When is rape not a crime?

[JD_2B]

YOU are of course utterly without basis to claim to know whether she was or was not psychologically capable of "consenting." .

True, but that is the reason judges are supposed to conduct competency hearings. But ELECTED JUDGES are not going to conduct a competency hearing during a Salem Witchcraft Trial.

.

I thought that competency was used for the person on trial, to see if they were sane enough to testify, with a full understanding of the consequences possible, regarding the waiving their 5th amendment rights..

Competency in the courtroom, further, does not correlate to an underage person being competent to consent to sex.. It is just answering the question "Is this person mentally stable enough to understand and follow the oath, understand the consequences of perjury, and understand their protections under the fifth amendment?"

At least that is how I always understood it..

 

[Wicked Jester]

YOU are of course utterly without basis to claim to know whether she was or was not psychologically capable of "consenting." .

True, but that is the reason judges are supposed to conduct competency hearings. But ELECTED JUDGES are not going to conduct a competency hearing during a Salem Witchcraft Trial.

.

I thought that competency was used for the person on trial, to see if they were sane enough to testify, with a full understanding of the consequences possible, regarding the waiving their 5th amendment rights..

Competency in the courtroom, further, does not correlate to an underage person being competent to consent to sex.. It is just answering the question "Is this person mentally stable enough to understand and follow the oath, understand the consequences of perjury, and understand their protections under the fifth amendment?"

At least that is how I always understood it..

Your understanding is absolutely correct.

 

[Intense]

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

,

I'm sorry, what was the fallacy, Pedophiles stick together? You appear that way to me. You are defending the drugging and rape of a 13 year old.

Hummmmmmmmmmm


very interrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrresting.


Ain't you the same dumb ass who was praising the Shah of Iran. yep, I'm really concerned about your opinion.

Your ilk do no respect dissent, in the name of god, of course.

.

I respect Your Right to a Belief and an opinion. I just think your opinion degenerate. I also rate The Shah higher up the scale than Chavez, Castro, and Carter. The only reason you need be concerned is if I sat on the Jury of Your Child Rape Trial. dissent all you want. Back it up and i will gladly hear it out. I believe in Discovery and Voice. More than I can say for You.

 

[Contumacious]

YOU are of course utterly without basis to claim to know whether she was or was not psychologically capable of "consenting." .

True, but that is the reason judges are supposed to conduct competency hearings. But ELECTED JUDGES are not going to conduct a competency hearing during a Salem Witchcraft Trial.

.

I thought that competency was used for the person on trial, to see if they were sane enough to testify, with a full understanding of the consequences possible, regarding the waiving their 5th amendment rights..

Competency in the courtroom, further, does not correlate to an underage person being competent to consent to sex.. It is just answering the question "Is this person mentally stable enough to understand and follow the oath, understand the consequences of perjury, and understand their protections under the fifth amendment?"

At least that is how I always understood it..

The fascist state treats children as adult when they have committed certain crimes.. The factors judges consider vary by state, but based on the Supreme Court's direction in Kent v. United States, they generally include the following: the nature and circumstances of the crime; whether the offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, or premeditated manner; the merit of the charges; the sophistication, maturity, and prior history of the minor; the need to protect the public; and the likelihood that the child can be treated and rehabilitated.

nevertheless courts arbitrarily and whimsically refuse to ascertain whether a 13 y/o is mature and sophisticated enough to consent to sex.

.

 

[Intense]

True, but that is the reason judges are supposed to conduct competency hearings. But ELECTED JUDGES are not going to conduct a competency hearing during a Salem Witchcraft Trial.

.

I thought that competency was used for the person on trial, to see if they were sane enough to testify, with a full understanding of the consequences possible, regarding the waiving their 5th amendment rights..

Competency in the courtroom, further, does not correlate to an underage person being competent to consent to sex.. It is just answering the question "Is this person mentally stable enough to understand and follow the oath, understand the consequences of perjury, and understand their protections under the fifth amendment?"

At least that is how I always understood it..

The fascist state treats children as adult when they have committed certain crimes.. The factors judges consider vary by state, but based on the Supreme Court's direction in Kent v. United States, they generally include the following: the nature and circumstances of the crime; whether the offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, or premeditated manner; the merit of the charges; the sophistication, maturity, and prior history of the minor; the need to protect the public; and the likelihood that the child can be treated and rehabilitated.

nevertheless courts arbitrarily and whimsically refuse to ascertain whether a 13 y/o is mature and sophisticated enough to consent to sex.

