Thread: Don't Like Gay Pedophilia? Change Your Summer Plans...Boycott California

Originally Posted by JeffLV

This is certainly a risk as well. Which is counterbalanced with the risk of being FORCED to prosecute cases where they are not warrented, and being unable to prosecute cases where they are warrented.

This is incorrect. If there are cases where prosecution is warranted and other cases where it is not then change the law so that it only addresses the cases where the prosecution is warranted.

Let's use the case of statutory rape between teenagers of similiar age. First of all, who is to be prosecuted? Both of the teenagers? Obviously both of them can't be violating each other's Rights as a Person so one of them shouldn't be prosecuted at all. If both of them consented to the sexual act then neither one of them should be prosecuted because no one's Rights were violated. Only if the act in non-consentual is there any possible violation of the inalienable Rights of a Person and that is the only justification for it to be illegal. If no one's Rights are violated by the act of a person then in reality the Law is Violating the Rights of the Individual.

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

This is incorrect. If there are cases where prosecution is warranted and other cases where it is not then change the law so that it only addresses the cases where the prosecution is warranted.

Think of it this way... how would you write the law? What do you suppose the intentions of the law are? As has been stated, the intentions of the law are to protect a minor from the consequences of teenage pregnancy that they might not be able to give informed consent over. In other words, we're worried about protecting the minor, and if prosecution would actually end up HURTING the minor more than HELPING the minor, then this defeats the purpose of the legislation. So, in order to write the perfect law, we would have to either specifically outline the circumstances in which a given case would hurt the minor more than help, and explicitly grant exception from prosecution... or we'd have to add a clause that granted discretion to the executive to use their discretion. It is unlikely that we could write a law that explicitly outlined such circumstances, it would ultimately be left to the DA's discretion anyway.

That said, such an explicit exception or discretion outlined in the given law is unnecessary, as this is already a well established power... both federally and specifically granted to the DA in california:

http://www.robinsax.com/pdfs/Begley_Motion.pdf
It is well settled law that crime-charging power is vested in the public prosecutor by
Government Code section 26501. “Prosecutors have a great deal of discretion in this crimecharging function. Charging discretion takes three basic forms: (1) evidentiary sufficiency-a
determination of whether the evidence warrants prosecution; (2) charge selection-a determination
of the appropriate charge or charges; and (3) discretion not to prosecute-a determination of
whether there is an alternative to formal criminal prosecution.” (Prosecutorial Discretion
(Cont.Ed.Bar 1979) § 11, p. 5.) This prosecutorial discretion, though recognized by statute in
California, is founded upon constitutional principles of separation of powers and due process of
law.

http://ips.stanford.edu/sites/defaul...l%20Report.pdf
Under Federal and State law, DAs in California have broad discretion in the charging
arena—such as whether to file charges, what charges to file, how many charges to file, and
whether to dismiss the charges at any time. Such decisions are rarely subject to judicial review,
though the prosecutor must be able to show that based upon the evidence there is probable
cause for bringing any specific charge.

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPag...v=11&id=&page=
But however strong the tendancy may be to secure uniformity, a decision whether to prosecute or not has to be made on the particular facts and circumstances of the particular case.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...47698983752357
Under current practice, prosecutors have essentially unlimited discretion to dismiss a case or to negotiate a guilty plea to a lesser crime, thereby guaranteeing a lighter sentence.

http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/j...5/4/Levine.pdf
Various criminal
justice actors—police, prosecutors, judges, and juries—have the ability to
refine the scope of the formal law through their actions and omissions
...
he first filter exercised by prosecutors operates at the macro level of
discretion: the ability of the state, through rhetoric and resources, to define the
purpose of the statute and the harm it seeks to prevent.
13
The macro level of
discretion forms in the prosecutorial community collective understandings of
the distinctions between, and the appropriate responses to, “real” and
“technical” crimes.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21100782557161
One of the most triking features of the American system of justice is the broad range of largely uncontrolled discretion execised by the prosecutor. Particularly noteworthy are the kinds of discretionary decisions: the decision not to prosecute an individual notwithstanding sufficient evidence to meet the legal requirements for commencing a prosecution and the decision to tender concessions to a charged individu on the condition that he plead guilty rather than stand a trial.

Below, California specifically grants this power to the DA... he is expected to use it:

http://law.onecle.com/california/government/26500.html
The district attorney is the public prosecutor, except as
otherwise provided by law.
The public prosecutor shall attend the courts, and within his or
her discretion shall initiate and conduct on behalf of the people all
prosecutions for public offenses.

This ability ability to interpret the intentions of the law and prosecute at their discretion is an implicit and explicit function of the DA, and is fully expected to be executed. In a perfect world, we might expect all of our laws to be perfectly written, where the exact circumstances can be laid out for when to prosecute and when not to... but the reality is that legislatures often expect their laws to be filtered through and executed with the discretion of the executive... sometimes explicitly, as in the case of California. You might call this a poor function of government, but it is in fact the way our system works. DA's often use this power, sometimes for practical reasons... i.e. letting a small fish go who can give you evidence to prosecute a bigger fish. Sometimes it's a matter of allocating time and resources. Sometimes it's an implicit expectation that the DA will execute the law according to the spirit of it.

