Unjust law

[billcu1]

The church says that we are to follow the civil authorities legal systems unless the law is immoral. You are not bound by an immoral or unjust law. How does one determine whether or not a law is “unjust” or immoral. I can think of a lot of unjust law IMO anyway. It seems the law anymore is no longer based on natural law. Legislators say “I will help you” to this group and to another “I will not help you”. To me that is immoral. The good of society as a whole should be looked at. Not force someone to not be in a homeless shelter and freeze to death because of some 30 year old minor sex offense like touching someone 17 years old. Just an example here of many unjust laws in my view.

So do we depend on the church to say what is or isn’t just or unjust?

Bill

 

[edwest2]

Yes, the Church is a trustworthy source to answer the question of which laws are just and which are unjust. And why.

Here is a more detailed explanation of the foundation of law as we should consider it.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/when-is-it-okay-to-disobey

Best,
Ed

 

[mikekle]

I think for the most part, churches in modern times are way too ‘friendly’ with local city, state, federal govts. If we look back thru religious history, churches and govts have generally not gotten along very well, and often were at each others throats over a variety of things…doesnt seem to be the case today though?

Ive never once heard our priest instruct anyone in their parish to NOT abide by any civilian law…kind of strange imo, this seems to suggest that our church agrees with every single law that is on the books, I know this cant be true.

I think alot of churches in modern times are too concerned with following mans laws instead of Gods laws.

 

[DavidFilmer]

The church says that we are to follow the civil authorities legal systems unless the law is immoral. … Not force someone to not be in a homeless shelter and freeze to death because of some 30 year old minor sex offense like touching someone 17 years old. Just an example here of many unjust laws in my view.

But the child molester did NOT follow the laws of society. He broke the law. If he had obeyed the law, he would have never sexually assaulted a minor and would not be required to register as a sex offender (which, I presume, you consider the root of his present troubles - you blame “the law” and not the guy that broke it).

Are you saying that laws against sexually assaulting minors are immoral? And, thus, it’s OK to break them?

 

[mikekle]

But the child molester did NOT follow the laws of society. He broke the law. If he had obeyed the law, he would have never sexually assaulted a minor and would not be required to register as a sex offender (which, I presume, you consider the root of his present troubles - you blame “the law” and not the guy that broke it).

Are you saying that laws against sexually assaulting minors are immoral? And, thus, it’s OK to break them?

Well, it is true these people need to pay their debt to society for their crimes, but when they commit a sex offense, they are required to report where they live for life sometimes!! Once their debt to society is paid off, they are supposed to start over with a clean slate, how are they supposed to get a decent job if their ‘punishment’ keeps hanging over their heads for the rest of their lives?

Same thing with other crimes as well, these people go to jail, which is supposed to be rehabilitation for them, then get out and try to better themselves, but when every single employer is doing background checks, what are they left with? It almost forces them back into crime…this makes no sense.

 

[billcu1]

Yes, the Church is a trustworthy source to answer the question of which laws are just and which are unjust. And why.

Here is a more detailed explanation of the foundation of law as we should consider it.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/when-is-it-okay-to-disobey

Best,
Ed

Great! Thanks for the link.

 

[billcu1]

I think for the most part, churches in modern times are way too ‘friendly’ with local city, state, federal govts. If we look back thru religious history, churches and govts have generally not gotten along very well, and often were at each others throats over a variety of things…doesnt seem to be the case today though?

Ive never once heard our priest instruct anyone in their parish to NOT abide by any civilian law…kind of strange imo, this seems to suggest that our church agrees with every single law that is on the books, I know this cant be true.

I think alot of churches in modern times are too concerned with following mans laws instead of Gods laws.

As you mention I think I see too that natural law seems to be being ignored by societal law. It is my understanding to have just law it must be based on natural law. For example. What is marriage? The church says to create a foundation for the fostering of offspring. If I am right. Two penises do not come together to create life. So under natural law a “same sex marriage” is out of the question. Right?

Bill

 

[billcu1]

Well, it is true these people need to pay their debt to society for their crimes, but when they commit a sex offense, they are required to report where they live for life sometimes!! Once their debt to society is paid off, they are supposed to start over with a clean slate, how are they supposed to get a decent job if their ‘punishment’ keeps hanging over their heads for the rest of their lives?

