RE: Unjust and ineffective sex laws in USA (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

LadyPact -> RE: Unjust and ineffective sex laws in USA (8/21/2009 3:47:36 PM)

You honestly did do better with the paragraphs.  Like it or not, it does make the posts easier to read.

quote:

Because I will bet you she never did anything eles to anyone in pubilc again and made sure she knew what there age was before she did anything in private.


Actually, this does say that the law works.  It didn't particularly stop her from breaking other laws according to her own legal filings in the state of GA, but not sexual acts.

quote:

Now as to your drunk driving question. first off if any 16 year old is drinking that much there are some underlying issues of some sort so Counceling, AA, and quite ppossibly a look into this kids life are gonna be needed to begin whith. now once he realizes hes killed someone she gonna need even more therapy i doubt hed get in jail. even if to the outside it seemed he didnt care unless hes a sociopath id bet my life that hes just burying the emotional stress its causeing him which would lead to more drinking without it. And i would still expect this kids parents his school and said therapists and he AA sponser to remind him what he needed to do when he needed to do it and for someone to get him there so he could do it because im pretty damn sure his license woulda been taken at the sene of the crime. so yes id think it was wrong if he ended up in jail for it if there was no therapy mandated or someone getting him to his appointments.

You and I see this differently, too.  If I lose a member of My family due to a drunk driver, I can promise you that I'm honestly not going to care if he had emotional issue prior to killing someone.  I'm not one of those bleeding heart folks who feels that everybody who commits a crime should be treated with therapy rather than being incarcerated. 

quote:

Was the girl in the artical driving herself or relying on her parents to give her rides because if its the latter then it might not even be her fault she missed meetings if they wouldnt give her the ride she needed. I dont ever assume anyone at that age drives for the pure fact half my friends are trrified of driving and there 19+

This was covered earlier in the thread.  The girl was 17 when charged, which means, at best, her parents were only responsible for her transportation for 20% of her five year probation.  Once 18, she was legally an adult and responsible for herself.  Driving in GA isn't a picnic, but I'm sure it isn't quite as scary as going to jail.

quote:

ORIGINAL: aldompdx
A person who commits a crime is a victim of their own lack of awareness, weakness to exercise self will, and inability to exercise discrimination. Yes, they truly are a victim. A compassionate society which applies the philosophy of reform, rather than mere fear based deterrent as in the U.S., will teach the criminal victim how to become more aware, disciplined, and productive. Thus, the criminal transforms from being a burden on society while incarcerated, into being a contibutor to society. By reducing education fundiung and oppressing its weakest victims, the U.S. only diminishes its potential, and is US$17 TRILLION indebted (including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac obligations).

I don't see it as lack of awareness.  At 17, this gal had been given her high school's code of conduct three times in which, it's very specific about sexual activities not being tolerated on campus and *will* be prosecuted by law.  In the Columbia County school district, every student and parent of that student, has to sign and return to be kept on file that they have received, read, and understood that student handbook.

There has yet to be anybody involved in this thread that has been able to convince Me that this girl did not know she shouldn't be giving a blow job in class.  The only way I'd believe that would be if the girl was mentally incompetent in the first place.




aldompdx -> RE: Unjust and ineffective sex laws in USA (8/22/2009 4:32:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
I don't see it as lack of awareness.


Please forgive me for failing to define my application of "awareness." You seem to be coming from a place of intellectual knowledge of words as awareness. And, that is certainly one valid meaning. However, nobody is a robot. People fail to follow protocol, even when trying. Ever play "Simon says?" Most people act on feeling more than knowledge. People do things all the time, without knowing why or how. You beat your heart in an irregular chaotic rhythm, which you cannot explain or control. E.g., plot of the Lorenz attractor.

Now to the term "awareness," in the context which I apply. Many people lack inner awareness of their subconscious motives to act. While the girl may have intellectually known of the rule, her intellectual knowledge was not well integrated with her subconscious motive and emotional response. She was split, as a psychologist would say. She lacked awareness about her feelings and impulses. No law can control that. Rules can only help a person apply their intellect and discrimination to oppose their feeling and subconscious response.

The issue raised in the original post ultimately goes to whether deterrence or reformation is more effective at inspiring greater awareness, greater self integration, as I describe it.

There is little doubt that the girl broke the rules. But rules, and intellectual knowledge of them, are not everything in life. What remains at issue is whether she has been taught by society to simply react and break more rules. Her continued pattern of behavior clearly demonstrated that the deterrent system was not as effective as a reform based system of justice. U.S. society would have her locked away for life, on failure to be a good robot.