.

It seems that you confuse the Perpetrator with the Victim. The Perpetrator was 40? the Victim was 13.

When Children commit heinous Crimes, I too believe they should be treated differently than adults, yet I do not want to see them released on an unsuspecting Public at 18. Serious shit requires Serious handling.

 

[KittenKoder]

That fuckface is still defend the pedophile rapist?

No wonder kids are growing up all fucked up and pregnant.

 

[Liability]

If you contemplated voting for Obama you are not a Libertarian.



In "People vs Polasnki" the issue is STATUTORY RAPE - a legal fiction -

Libertarianism do not treat people collectively - it would have been the state's responsibility to OBJECTIVELY prove that Ms Geimer could not consent to sex.

.

Libertarians are not spoken for by your imbecility.

In any society, laws like this often have to be written in ways that are clear and objective. How the fuck anybody could determine whether a specific 13 year old child is "ready" for anal sex, oral sodomy and vaginal sex with an adult is pretty much impossible to know. And there's no reason that any society has to go to such controtions and lengths to make such fine distinctions between the "readiness"of different 13 year old girls. A simple bright line rule works FINE to resolve it. Where the child is under a particular -- stated -- perfectly objective and clearly defined -- chronological age, the adult is forbidden to seek or obtain sexual contact with that child. Period. End of story.

I know many libertarians. I see no evidence that they agree with your idiotic pointless point of view. You are a moron.

Statutory rape is a perfectly valid legal concept and nobody cares that your sub-moronic notions of the libertarian view on the topic disagrees. Fuck off, moron.

You seem to be bashing ME for what Contumacious said..

I am the one who said that 13 year olds cant consent to various things like tattoos, piercings, abortions, etc.. and thus cant consent to sex. I do not mean that literally- they can say "ok" to having sex, and doing all those other things- but they are, by precedent alone, not capable of making most decisions concerning informed consent.
I think you WERE talking to Contumacious, anyways, but I want to be sure.

You have me a bit perplexed.

I am not sure how my post was unclear. Obviously, when I quote the imbecile Confusedatious, I am responding to that moron. I am not sure that I agree with all things you say, but you appear to me to be on the same page as most of the rest of us in the civilized portion of society. (i.e., 13 year olds can give no legally cognizable "consent' to MANY things, and way up on the list is the idea of consenting to sex with a grown pedophile piece of shit like Polanski). So, no. I was not addressing you at all.

 

[Kat]

True, but that is the reason judges are supposed to conduct competency hearings. But ELECTED JUDGES are not going to conduct a competency hearing during a Salem Witchcraft Trial.

.

I thought that competency was used for the person on trial, to see if they were sane enough to testify, with a full understanding of the consequences possible, regarding the waiving their 5th amendment rights..

Competency in the courtroom, further, does not correlate to an underage person being competent to consent to sex.. It is just answering the question "Is this person mentally stable enough to understand and follow the oath, understand the consequences of perjury, and understand their protections under the fifth amendment?"

At least that is how I always understood it..

The fascist state treats children as adult when they have committed certain crimes.. The factors judges consider vary by state, but based on the Supreme Court's direction in Kent v. United States, they generally include the following: the nature and circumstances of the crime; whether the offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, or premeditated manner; the merit of the charges; the sophistication, maturity, and prior history of the minor; the need to protect the public; and the likelihood that the child can be treated and rehabilitated.

nevertheless courts arbitrarily and whimsically refuse to ascertain whether a 13 y/o is mature and sophisticated enough to consent to sex.
.

Re the bolded? Even if the courts said it was okay for a 13 year old to consent to sex, in the Polanski case it is still rape.
SHE
SAID
NO

I know you really can't be this stupid. So why are you playing? Just the attention?

 

[Kat]

That fuckface is still defend the pedophile rapist?

No wonder kids are growing up all fucked up and pregnant.

 

[Contumacious]

At a basic level, procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of "fundamental fairness." For example, in 1934, the United States Supreme Court held that due process is violated "if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental".[26] As construed by the courts, it includes an individual's right to be adequately notified of charges or proceedings, the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings, and that the person or panel making the final decision over the proceedings be impartial in regards to the matter before them.[27]

.