Same thing with other crimes as well, these people go to jail, which is supposed to be rehabilitation for them, then get out and try to better themselves, but when every single employer is doing background checks, what are they left with? It almost forces them back into crime…this makes no sense.

Right on the money. Circular reasoning. Who want’s someone exposed to hardened criminals to let the trade so to speak when they can be rehabilitated. And there is no “Can’t rehabilitate SOs.” That comes from giving voice ONLY to “victims” who want to remain “victims” and not survivors and are not reasoning but feeling. The only person you can’t rehabilitate is the one who says (s)he has no problem and doesn’t care what (s)he does. But it is beneficial to society to re enter someone who contributes after their mistake.

Bill

 

[billcu1]

But the child molester did NOT follow the laws of society. He broke the law. If he had obeyed the law, he would have never sexually assaulted a minor and would not be required to register as a sex offender (which, I presume, you consider the root of his present troubles - you blame “the law” and not the guy that broke it).

Are you saying that laws against sexually assaulting minors are immoral? And, thus, it’s OK to break them?

Here is an example of things not being “absolute”. But changing. 35-40 years ago. A “jail baiter” who touched a 17 year old. Two months from being of age because she wanted him to would’ve been chuckled at and fined. Maybe a few days in the lock up. Now we have one extreme to the other. No I don’t think the man should pay with his life by freezing to death (like a man in Michigan) because he touched a 17 yo who had a crush on him. There is a saying “let the punishment fit the crime”.

No I do not believe he should not receive *some kind* of punishment like probation or a fine. There are mitigating circumstances. 

These type of laws have came from one-sided victims who are irrational because they have been offended. The same as an offender would be irrational in the opposite view. I know of a lot of teens who would love to get a guy on a registry and would say ANYthing. Assuming the guy is guilty. And wasn't forced into a plea bargain because of health reasons and has to register as an SO with a no contest or guilty plea to keep out of jail or not get his medicine.

“If the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the Children, the people will give up almost any liberty and suffer any deprivation”
– Adolf Hitler

The evil CHILD MOLESTER that looked at a kid and has to wear “The scarlet letter”. IMO is a ruse to take away rights. Like domestic misdemeanors get the guns.

Bill

 

[billcu1]

But the child molester did NOT follow the laws of society. He broke the law. If he had obeyed the law, he would have never sexually assaulted a minor and would not be required to register as a sex offender (which, I presume, you consider the root of his present troubles - you blame “the law” and not the guy that broke it).

Are you saying that laws against sexually assaulting minors are immoral? And, thus, it’s OK to break them?

You have used the term here “Child Molester”. I know if I had a 17 year old daughter and you called her a child I would be rather offended. From 0-12 perhaps the conscious level would be that of a child. Around 13-17 Not quite. cf pedaphile from DSM-V to understand. 18 and on an adult yes. It is typical in a politically created ruse to use that term “child” but I digress from the dialectic argument. There are several things that must be determined by reasoning to obtain bearing here. The trouble with society is “it feels good”. Why can’t same sex couples adopt? It feels like the right thing to do. No thinking required. Or permitted it can be dangerous to the powers that be. That “warm and fuzzy” feeling is behind so many laws. In an actual abduction case. Or a serious offender things would be different. It think Mr. Filmer’s response proves my point in this type matter “feeling good” goes well beyond reasoning. And I would ask. Is a man’s life as important, as a teen who desires him to touch her. The offender maybe an offender and punishment in a reasonable manner just. But a “death penalty” I do believe as injust. Pedaphile viz. in the purist sense has no attraction to a teenager but to indeed a child. Registration has indeed a heavy psychological toll upon a person. Georgia allows no one in the state. The US has never seen any such type laws before. Humanity most certainly. I think my example and the assumed example are entirely different matters.

 

[DavidFilmer]

It is my understanding to have just law it must be based on natural law.

Natural law is a starting point, not a basis.

Under natural law, if you kill my wife, I can kill your wife. An eye for an eye is natural law.