Let's use the case of statutory rape between teenagers of similiar age. First of all, who is to be prosecuted? Both of the teenagers? Obviously both of them can't be violating each other's Rights as a Person so one of them shouldn't be prosecuted at all. If both of them consented to the sexual act then neither one of them should be prosecuted because no one's Rights were violated. Only if the act in non-consentual is there any possible violation of the inalienable Rights of a Person and that is the only justification for it to be illegal. If no one's Rights are violated by the act of a person then in reality the Law is Violating the Rights of the Individual.

If two people are trying to rape each other, then both are committing a crime... however odd that scenario sounds. Whether or not both consented is irrelevant, as they are both below the age of consent.... being below the age of consent doesn't make you immune from prosecutions for crimes you commit.

In terms of violating the rights of the two individual teenagers who engaged in consensual sex, people under the age of consent have limited rights to begin with... so unless you're arguing that we are already violating the Rights of the Individual in a great many ways with regard to minors, your point is moot... or at least it needs careful consideration, as minors do have many rights.

Let's use the case of statutory rape between teenagers of similiar age. First of all, who is to be prosecuted? Both of the teenagers? Obviously both of them can't be violating each other's Rights as a Person so one of them shouldn't be prosecuted at all. If both of them consented to the sexual act then neither one of them should be prosecuted because no one's Rights were violated. Only if the act in non-consentual is there any possible violation of the inalienable Rights of a Person and that is the only justification for it to be illegal. If no one's Rights are violated by the act of a person then in reality the Law is Violating the Rights of the Individual.

Right because two consenting teens close in age exploring their sexuality is a matter of autonomy. However the law recognizes that larger separations in age are a matter of undue coercion and a sexual offense. In California [one of the states where Harvey Milk illegally sodomized a minor, addicted to drugs and mentally ill] it is a felony to sodomize a minor if the age difference significant. Milk qualifies. At 33, he was 17 years senior to the 16 year old boy he was sodomizing. And that is a felony. It is undue coercion and influence over a minor by an adult who should know better. Jack McKinley, 16, was homeless, vulnerable, on drugs and mentally ill. Milk offering to "take him in" as a "father figure" and then have sex with him is CLASSIC pedophilia.



From The Mayor of Castro Street; The Life and Times of Harvey Milk:

"...sixteen-year-old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure...At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him." (pages 30-31)
“…sixteen-year-old old McKinley was
looking for some kind of father figure…within a few weeks, McKinley moved
into Harvey Milk’s Upper West Side apartment…and settled into a middleclass
domestic marriage..

Ah what a difference years and intent make when determining whether or not there has been a crime committed.

Harvey Milk: guilty as charged.

Originally Posted by Silhouette

In California [one of the states where Harvey Milk illegally sodomized a minor, addicted to drugs and mentally ill] .

Just a pure lie.

I have pointed out the facts over and over- cited page numbers- but just a flat out lie.

Originally Posted by SFJEFF

Just a pure lie.

I have pointed out the facts over and over- cited page numbers- but just a flat out lie.

But that messes with her 'meme'.

She won't see that she's wrong. As long as it's something anti-gay, it probably seems okay to her.

Let's just have a looksie at the laws, shall we? Remember, Harvey Milk was 33 when he began having sex with his "lover/son" Jack McKinley in New York and California where the two travelled between frequently.

286. (a) Sodomy is sexual conduct consisting of contact between the
penis of one person and the anus of another person. Any sexual
penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime of
sodomy.
(b) (1) Except as provided in Section 288, any person who
participates in an act of sodomy with another person who is under 18
years of age shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison,
or in a county jail for not more than one year.
(2) Except as provided in Section 288, any person over the age of
21 years who participates in an act of sodomy with another person who
is under 16 years of age shall be guilty of a felony.
(c) (1) Any person who participates in an act of sodomy with
another person who is under 14 years of age and more than 10 years
younger than he or she shall be punished by imprisonment in the state
prison for three, six, or eight years.http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...file=281-289.6

RE: the Jerry Sandusky verdict: guilty of using his position of influence to commit sex crimes against minor boys..

How then do people feel about Harvey Milk, who used his position as a ranking politician to take advantage of homeless teen boys to sodomize? My point being that how people feel about a grown man in his 30s, 40s and 50s sodomizing male youngsters in a serial fashion tends to change from state to state. If Jerry Sandusky "came out" gay in California prior to his trial, he would've been acquitted.. And you dear reader know for a fact that this is true.

Stay clear the hell away from California until it starts a serious case of self-examination.

Originally Posted by Silhouette

...Stay clear the hell away from California until it starts a serious case of self-examination.

Ha-Ha!! That's ridiculous.

The DSM IV defines pedophilia as a sexual interest in prepubescent children. Do you have any evidence that the 17 year old was prepubescent? If not I then expect you to stop using the word "pedophilia."

You may not have been aware of this so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. But now you do know it, and if you don't believe me I encourage you to look it up yourself. If you do admit you were using the term correctly then kudos for admitting your mistake. If you don't there's no way around it - you're just a liar. And we're all pretty clear on that definition, aren't we?

I notice you neglect to include the definition of "pedophilia."

Typical, blinkered bigotry.