LadyPact -> RE: Unjust and ineffective sex laws in USA (8/22/2009 9:39:47 AM)

Thank you for attempting to continue My education about the word awareness.  However, I think I'll stick with two of the major differences between us and the rest of the animal kingdom.  While having thumbs doesn't apply here, the ability to control our impulses on the conscious decision between right and wrong certainly does.  Please do remember that this wasn't particularly one decision that made this such a wonderful piece for sensationalist journalism.  The woman would have never spent a day in jail had she gone to probation.  The case wouldn't have even received any attention if, rather than abide by the restrictions of residency under GA law for registered sex offenders, she hadn't purchased a home within  1,000 feet of a church.  The deal was that they put the house just in her husband's name at first, so it would go under the radar.  They purchased it in January 2006.  Tighter restrictions went in place in July 2006.  Had her name been on the deed, she'd have been covered by a prior ownership clause.

Being placed on the GA sex offender registry is not a life sentence.  Under the provisions of GA state law, a first offender can petition to have their name removed ten years after the completion of their sentence.  That's even with her violating her probation by missing "several" appointments.

It was due to My curiosity about when these several appointments were missed that made Me read more than just the articles slanted as to invoke public sympathy.  The fine champion who has been brought by the media to show how unjust these laws are, has recently had another little problem.  You're not going to find this bit of information carried by any of the sources that wanted people to shake their heads at how she was just a victim.  Instead, I found it under the local affiliate for ABC.


Columbia County Woman Suing GA Over Sex Offender Laws Arrested For ...



Published: July 9, 2009 Columbia County, GA—A woman who was suing the state of Georgia over the sex offender laws, has been arrested on drug charges. Columbia County Sheriff’s Office Investigators say Wendy Whitaker, 29, was arrested on meth charges during a traffic stop in Columbia County Wednesday. They say Whitaker and her passenger, 32-year-old Michael Maddox, had adderol and crystal meth in the car. Whitaker is a convicted sex offender who is fighting the state’s 2006 law banning sex offenders from living or working within 1,000 feet of any place where children gather.

Am I still supposed to think she just wasn't aware?




Falkenstein -> RE: Unjust and ineffective sex laws in USA (8/22/2009 2:40:39 PM)

Guys and gals,

To summarize the debate, there is on one side the legalist camp, who consider that the law is to be obeyed and put the rule of law above everything else. If you don't know the law, or are not disciplined enough to follow, then tough luck!

On the other side are what I would call the humanist camp, who considers that whatever this poor girl did not warrant a year in prison and being branded a pedophile.

Both sides agree that what she did was gross, bad and incredibly stupid and that she should have been punished for it. It is also clear that this woman is extremly economical with her intelligence.

Personnaly, I am in the humanist camp, the argument "because it is the law" is empty. In Easter Germany, it was illegal to try to flee to the west and a legal requirement to denounce such persons, In America and France slavery has long been legal. Something can obviously be legal and unjust or revolting. IMNHO This kind of collateral damages is also weakening the law in its primary purpose, which is to neutralize the real pedophiles. It is also a waste of taxpayer money. For me, 100 hours of community service (cleaning the toilets?) would have been largely sufficient.

Be seing you

Henry



aldompdx -> RE: Unjust and ineffective sex laws in USA (8/23/2009 3:51:04 AM)

My response here is also as a pragmatist. LadyPact states on her profile that she is "heavy on protocol," into "public play," uses crops and canes, and seeks bisexual men.

It is hornbook law that "every man is presumed to know the law." United States v. Budd, 144 U.S. 154, 163 (1892). And, "A person is presumed to intend what he does." Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 496 (1896). LadyPact, please do not contend that you are unaware of the following.

I suspect that LadyPact might engage in criminal activity as follows:
COUNT 1. LadyPact might violate CPC (California Penal Code) §266c, by inducing another person to engage in sexual acts when consent is procured with intent to create or induce fear of physical injury (caning).
COUNT 2. LadyPact might violate CPC §286 by causing others to engage in sodomy, through violation of CPC §266c.
COUNT 3. LadyPact might violate CPC §288a by engaging or causing others to engage in oral copulation, through violation of CPC §266c.
COUNT4. LadyPact might violate CPC §314 by assisting or causing another person to make an exhibition of himself to the view of any number of persons such as is offensive to decency, or is adapted to excite to vicious or lewd thoughts or acts.

If convicted of the above violations, pursuant to CPC §220, LadyPact could be punished by imprisonment in state prison for up to six years. Since Lady Pact herself contends that she engages in "public play," she would not be protected by the decision in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

It is merely my subjective and speculative opinion that LadyPact is so strongly and repeatedly vocal about rules in this thread, as a defense to her own subconscious (not aware) influences. Hypothetically, perhaps without an ounce of compassion or empathy, and in accordance with her expressed bias toward strict adherence to protocol and the rule of law, should the Paso Robles Police Dept. be advised of her possible infractions??? In reality, I would not make a complaint.