 

[DavidFilmer]

You have used the term here “Child Molester”. I know if I had a 17 year old daughter and you called her a child I would be rather offended.

Then it’s obvious you don’t have a daughter. My daughter turned 18 just last month, so I’ve had a 17 year old daughter for a year now. This is probably why we see this question VERY differently.

From 0-12 perhaps the conscious level would be that of a child. Around 13-17 Not quite. cf pedaphile from DSM-V to understand. 18 and on an adult yes.

OK, now you’re moving the goalposts. You started talking about immoral laws. Now you’re talking about where the age of consent should be drawn.

OK, suppose we make the age of consent 14. What about the guy that molests a girl just two months short of her fourteenth birthday? He ought to get a pass, right? Then why should the law say 14 if we’re not actually gonna enforce it? So make the law 13.5. Well, what about the guy that molests a girl four months after her thirteenth birthday? He ought to get a pass, right? So make the law 13. And it just goes on and on.

Is it immoral to have an age of consent? You may disagree about WHERE that age falls, but it is certainly not immoral to have an age of consent. And, if it’s a LAW, it means that someone who falls just one day short is guilty. It’s the same as someone trying to buy a drink the day before his 21st birthday (which I think is a silly restriction, BTW, but it’s the law). Try to buy a handgun (from an FFL) the day before your 21st birthday. Lemme know how that goes for you (if you send me the address of the county jail, I’ll send you a postcard).

Now, is it JUST that a man who molests a girl just short of her eighteenth birthday receive the same sentence as the guy that molests a 12-year old? No, I don’t think that’s just (and I don’t think that’s really how it works, either).

Why can’t same sex couples adopt?

They can, except Michigan and Mississippi (the status in Alabama is still being litigated). What does this have to do with anything?

It think Mr. Filmer’s response proves my point in this type matter “feeling good” goes well beyond reasoning.

You give me FAR more credit than I deserve. It’s hard to prove a point that is so poorly expressed (on my best day, I don’t think I am equal to this task). The [omitted] part of your post is completely incomprehensible rambling. Put down the drink and try to form a cogent thought.

Let’s try to keep this focused. You started with the case of a person who is convicted of child sexual abuse of a girl just shy of the age of consent. So let’s stick with that. Try to follow along and answer these questions:

• Is it immoral for society to establish an age of consent (whatever that age may be), where any sexual activity prior to that age constitutes sexual abuse?
• If such an age is established (whatever it may be), if a person has sexual activity with someone the day before that person’s birthday of consent, has the person broken the law? (we’re only talking about guilt here, not punishment).
• If a person does NOT molest a child before the legal age of consent (whatever that age may be), and nothing happens to him, is that immoral? Is it unfair or immoral that the person who does NOT molest a child suffers no penalty, whereas the person who DOES molest a child suffers?

 

[billcu1]

Natural law is a starting point, not a basis.

Under natural law, if you kill my wife, I can kill your wife. An eye for an eye is natural law.

Humm. That sounds like the old Jewish law. Perhaps Moshe law or Noach’s law. The type of actions you describe obtain no “real” justice. IMO as you have explained, and that’s exactly the way I’ve always heard it. Just as you say. The “eye for an eye” sounds to me like to obtain justice one takes a knife impales himself and “guts” himself (via revenge, dramatically put) and expects to get up and go on. [Does that make sense? ] ? Acting out of vengeance is self destructive. I do not see how one can keep from damaging his own soul.

Bill

 

[mikekle]

You have used the term here “Child Molester”. I know if I had a 17 year old daughter and you called her a child I would be rather offended. From 0-12 perhaps the conscious level would be that of a child. Around 13-17 Not quite. cf pedaphile from DSM-V to understand. 18 and on an adult yes. It is typical in a politically created ruse to use that term “child” but I digress from the dialectic argument. There are several things that must be determined by reasoning to obtain bearing here. The trouble with society is “it feels good”. Why can’t same sex couples adopt? It feels like the right thing to do. No thinking required. Or permitted it can be dangerous to the powers that be. That “warm and fuzzy” feeling is behind so many laws. In an actual abduction case. Or a serious offender things would be different. It think Mr. Filmer’s response proves my point in this type matter “feeling good” goes well beyond reasoning. And I would ask. Is a man’s life as important, as a teen who desires him to touch her. The offender maybe an offender and punishment in a reasonable manner just. But a “death penalty” I do believe as injust. Pedaphile viz. in the purist sense has no attraction to a teenager but to indeed a child. Registration has indeed a heavy psychological toll upon a person. Georgia allows no one in the state. The US has never seen any such type laws before. Humanity most certainly. I think my example and the assumed example are entirely different matters.

