Have You Ever Changed A Diaper? You're A Sex Offender In Arizona
Check out a state Supreme Court decision in Arizona. Lenore Skenazy reports in Reason:
In a state Supreme Court ruling that came out last week, the justices determined that intentionally or knowingly touch the private parts of a child under age 15 is automatically a felony....According to the decision in State v. Holle, if defendants can prove that they were "not motivated by sexual interest," then they can avoid being deemed sex offenders. But this places the burden of proof on the accused to prove their innocence, not the state to prove their guilt. The state no longer has to demonstrate that the contact was non-sexual--the accused party has to prove that.
You think -- nobody's going to actually get charged for that, you think?
Guess what: Broadly written laws are abused to jail somebody who can't be dragged into a cage on some other charge.
So, as Fordham law prof John Pfaff points out that even if you can prove yourself innocent, being charged with child molesting is "going to ruin your life ...Prosecutors [can] use these tools in ways that are very hard to see."
If you want a bad law repealed rapidly, enforce it against all comers, and do so with great zeal. And start from the top.
I R A Darth Aggie at September 21, 2016 7:37 AM
Exactly IRA. Does the AG have kids? If so accuse him. Do the judge's have kids. Go after them too. Selective enforcement is the issue. If you equally enforce a bad law then it gets repealed. But if you selectively enforce it then only those who the powerful don't like get harassed.
Ben at September 21, 2016 9:15 AM
This law and court ruling represents a lack of reading comprehension plus a naive belief that prosecutors won't abuse a vague law. Yet legal abuse is widely known to occur. The law is not only vague, it is impossible to comply with. "impossible" should be a show stopper in a reasonable world.
Craig Loehle at September 21, 2016 10:18 AM
This was a case of a step-grandfather molesting an 11-year-old girl. Most of us would agree that should be prosecuted. How should the law be written to not be overly broad?
Has anyone read the law in question?
clinky at September 21, 2016 5:52 PM
I have not changed a diaper... but as a child I had my diaper changed....I'm a victim!
The Former Banker at September 21, 2016 6:24 PM
One of the articles included excerpts from the law. It really is that broad.
As for how it should have been written: not. Molesting a child was already illegal. This was typical knee-jerk legislation, in reaction to public outrage. Likely no legislators dared vote against it, because "tough on crime".
We really need to build in incentives to *not* legislate. My favorite suggestion is to put a hard limit on the total size of all laws: they cannot be more than 250,000 words (a fat novel), and must be published for people to read.
If you want a new law, you're going to have to knock out an old law. That would put a stop to idiotic things like this.
a_random_guy at September 21, 2016 10:52 PM
Do what Texas does Random, only let the legislature meet every two years. They also can only meet for 140 days. If it isn't that important they usually don't have the free time to do it. Also, there is a built in waiting period between most emotionally charged events and legislative action.
Ben at September 22, 2016 5:14 AM
Not only do I change diapers regularly... but my toddler loudly voices her lack of consent!!!!!!!
NicoleK at September 22, 2016 6:23 AM
Perfectly understandable, NicoleK.
Imagine you're an adult and someone else suddenly and forcibly, if gently, holds you down and washes your face. You'd kick up a loud fuss, too. Even with kids, it's not about a hatred of water or cleanliness, necessarily, it's about the invasion of bodily privacy.
But I'm sure you knew that.
lenona at September 22, 2016 11:43 AM
Leave a comment