I think that one is obvious. You might as well ask what we could possibly charge someone with if they tried to kill someone and failed!
Anyway, yes, I can admit that the act of "restraining a child" could be a sex crime. Are you able to admit that just because something could be a sex crime, it's not necessarily a sex crime?
Sexual battery would be another way to charge someone. The DA chose this.
Let me state again that I dont think what he did was anyway sexual(just stupid). My point is that the state of illinois has the right to define it as one. This is completely legal and Constitutional to do whether the posters here like it or not.
It is no different that making urinating in public, mooning a child, or a number of other non-sexual acts into sex crimes. The state is the one who determines the definition. You cant say they are wrong because they determine it and it is not even close to being a constitutional violation.
You ask about what should be a sex crime. How about, SEX CRIMES. Forcing or attempting to force someone to have sex! This is a no-brainer, dude. But it's preposterous for you to fail to differentiate between the grabbing he did in these circumstances, and the grabbing that a person does when he intends sexual battery!
I agree. The problem is creating criteria that capture an attempt. You cant get into the subjective mind to detemine what they were going to do. Instead you make a list of criteria that they meet to be guilty. Here this guy met the criteria for what Illinois detemined is a pre-cursor to a sex crime. I dont think he should have been charged with it but Illinois does.
IF SOMEONE HASN'T COMMITTED A CRIME, YOU CAN'T CHARGE THEM WITH THAT CRIME, DESPITE YOUR DESIRE TO CATCH SOMEONE BEFORE THE ACT OCCURRED. Even if there is recorded evidence that such a crime will occur, the charge itself is not used, but rather "conspiracy to commit......".
Are you saying that all ATTEMPT crimes are not constitutional? There is little question that he wasnt going to sexually abuse the child. The state can still make this a crime because he did illegal acts with touching and restraining. It is just like making public urination a sex crime. They have the right to do it
This isnt really a procedural due process case either. That mainly deals with the process like serving, charging and fairness in the procedure. You definately picked the right case to cite for procedural due process though. That is one of the best decisions out there for it. Some Justices amaze me with their fantastic writing.
To overturn the law you would argue substantive due process. It would deal with the substance of the law and the conviction. It wouldnt work but that is how you would argue it.
So, I guess, by jeeper's legal-only standards, it is now completely constitutional to seize someone's property and give it to a developer, for the sole purpose of creating retail growth in that community.
Yet 98% of us think otherwise.
That decision isnt really much different than past decisions. I dont agree with it but since the supreme court is the one who says what is constitutional then by definition it is. It will be overturned someday to some extent. The states can still make it violative of their own constitutions so it really doesnt matter.
Where is that beating a dead horse .gif This would be a good place for it!
)