You bring up a good point, the US has not seen laws like this in a very long time, its the basic idea that once a person is found guilty of certain crimes, they will be punished for the rest of their lives, even if they complete their prison terms and get out, they still must register with local police, tell them where they are living, where they work, where they travel, cant live in certain areas, etc…This is getting into some scary territory imo.

Funny though, people that kill others and get a murder conviction, they have ZERO things they must do once released, no registrations, no limits on where they can live, nothing…?? Why would a parent be worried about a sex offender moving into an apartment near their childs school, but its OK for a murderer, no one wants to check on them?

The same kind of laws are in place for drug offenders, example, once convicted of a drug offense, its very tough to get help going to school, or even getting into a school, Im sorry, but shouldnt be the exact opposite? Shouldnt we be doing all we can to help these people get training and get real jobs, instead of putting road blocks in their way, basically making sure they remain in the criminal lifestyle, as they cant get a decent job after one single conviction…this is crazy, but I have a feeling it is set up this way for a reason, and they actually want a certain number of people to remain criminals (for profit prisons may be the problem here), but this would imply collusion between them and lawmakers…hmmm?

Whats bad about this, it seems majority of society agrees with these laws, they have bought into the lies law enforcement and Govt have sold them…I dont know, something is fishy about this, I think maybe they are getting society ready for some super tough laws, punishments, like when it becomes illegal to be a christian, maybe this ‘conviction’ will be similar to being labeled a sex offender in the near future?

 

[billcu1]

You bring up a good point, the US has not seen laws like this in a very long time, its the basic idea that once a person is found guilty of certain crimes, they will be punished for the rest of their lives, even if they complete their prison terms and get out, they still must register with local police, tell them where they are living, where they work, where they travel, cant live in certain areas, etc…This is getting into some scary territory imo.

Funny though, people that kill others and get a murder conviction, they have ZERO things they must do once released, no registrations, no limits on where they can live, nothing…?? Why would a parent be worried about a sex offender moving into an apartment near their childs school, but its OK for a murderer, no one wants to check on them?

The same kind of laws are in place for drug offenders, example, once convicted of a drug offense, its very tough to get help going to school, or even getting into a school, Im sorry, but shouldnt be the exact opposite? Shouldnt we be doing all we can to help these people get training and get real jobs, instead of putting road blocks in their way, basically making sure they remain in the criminal lifestyle, as they cant get a decent job after one single conviction…this is crazy, but I have a feeling it is set up this way for a reason, and they actually want a certain number of people to remain criminals (for profit prisons may be the problem here), but this would imply collusion between them and lawmakers…hmmm?

Whats bad about this, it seems majority of society agrees with these laws, they have bought into the lies law enforcement and Govt have sold them…I dont know, something is fishy about this, I think maybe they are getting society ready for some super tough laws, punishments, like when it becomes illegal to be a christian, maybe this ‘conviction’ will be similar to being labeled a sex offender in the near future?

Much of this stuff started with Maureen Kanka. And her foundation is beginning to question things. Some have said she is one of the most powerful women in the world to lobby congress and get all 50 states to actually change their law.

There are many questions to this craze. And the “Pit Bull” craze and so on. People do not think they feel. That’s what I have tried to get across in this thread.

Has a person been accused of and convicted of a sex crime? Who cares. All you have to do is prudent things you need to be doing anyway. Watch what you do where you go and such. It doesn't matter if someone is "registered" or not. There's a first for everything. People with no criminal record can offend. There are a lot of legislators building careers on "Do it for the kids" campaigns. Sounds a lot like Hitler's declaring the Child to be the most precious asset of the state. A father, a victim. Is all one side and irrational. If you don't work with the offender how do you stop offenses.