 

[Kat]

At a basic level, procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of "fundamental fairness." For example, in 1934, the United States Supreme Court held that due process is violated "if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental".[26] As construed by the courts, it includes an individual's right to be adequately notified of charges or proceedings, the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings, and that the person or panel making the final decision over the proceedings be impartial in regards to the matter before them.[27]

.

 

[Liability]

At a basic level, procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of "fundamental fairness." For example, in 1934, the United States Supreme Court held that due process is violated "if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental".[26] As construed by the courts, it includes an individual's right to be adequately notified of charges or proceedings, the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings, and that the person or panel making the final decision over the proceedings be impartial in regards to the matter before them.[27]

.

Which is EXACTLY why the law prohibiting sexual intercourse with minors is so crystal clear.

Kinda like what I told you earlier -- no -- exactly what I DID tell you earlier.

And this rule of procedural due process is also why it is CORRECT to note that the scumbag pedophile GOT due process.

You remain a total imbecile asswipe douchebag dildo moron.

No offense to other imbeciles, asswipes, douchebags and/or dildos.

 

[JD_2B]

True, but that is the reason judges are supposed to conduct competency hearings. But ELECTED JUDGES are not going to conduct a competency hearing during a Salem Witchcraft Trial.

.

I thought that competency was used for the person on trial, to see if they were sane enough to testify, with a full understanding of the consequences possible, regarding the waiving their 5th amendment rights..

Competency in the courtroom, further, does not correlate to an underage person being competent to consent to sex.. It is just answering the question "Is this person mentally stable enough to understand and follow the oath, understand the consequences of perjury, and understand their protections under the fifth amendment?"

At least that is how I always understood it..

The fascist state treats children as adult when they have committed certain crimes.. The factors judges consider vary by state, but based on the Supreme Court's direction in Kent v. United States, they generally include the following: the nature and circumstances of the crime; whether the offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, or premeditated manner; the merit of the charges; the sophistication, maturity, and prior history of the minor; the need to protect the public; and the likelihood that the child can be treated and rehabilitated.

nevertheless courts arbitrarily and whimsically refuse to ascertain whether a 13 y/o is mature and sophisticated enough to consent to sex.

My goodness- I hate to break it to you, C- but you are referring to minors who are suspects and charged with committing the criminal activity.. How is that so, in this case? Not even close, buddy.. This minor was the VICTIM of criminal activity.. The


V
I
C
T
I
M


is *not* the person who is being accused of committing the crime.

 

[JD_2B]

Libertarians are not spoken for by your imbecility.

In any society, laws like this often have to be written in ways that are clear and objective. How the fuck anybody could determine whether a specific 13 year old child is "ready" for anal sex, oral sodomy and vaginal sex with an adult is pretty much impossible to know. And there's no reason that any society has to go to such controtions and lengths to make such fine distinctions between the "readiness"of different 13 year old girls. A simple bright line rule works FINE to resolve it. Where the child is under a particular -- stated -- perfectly objective and clearly defined -- chronological age, the adult is forbidden to seek or obtain sexual contact with that child. Period. End of story.

I know many libertarians. I see no evidence that they agree with your idiotic pointless point of view. You are a moron.

Statutory rape is a perfectly valid legal concept and nobody cares that your sub-moronic notions of the libertarian view on the topic disagrees. Fuck off, moron.

You seem to be bashing ME for what Contumacious said..

I am the one who said that 13 year olds cant consent to various things like tattoos, piercings, abortions, etc.. and thus cant consent to sex. I do not mean that literally- they can say "ok" to having sex, and doing all those other things- but they are, by precedent alone, not capable of making most decisions concerning informed consent.
I think you WERE talking to Contumacious, anyways, but I want to be sure.

You have me a bit perplexed.

I am not sure how my post was unclear. Obviously, when I quote the imbecile Confusedatious, I am responding to that moron. I am not sure that I agree with all things you say, but you appear to me to be on the same page as most of the rest of us in the civilized portion of society. (i.e., 13 year olds can give no legally cognizable "consent' to MANY things, and way up on the list is the idea of consenting to sex with a grown pedophile piece of shit like Polanski). So, no. I was not addressing you at all.

