Reason Writers on the Tube: Radley Balko Discusses Age of Consent Laws and Sex Offender Registries on John Stossel's Show

This week on John Stossel's Fox Business Channel show, Reason Senior Editor Radley Balko debated former prosecutor Wendy Murphy on the topics of age of consent laws and sex offender registries.

Comments

[Michael Ejercito]

Teenagers are too young to rightfully have sex with adults.

Are you aware that the Constitution does not forbid states from punishing underage boys for having sex with underage girls, but not underage girls from having sex with underage boys. See Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County , 450 U.S. 464.

[prolefeed]

So, an adult who is 19 years and 11 months old is too young to have sex with an adult who just turned 20?

[Michael Ejercito]

So, an adult who is 19 years and 11 months old is too young to have sex with an adult who just turned 20?

Apparently not.

I guess teenagers are not too young to have sex with adults if the age range is less than five years.

[John Tagliaferro]

The age of consent in the US is 16, 17 or 18, depending on the State, so the answer to your question is a definite no.

[The Libertarian Guy]

It's obvious we need nationalized rules for this. Just like with health care.

Just kidding.

[dunphy]

actually, no.

in WA, for instance, it's 14 (assuming the other party is within so many months of the other party.

there's more variance than you assumed (since you clearly didn't research).

when I used to be a cop in hawaii, it was 14 with NO age differential required, fwiw, but i have heard they have since raised it

[prolefeed]

It was 14 in Hawaii up until a few years ago, with no provisos -- once a girl turned 14, any more who had sex with her with her consent was not committing a crime.

It got changed to 16, but only a handful of prosecutions for 14 and 15 year olds have happened, and IIRC none of those prosecutions has resulted in a conviction.

Basically, if you fuck a 14 year old in Hawaii, try not to piss anyone off and you'll be OK.

[dunphy]

Yes, i commented on hawaii in another post. but it is CURRENTLY 14 in WA state with an age differential requirement, and 16 w/o one.

i used to be a cop in hawaii and once had a woman try to report the "statutory rape" of her 14 yr old at a hotel in kaanapali. it turns out the kid voluntarily had sex with two men in their 30's, and as soon as i knew it was voluntary, i told her it was legal. the age of consent was 14.

man, was she pissed.

otoh, i once arrested a guy for having sex with a 13 yr old who was just a couple of months shy of her 14th birthday. if the guy could have waited two months to schtup her, he could have saved himself several years of prison times.

sounds like a worthwhile trade to me. he was a dumbass!

[BeltwayLurker]

Actually, yes a 19 year old can concent with a 20 year old there too.

[dunphy]

there is no state in the union where a 19 yr old isn't above the age of consent.

[BeltwayLurker]

Exactly. prolefeed's argument is seriously flawed.

[Atanarjuat]

Well, I believe he was simply responding to the assertion that "teenagers are too young to have sex with adults".

[dunphy]

and of course the very claim "teenagers are too young to have sex with adults" is meaningless and.or internally consistent.

what does it mean by "adults?" under various doctrines, teenagers ARE adults, such as upon the age of 18 reaching majority for most things.

iow, many teenagers ARE adults. it doesn;t even make sense

[prolefeed]

Well, I believe he was simply responding to the assertion that "teenagers are too young to have sex with adults".

Correct. I was responding to an assertion that is patently false.

[Old Man With Candy]

Why wait until 13, really?

[John Tagliaferro]

Because the best things in life are illegal.

[libertymike]

John T., if I had posted that link, Tupla would use it as evidence that I am okay with rape.

[zoltan]

Your taste in women, er, girls, is disturbing. She's going to be on Jersey Shore in a few years.

[dbcooper]

Wow, what an awful person that Kathy Griffin voiced harpy was.

[d]

Nail on the head. She's a voice doppelganger for that brainless left-fluffer of a bitch. Nice!

[Bill]

That was a dude Balko was debating, wasn't it?? Looks like the estrogen therapy hasn't taken yet, since he still looks like a man.

[dbcooper]

I also liked her plucked from thin air "only 2% of sex offenders are on registries" statistic.

[?]

her plucked from thin air statistic

I believe the technical term is: "Pulled from her ass."

See also: Obama, Barack

[LeSigh]

Maybe she meant to say only 2% of people are on registries.

[Hugh Akston]

That number clearly needs to be higher.

[Number 2]

How did that jerk get a law degree?

[Boston Law]

There's nothing to a JD. Further, she got her degree at the place she now "teaches," which is a notorious fourth-tier diploma-mill toilet.

[Joshua Corning]

What a weird worthless conversation.

I don't think anyone go their point across.

It was like two people said their position then argued about totally different things then the tape shut off leaving more questions then answers.

"I think purple people eaters are bad"

"I think you are wrong cuz the moon is really far away"

"But they are bad"

"Yes but the moon is far away"

FOX NEWS Where you decide!!!