Of course there will always be people that can't be in society. They need to be behind a wall. They don't care what they do. This should all be looked at in a case by case basis. It started with an irrational idea that "they can't be helped..." That's of course nonsense. This doesn't mean I am for crimes but the opposite. Someone being angry is exactly what we don't need. We don't need emotions but reasoning here. And lawmakers feed on emotions to build careers. There is a difference in "touching a 17 yo" because she likes you (and you shouldn't do it) and an abduction, rape, and murder. Few states go by the Walsh act. Maybe only Ohio. I am trying to use reason. Victims or survivors I rather call them, are emotional and irrational. Ans they are the one's that get the voice. They have fudged numbers to try to prove things. Numbers mean nothing. They change from day to day. That's why things must be looked at Epistemicly rather than "98% of serial killers eat mashed potatoes" type stats.

And btw every Pit Bull I’ve ever met has been one of the most lovable, kindest dogs I’ve ever come across. But I am not going there.

Bill

 

[billcu1]

You bring up a good point, the US has not seen laws like this in a very long time, its the basic idea that once a person is found guilty of certain crimes, they will be punished for the rest of their lives, even if they complete their prison terms and get out, they still must register with local police, tell them where they are living, where they work, where they travel, cant live in certain areas, etc…This is getting into some scary territory imo.

Funny though, people that kill others and get a murder conviction, they have ZERO things they must do once released, no registrations, no limits on where they can live, nothing…?? Why would a parent be worried about a sex offender moving into an apartment near their childs school, but its OK for a murderer, no one wants to check on them?

The same kind of laws are in place for drug offenders, example, once convicted of a drug offense, its very tough to get help going to school, or even getting into a school, Im sorry, but shouldnt be the exact opposite? Shouldnt we be doing all we can to help these people get training and get real jobs, instead of putting road blocks in their way, basically making sure they remain in the criminal lifestyle, as they cant get a decent job after one single conviction…this is crazy, but I have a feeling it is set up this way for a reason, and they actually want a certain number of people to remain criminals (for profit prisons may be the problem here), but this would imply collusion between them and lawmakers…hmmm?

Whats bad about this, it seems majority of society agrees with these laws, they have bought into the lies law enforcement and Govt have sold them…I dont know, something is fishy about this, I think maybe they are getting society ready for some super tough laws, punishments, like when it becomes illegal to be a christian, maybe this ‘conviction’ will be similar to being labeled a sex offender in the near future?

Very super Right wing. Super Police type Fascism. Get rights from the people. I have watched over the last 35 years people lose more rights than anything over ridiculous excuses. States don’t get funding unless they pass certain woman supporting legislation that is anti-man too I see. Women can be demons at times. But they’re always the victim.

Bill

 

[mikekle]

Very super Right wing. Super Police type Fascism. Get rights from the people. I have watched over the last 35 years people lose more rights than anything over ridiculous excuses. States don’t get funding unless they pass certain woman supporting legislation that is anti-man too I see. Women can be demons at times. But they’re always the victim.

Bill

Well, we are surely living in a police state now, so maybe you are on to something here!

More and more I see law enforcement being used as a tool to keep people in line, especially with this heroin/ pain pill problem so many cities are dealing with nowadays, I always wondered why police would even be involved in this…I mean, its pretty much been proven that drug addiction is an actual disease, which needs to be treated, now why would they use police in this kind of ‘battle’, would it not be more appropriate to use the CDC, or create a special task force, led by the CDC.

How can we expect the average street cop to be able to tell the difference between a person that is in pain and using pain pills for actual pain, versus someone just abusing these drugs? its not possible, they are not medically trained, yet they are the main force fighting this war on drugs (???, this makes no sense??)

I think most cities, and law enforcement in general, does not see it this way, they dont accept modern science and the disease aspect, they just see it as crime, white and black only, they are that ignorant, they would rather arrest people, put long prison terms on them, instead of treating the disease…DUH, no wonder they arent winning the war on drugs. LOL

Its not just the war on drugs, police are consistently used as a ‘tool’ in areas where they should not even be involved.

 

[billcu1]

Well, we are surely living in a police state now, so maybe you are on to something here!