I see why- its on page 22- I thought that since I had said I was libertarian, while he had not, that you must have been referring to me.. And that did not seem right since you responded to his post, and not mine, specifically.. Anyways, seems you have prior knowledge about him that I lack.. I am new here, and do not know everyone and their affiliations, yet, so I was unsure if you were responding to both of us or just him, or me, or what, and figured I should probably just ask, to be certain. =)

Thank you for clarifying, also. I appreciate it.

 

[Contumacious]

My goodness- I hate to break it to you, C- but you are referring to minors who are suspects and charged with committing the criminal activity.. How is that so, in this case? Not even close, buddy.. This minor was the VICTIM of criminal activity.. .

Don't give me conclusions , I am looking for facts.

What difference does it make whether the 14 y/o - the "child" is the victim or the perp. The court concluded after a 3 day hearing that he should be tried as an adult,

WHY wouldn't the court conduct a three day hearing to determine if Ms Geimer should be treated by the Court as an adult?

The answer is that POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, will not allow elected Judges to make the determination.

.

 

[JD_2B]

My goodness- I hate to break it to you, C- but you are referring to minors who are suspects and charged with committing the criminal activity.. How is that so, in this case? Not even close, buddy.. This minor was the VICTIM of criminal activity.. .

Don't give me conclusions , I am looking for facts.

What difference does it make whether the 14 y/o - the "child" is the victim or the perp. The court concluded after a 3 day hearing that he should be tried as an adult,

The perpetrator, that is- the person who is CHARGED with a CRIME.. not the person who the perp committed that crime against...

WHY wouldn't the court conduct a three day hearing to determine if Ms Geimer should be treated by the Court as an adult?

Because she is not the perp... OMG this is so basic...

The answer is that POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, will not allow elected Judges to make the determination.

.

No the answer is that to be competent in realizing that something happened to you that felt wrong is something that even children are capable of determining.. LOL And does not require a CHILD to be "found" to be included in the majority to be capable of those types of feelings, therefore making their allegations to be believable, especially when there is proof that the child was fucking DRUGGED. What is wrong with you?

 

[Intense]

My goodness- I hate to break it to you, C- but you are referring to minors who are suspects and charged with committing the criminal activity.. How is that so, in this case? Not even close, buddy.. This minor was the VICTIM of criminal activity.. .

Don't give me conclusions , I am looking for facts.

What difference does it make whether the 14 y/o - the "child" is the victim or the perp. The court concluded after a 3 day hearing that he should be tried as an adult,

WHY wouldn't the court conduct a three day hearing to determine if Ms Geimer should be treated by the Court as an adult?

The answer is that POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, will not allow elected Judges to make the determination.

.

Are these NAMBLA Talking Points? Because the 13 year old Victim was not treated as an adult, there are grounds to declare a mistrial? OMG!!!

 

[Contumacious]

That fuckface is still defend the pedophile rapist?

Yep.

"Puckett's primary precedent-based argument proceeds as follows: When the Government breaks a promise that was made to a defendant in the course of securing a guilty plea, the knowing and voluntary character of that plea retroactively vanishes, because (as it turns out) the defendant was not aware of its true consequences. Since guilty pleas must be knowing and voluntary to be valid, McCarthy v. United States, 394 U. S. 459, 466 (1969), the guilty plea is thus void, along with the defendant's corresponding waiver of his right to trial. And because, under this Court's precedents, a waiver of the right to trial must be made by the defendant personally, see Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U. S. 400, 417-418, and n. 24 (1988), no action by counsel alone could resurrect the voided waiver.

Puckett v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (U.S. 03/25/2009)

 

[JD_2B]

That fuckface is still defend the pedophile rapist?

Yep.

"Puckett's primary precedent-based argument proceeds as follows: When the Government breaks a promise that was made to a defendant in the course of securing a guilty plea, the knowing and voluntary character of that plea retroactively vanishes, because (as it turns out) the defendant was not aware of its true consequences. Since guilty pleas must be knowing and voluntary to be valid, McCarthy v. United States, 394 U. S. 459, 466 (1969), the guilty plea is thus void, along with the defendant's corresponding waiver of his right to trial. And because, under this Court's precedents, a waiver of the right to trial must be made by the defendant personally, see Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U. S. 400, 417-418, and n. 24 (1988), no action by counsel alone could resurrect the voided waiver.

Puckett v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (U.S. 03/25/2009)

YAAAY!!! This means we can finally fry the asshole..

 

[Jay Canuck]

When is rape not a crime? - when you are Haliburton.