Anyway it is obvious that Wendy Murphy agrees that some people who are being put on these registries should not be put on them. "Only some states". So why is she even arguing? Instead of two people beating up their own strawmen how about a discussion?

Anyway i blame Strossel. That was terrible TV.

[Tara Davis]

Yep. Stossel is excellent at making commentary pieces, but horrible at moderating debates/discussions. Maybe he will get better if he continues to have his own show.

[Naga Sadow]

Oh shit!! An age of consent thread!

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

Abandon thread! Attention all! Abandon thread!

[Michael Ejercito]

Oh shit!! An age of consent thread!

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

Abandon thread! Attention all! Abandon thread!

What is the controversy?

Is anyone arguing that adults should be legally permitted to have sex with 14-year-olds?

[NAMBLA]

We do!

[The Heresiarch]

Well, actually, a lot of people would. Historically, the age of consent was usually set at 10-12 until the late 19th century. The age of consent in Canada until very recently was 14. There are nations in the world today that have an age of consent as low as 12.

[Jerry]

It seems only fair that you can start copulating at an earlier age when you only have a life expectancy of 35 years.

[The Libertarian Guy]

"Say, Jim... your daughter is kinda hot. How old is she, now?"

"She just started kindergarten."

"Oh, cool. Mind if I have sex with her?"

[Jerry]

Mohammed: "Say, Abu... your daughter is kinda hot. How old is she, now?"

Abu: "Aisha just started kindergarten."

Mohammed: "Oh, cool. Mind if I have sex with her?"

FTFY

[The Libertarian Guy]

I was pointing out the absurdity of NOT having age-of-consent laws, but now that you mention it... you have a point.

[Tara Davis]

You failed to complete the conversation as it would go:

"Say, Jim... your daughter is kinda hot. How old is she, now?"

"She just started kindergarten."

"Oh, cool. Mind if I have sex with her?"

"As a matter of fact, yes. Yes I do mind. Stay away from my family and never talk to me again, you sick fuck."

[Psychic Octopus]

That's a fallacy.

Age expectancy was 35 years most of all because of high infant mortality and also because of infectious disease mortality at all ages, not because people had "old age" diseases at 35. Since most of the death causes were anyway not preventable or predictable at the time it still made no sense to plan for anything other than a long life - even if it didn't come, in the end.

[zoltan]

Plus life expectancy dropped with the advent of agriculture. I still expect hunter gatherer societies to allow pubescent teens to start copulating once menstruation starts/balls drop/voice lowers/body hair grows, etc.

[Michael Ejercito]

Well, actually, a lot of people would. Historically, the age of consent was usually set at 10-12 until the late 19th century. The age of consent in Canada until very recently was 14. There are nations in the world today that have an age of consent as low as 12.

Why was the age of consent raised?

[The Heresiarch]

I don't know exactly what increase you're referring to. The increases in the late 19th/early 20th centuries were generally aligned with the temperance movement and were designed as anti-prostitution measures (this was the era of "white slavery"). As for the Canadian increase, this happened, I believe, in 2008. The Canadians seem to have caught the anti-sex-offender fever which is so rampant in the U.S.

[Michael Ejercito]

I don't know exactly what increase you're referring to. The increases in the late 19th/early 20th centuries were generally aligned with the temperance movement and were designed as anti-prostitution measures (this was the era of "white slavery").

And yet there is little public pressure to lower the age of consent to 14.

As for the Canadian increase, this happened, I believe, in 2008. The Canadians seem to have caught the anti-sex-offender fever which is so rampant in the U.S.

And for good reason. Sex offenders are nithings, enemies of mankind and civilization.

[The Heresiarch]

As for the public pressure to reduce the age of consent, no, there certainly is not. Nor would there be much public outcry to not execute homosexuals and other "buggers" throughout medieval Europe (or today in many Muslim countries). Nor would there be much public outcry to repeal anti-miscegenation laws in the Postbellum American South. We can continue giving historical and geographical examples paene ad infinitum. I'm not saying that the issue of underage sex is (or is not) analogous, but the myriad sexual acts which were punished in the past or presently in other nations (at times with death or torture) but are tolerated today in our nation should give us pause to rely upon ad populum arguments. We must provide a logos for our reasoning. As for the second part of the post, I don't know what a "nithing" is.

[Michael Ejercito]

As for the public pressure to reduce the age of consent, no, there certainly is not. Nor would there be much public outcry to not execute homosexuals and other "buggers" throughout medieval Europe (or today in many Muslim countries). Nor would there be much public outcry to repeal anti-miscegenation laws in the Postbellum American South. We can continue giving historical and geographical examples paene ad infinitum. I'm not saying that the issue of underage sex is (or is not) analogous, but the myriad sexual acts which were punished in the past or presently in other nations (at times with death or torture) but are tolerated today in our nation should give us pause to rely upon ad populum arguments. We must provide a logos for our reasoning. As for the second part of the post, I don't know what a "nithing" is.

We do need to understand why people oppose lowering the age of consent to 14 or even 16 in jurisdictions where it is 18.