More and more I see law enforcement being used as a tool to keep people in line, especially with this heroin/ pain pill problem so many cities are dealing with nowadays, I always wondered why police would even be involved in this…I mean, its pretty much been proven that drug addiction is an actual disease, which needs to be treated, now why would they use police in this kind of ‘battle’, would it not be more appropriate to use the CDC, or create a special task force, led by the CDC.

How can we expect the average street cop to be able to tell the difference between a person that is in pain and using pain pills for actual pain, versus someone just abusing these drugs? its not possible, they are not medically trained, yet they are the main force fighting this war on drugs (???, this makes no sense??)

I think most cities, and law enforcement in general, does not see it this way, they dont accept modern science and the disease aspect, they just see it as crime, white and black only, they are that ignorant, they would rather arrest people, put long prison terms on them, instead of treating the disease…DUH, no wonder they arent winning the war on drugs. LOL

Its not just the war on drugs, police are consistently used as a ‘tool’ in areas where they should not even be involved.

This may all come down to; as you say. Eventually loss of freedom of religion. Federal caselaw provides for two different philosophies. I like Scalia’s “It’s a right of the state” type thinking. Ginsburg and a couple other Justices want absolutely NO influence of religion involved in federal government affairs. Ginsburg and Kagan are both Jewish. Scalia, Sotomayor and a couple other justices are Catholic. So they have personal religious ideology.

 This Obama though. Whew. He wants religion to be confined to the four walls of your church, parish, synagogue and such. He wants no mentioning of religion outside of that. so much for the idea of the witness. That's immoral law.

And I think much of what I have been saying fits under the thread’s title of “immoral law”. When they say we can’t worship, and they do it very sneakingly. News has a profound effect. I have challenged people to think before and there response is “the TV said it” or “The paper said so.” Anyone with experience with them (press) will know they can’t get anything right and they don’t have to. First amendment freedoms.

There is more things than the "sex offender" and "Pit bull" crazes too. There was the witch craze. If you weighted more than the Bible you were a witch. This is nothing new. But the SO laws in the US right now, are unprecedented. The only thing that I think could relate are the "Jim Crowe" laws.

Bill

 

[billcu1]

Then it’s obvious you don’t have a daughter. My daughter turned 18 just last month, so I’ve had a 17 year old daughter for a year now. This is probably why we see this question VERY differently.

Sorry for taking so long to come back to this. but there have been other things to do. I think we would both be rather “irrational” in looking at this. I am trying to use Socratic method and questioning here too. That’s why there are umpires and neutral objective views. If logically sound. I know people wrong fully convicted.

OK, now you’re moving the goalposts. You started talking about immoral laws. Now you’re talking about where the age of consent should be drawn.

I am not changing the goal posts but introducing a new idea. The age of consent according to law is the age of consent. This is human physiology so that might be “natural law”. There is pre teen teen and adult. Pre pubescent, post pubescent. A pedophile a true pedophile has no interest in teens because of physical sexual maturity. A child is pre pubescient. So teens and adults are not an interest.

OK, suppose we make the age of consent 14. What about the guy that molests a girl just two months short of her fourteenth birthday? He ought to get a pass, right? Then why should the law say 14 if we’re not actually gonna enforce it? So make the law 13.5. Well, what about the guy that molests a girl four months after her thirteenth birthday? He ought to get a pass, right? So make the law 13. And it just goes on and on.

Is it immoral to have an age of consent? You may disagree about WHERE that age falls, but it is certainly not immoral to have an age of consent. And, if it’s a LAW, it means that someone who falls just one day short is guilty. It’s the same as someone trying to buy a drink the day before his 21st birthday (which I think is a silly restriction, BTW, but it’s the law). Try to buy a handgun (from an FFL) the day before your 21st birthday. Lemme know how that goes for you (if you send me the address of the county jail, I’ll send you a postcard).

Now, is it JUST that a man who molests a girl just short of her eighteenth birthday receive the same sentence as the guy that molests a 12-year old? No, I don’t think that’s just (and I don’t think that’s really how it works, either).

They can, except Michigan and Mississippi (the status in Alabama is still being litigated). What does this have to do with anything?