Hopefully for some, these questions transform the intellectual masturbation of "heavy protocol" into a more realistic dimension to consider. Thus, the substance of this post. I.e., get real and have a heart. When you point one finger out, there are three pointing back at you. Consider the source of your inner preference for heavy protocol, and how you manifest it.



LadyPact -> RE: Unjust and ineffective sex laws in USA (8/23/2009 7:02:08 AM)

Pssssst.  You missed something there in the profile, Dear.  You've got a lot of "mights" in there, but you missed a really important one that is a definite.  I'm going to take this directly from My profile so there is no confusion:

"I do engage in casual play.  I do not, however, engage in casual sex.  If that is what you are looking for, please feel free to move right along."

In fact, I absolutely would be covered by Lawrence v Texas because I do not engage in sexual acts in public, nor do I coerce others into acts of physical sex in public.  I can assure you that I am a lady and do know how to conduct Myself.

Now, had you come up with violations of law in regards to S/m play, such as the fact that a person can not legally consent to being assaulted, I'd be all with you.  When the day comes that I am engaging in acts of sadism in a public or private club and it is raided, I most certainly will accept My arrest and go through the due process under the laws of that state.  If convicted, I will adhere to the terms of My sentence, including jail time if necessary.  What you won't find Me doing is bitching or whining in any way after the fact.  I won't be moaning that people should have a heart because of My conscious choices to have broken the law.




Prinsexx -> RE: Unjust and ineffective sex laws in USA (8/23/2009 7:23:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Falkenstein

To summarize the debate, there is on one side the legalist camp, who consider that the law is to be obeyed and put the rule of law above everything else. If you don't know the law, or are not disciplined enough to follow, then tough luck!

On the other side are what I would call the humanist camp, who considers that whatever this poor girl did not warrant a year in prison and being branded a pedophile.

Both sides agree that what she did was gross, bad and incredibly stupid and that she should have been punished for it. It is also clear that this woman is extremly economical with her intelligence.

Personnaly, I am in the humanist camp, the argument "because it is the law" is empty. In Easter Germany, it was illegal to try to flee to the west and a legal requirement to denounce such persons, In America and France slavery has long been legal. Something can obviously be legal and unjust or revolting. IMNHO This kind of collateral damages is also weakening the law in its primary purpose, which is to neutralize the real pedophiles. It is also a waste of taxpayer money. For me, 100 hours of community service (cleaning the toilets?) would have been largely sufficient.

Be seing you

Henry

I've read all the thread.
You may see this as a failed dialogue between a two-sidied camp.
There is another view.
Or am I the only one able to see this?
The point is there is no legislation on planet Earth that will stop people doing whatever it is they want to do with their bodies and their minds.





Falkenstein -> RE: Unjust and ineffective sex laws in USA (8/23/2009 11:49:13 AM)


Pardon my incredulity; You really have laws like that in the USA?
I lived there for more than a year so I sould know, but I never noticed.

Kinky regards from incredulous Switzerland, Henry

quote:

ORIGINAL: aldompdx

My response here is also as a pragmatist. LadyPact states on her profile that she is "heavy on protocol," into "public play," uses crops and canes, and seeks bisexual men.

It is hornbook law that "every man is presumed to know the law." United States v. Budd, 144 U.S. 154, 163 (1892). And, "A person is presumed to intend what he does." Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 496 (1896). LadyPact, please do not contend that you are unaware of the following.

I suspect that LadyPact might engage in criminal activity as follows:
COUNT 1. LadyPact might violate CPC (California Penal Code) §266c, by inducing another person to engage in sexual acts when consent is procured with intent to create or induce fear of physical injury (caning).
COUNT 2. LadyPact might violate CPC §286 by causing others to engage in sodomy, through violation of CPC §266c.
COUNT 3. LadyPact might violate CPC §288a by engaging or causing others to engage in oral copulation, through violation of CPC §266c.
COUNT4. LadyPact might violate CPC §314 by assisting or causing another person to make an exhibition of himself to the view of any number of persons such as is offensive to decency, or is adapted to excite to vicious or lewd thoughts or acts.

If convicted of the above violations, pursuant to CPC §220, LadyPact could be punished by imprisonment in state prison for up to six years. Since Lady Pact herself contends that she engages in "public play," she would not be protected by the decision in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

It is merely my subjective and speculative opinion that LadyPact is so strongly and repeatedly vocal about rules in this thread, as a defense to her own subconscious (not aware) influences. Hypothetically, perhaps without an ounce of compassion or empathy, and in accordance with her expressed bias toward strict adherence to protocol and the rule of law, should the Paso Robles Police Dept. be advised of her possible infractions??? In reality, I would not make a complaint.