You give me FAR more credit than I deserve. It’s hard to prove a point that is so poorly expressed (on my best day, I don’t think I am equal to this task). The [omitted] part of your post is completely incomprehensible rambling. Put down the drink and try to form a cogent thought.

Let’s try to keep this focused. You started with the case of a person who is convicted of child sexual abuse of a girl just shy of the age of consent. So let’s stick with that. Try to follow along and answer these questions:

• Is it immoral for society to establish an age of consent (whatever that age may be), where any sexual activity prior to that age constitutes sexual abuse?
• If such an age is established (whatever it may be), if a person has sexual activity with someone the day before that person’s birthday of consent, has the person broken the law? (we’re only talking about guilt here, not punishment).
• If a person does NOT molest a child before the legal age of consent (whatever that age may be), and nothing happens to him, is that immoral? Is it unfair or immoral that the person who does NOT molest a child suffers no penalty, whereas the person who DOES molest a child suffers?

The answer to your questions. 1) no 2) no 3) Is a little more complicated and I am not quite sure I am understanding. If you believe in our system, when it works. In theory we would rather have an guilty person walking the streets than an innocent person in jail. But there is more to look at here. Not only the victim and their family but the offender and their family, children an so on. I am not against so punishment but there comes a time, especially with non-violent, misdemeanor type crimes. First time offenders too you might be able to save.

Now I don’t think a 17 year old 1 month shy of her birthdday who has a crush on a man 25 is going to be severely impacted. Not like a 10 year old being assaulted. Does that mean the 25 year old man has not done wrong and should know better, No it doesn’t.

Bill

PS Part of my post in in the grey area. It’s not all down here. I don’t know what happened with the posting.

 

[billcu1]

Then it’s obvious you don’t have a daughter. My daughter turned 18 just last month, so I’ve had a 17 year old daughter for a year now. This is probably why we see this question VERY differently.

OK, now you’re moving the goalposts. You started talking about immoral laws. Now you’re talking about where the age of consent should be drawn.

OK, suppose we make the age of consent 14. What about the guy that molests a girl just two months short of her fourteenth birthday? He ought to get a pass, right? Then why should the law say 14 if we’re not actually gonna enforce it? So make the law 13.5. Well, what about the guy that molests a girl four months after her thirteenth birthday? He ought to get a pass, right? So make the law 13. And it just goes on and on.

Is it immoral to have an age of consent? You may disagree about WHERE that age falls, but it is certainly not immoral to have an age of consent. And, if it’s a LAW, it means that someone who falls just one day short is guilty. It’s the same as someone trying to buy a drink the day before his 21st birthday (which I think is a silly restriction, BTW, but it’s the law). Try to buy a handgun (from an FFL) the day before your 21st birthday. Lemme know how that goes for you (if you send me the address of the county jail, I’ll send you a postcard).

Now, is it JUST that a man who molests a girl just short of her eighteenth birthday receive the same sentence as the guy that molests a 12-year old? No, I don’t think that’s just (and I don’t think that’s really how it works, either).

They can, except Michigan and Mississippi (the status in Alabama is still being litigated). What does this have to do with anything?

You give me FAR more credit than I deserve. It’s hard to prove a point that is so poorly expressed (on my best day, I don’t think I am equal to this task). The [omitted] part of your post is completely incomprehensible rambling. Put down the drink and try to form a cogent thought.

Let’s try to keep this focused. You started with the case of a person who is convicted of child sexual abuse of a girl just shy of the age of consent. So let’s stick with that. Try to follow along and answer these questions:

• Is it immoral for society to establish an age of consent (whatever that age may be), where any sexual activity prior to that age constitutes sexual abuse?
• If such an age is established (whatever it may be), if a person has sexual activity with someone the day before that person’s birthday of consent, has the person broken the law? (we’re only talking about guilt here, not punishment).
• If a person does NOT molest a child before the legal age of consent (whatever that age may be), and nothing happens to him, is that immoral? Is it unfair or immoral that the person who does NOT molest a child suffers no penalty, whereas the person who DOES molest a child suffers?

Sorry but I mean #2 is yes.

Bill