Hopefully for some, these questions transform the intellectual masturbation of "heavy protocol" into a more realistic dimension to consider. Thus, the substance of this post. I.e., get real and have a heart. When you point one finger out, there are three pointing back at you. Consider the source of your inner preference for heavy protocol, and how you manifest it.




Falkenstein -> RE: Unjust and ineffective sex laws in USA (8/23/2009 12:01:58 PM)


This is beautifully said, but I am rather surprised by the reaction of some forum members. You would believe that people who are only one step of being labelled "dangerous deviant" by the righteous party and interned -- for the protection of the populace and for their own good of course -- would be more aware of the need, -their need, for tolerance and humanity. am slightly disappointed, but not really surprised.

kinky regards

Henry


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prinsexx


I've read all the thread.
You may see this as a failed dialogue between a two-sidied camp.
There is another view.
Or am I the only one able to see this?
The point is there is no legislation on planet Earth that will stop people doing whatever it is they want to do with their bodies and their minds.







Rhodes85 -> RE: Unjust and ineffective sex laws in USA (8/23/2009 11:23:27 PM)

Once again, I agree with LadyPact.


'It is also a waste of taxpayer money. For me, 100 hours of community service (cleaning the toilets?) would have been largely sufficient. '

You are aware that her only punishment was probation and that she only went to jail because she violated the terms of that probation and is therefore tossed in jail like anyone else would be for violating their probation for any reason, right? The fact that it was a sexual based crime doesn't factor in to why she was imprisoned.



aldompdx -> RE: Unjust and ineffective sex laws in USA (8/24/2009 4:26:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Falkenstein
You really have laws like that in the USA?



Those laws are for California, which has some of the best.
In the state of Florida, it is illegal to shower naked.
In North Carolina, it is illegal to permit a bitch at large.
In Blythe, California, it is illegal to wear cowboy boots, unless you own at least 2 cows.

But wait! Here are more absurd laws in some part of Switzerland (source: dumblaws.com)
You may not wash your car on a Sunday.
A man may not relieve himself while standing up, after 10 P.

In a deterrent based society like the U.S., it is not about following the law -- it is all about whether you get caught. Just ask George Bush and Dick Cheney. Literalism and protocol is a psychological technique for evading conscientious action in good faith, and substantial compliance with the intent of a law, rule, or preference. This is demonstrated in above responses, by people who lack awareness of what laws actually exist, the very complex language of the laws, and how the laws can be applied. Most people in the U.S. simply do not have sufficient education to actually comprehend what many laws mean. For example in 2003, there were 54,846 pages of U.S. tax regulations.

And... If President Bill Clinton can be impeached for the way he talked about his sexuality, just imagine what the American police can do to you! They do not necessarily follow the law either, until they get caught. Ever heard of Rodney King?



Falkenstein -> RE: Unjust and ineffective sex laws in USA (8/24/2009 1:03:29 PM)

Aldompxd,

I envy the USA to be so a heaven of criminal peace that your legislature and law enforcement has time for this type of gimmick. Although Switzerland is not exactly crime-ridden and has a very low violent crime rate -- despite or maybe because any sane male between 18 and 42 has his army assault rifle at home -- our police is paid to hunt real criminals, not teenagers in rut. Ok they also hunt down people who put their garbage in the trash can of others, but there is a broad consensus, that such behavior is like stealing (garbage space is very expensive in the Confederatio Hevetica).

As for the laws you mentionned, I will give the only answer that is ever valid in Switzerland: it depends of the cantons (a canton is a bit like an US state (CA, IL MA etc.) but with more independence, since we have a confederation over here. Most laws are local and anyhow subject to referendum.
It is indeed forbiden to wash your car at home (because of the pollution, I suppose) and washing parks are closed sunday, like most of the businesses outside of train stations or airports.

As for peing sitting? I am sure the Swiss women who loved to get that through, but they never dared to initiate a referendum on the subject.

kinky regards

Henry



Falkenstein -> RE: Unjust and ineffective sex laws in USA (8/24/2009 1:12:41 PM)

[size=4]Of course I am,

But nevertheless the original cause was this "law".

During the repression of the cathare in the Middle Age, the church decided that helping the heretics (often the family of the "offender") was not just that, but instead that it was a relaps and therefore punishable by burning.

Your interpretation of the probation is similar to the what the inquisition thought of people who had again become catholics, but helped their family and friends.

kinky regards

henry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rhodes85

Once again, I agree with LadyPact.


'It is also a waste of taxpayer money. For me, 100 hours of community service (cleaning the toilets?) would have been largely sufficient. '

You are aware that her only punishment was probation and that she only went to jail because she violated the terms of that probation and is therefore tossed in jail like anyone else would be for violating their probation for any reason, right? The fact that it was a sexual based crime doesn't factor in to why she was imprisoned.




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125