A nithing, as defined in Webster's dictionary, is "A coward; a dastard; ? a term of utmost opprobrium." This article explains it further.

[The Heresiarch]

Interesting article regarding "nithing." I've never heard of the word before. As for this:

"We do need to understand why people oppose lowering the age of consent to 14 or even 16 in jurisdictions where it is 18."

I agree. If the reason people oppose it is because of unfounded prejudices, or because of beliefs in falsities, then this is relevant to a discussion of our current legal regime vis-a-vis "sex offenders."

[Old Man With Candy]

Yes.

[dunphy]

until recently, this was legal in hawaii.

so, apparently plenty of people argued it so. including the legislature (they have since changed it or so i heard)

i recall taking a "rape" complaint once from a parent, saying two guys had had apparent consensual sex with her 14 yr old daughter. they were in their 30's

when i (and my sgt. and my lt.) told her it wasn't a crime, man was she pissed off

[Tom]

Christ, OK, how many times are you gonna talk about Hawaii without even acknowledging your previous comments about it?

[dunphy]

i'll talk about it whenever it's a relevant example, such as disputing false claims by people who know nothing about the law, or more specifically,that the law varies significantly state to state.

here's a hint. before one opines on the appropriateness of a legal concept, one should at least understand it. those who claim, as above, that the age of consent in the us is 16, 17, or 18 are misinformed on the law.

[Tom]

Your lack of periods is annoying too. We should have a thread about adults who write like 14-year-old text-messagers.

[robc]

Is there a need to talk about it more than 1 time in the same thread?

Two separate threads, sure, no problem, but the same one?

[dunphy]

i am sorry if my "style" doesn't meet your approval. but usually those who have no actual argument (and often those who see they are wrong, but god forbid won't admit it cause this is the internet and the entire edifice of their fragile ego will collapse) flame on stuff like this.

i'm not writing a legal brief, or a search warrant here. it's a frigging blog post. deal, or don't deal.

[robc]

I dont give a fuck about style, just stop repeating yourself (but dont worry about the double post below, that happens). The point is we already saw your cool story up above, point made.

There is virtually no moderation here, we police are own by calling fucktards "fucktards". And people who post the same story, legit as it is, twice in the same thread are fucktards. Deal with it, fucktard.

[dunphy]

troll-o-meter

suckitude-----not bad-------kickass!
--^--

weak troll attempt dood. try again.

and if people truly policed their own, they would admit when they were wrong and be called on it. did the "16, 17 or 18" poster do so? of course not

THAT's the sign of a fucktard.

otoh, if it takes being redundant to pound something into somebody's head, so be it.

[Zeb]

Definitions for "fucktard" vary. You have been informed about the local definition. robc is definitely not a troll.

[Psychic Octopus]

Like several of the "Vice" libertarian causes, such as drugs and gambling, the fact that it isn't wise to do something doesn't mean that criminalizing it is the best way to deal with it: neither from a responsibility nor from an effectiveness perspective. Like in the case of drugs and gambling, by criminalizing it you strengthen the black market and the involvement of organized crime, trivialize the distinctions between mild and harmful or dangerous actions and people, and increase the powers of police to intrude (and the cost of policing, too). Of course it isn't identical, but the similarities are enough to take pause, especially at the point that we have already reached. Obviously here I am talking about consensual sex, too. Rape is rape, and it isn't age which determines if a sexual act is rape.

[dunphy]

drugs and gambling are self-regarding acts and no self-respecting libertarian (if that isnt an oxymoron) would applaud govt. banning of same. (my state makes online gambling a C felony, which is typical of liberal nannystate fools).

age of consent laws attempt to protect OTHERS from the actions of people, which is completely disanalogous.

one can disagree with the particular age set as the age of consent in any particular jurisdiction, or even argue that bright line age is not the way to go, iow that in each individual case, a determination should be made as to maturity for the purposes of consent.

however...

we can probably all agree that sex , even "consensual" sex with a 5 yr old should be illegal, and with a 20 yr old should not be

so, in reality, few people have a problem with the concept of defining an age of consent, merely the details are what is hard

[Psychic Octopus]

The problem is when those details have led to increasing sentences, police powers and costs disproportionately and to have a large set of citizens who are outside bars yet publicly branded (and yet people complain about the treatment of illegals?).

I would agree with a case-by-case evaluation, but the whole age-of-consent mentality runs against that, so I don't really have any expectation that we will see any change in that direction anytime soon.

(The very term "age-of-consent" is absurd, because consent doesn't come with any specific date, which is why I prefer "age of sexual majority")

Even your example about a 5yo gets debatable at times. Who is the 5yo with? "Dirty Old Man With Candy" or a neighbor of about the same age?: because kids are getting branded sex offenders and sent for therapy (if not charged, at least not yet the 5yo ones) for being curious with neighbors, siblings and classmates. No matter how much the same 5yo needs to be protected from predatorial adults, this is too much, and ends up harming those that the laws are enacted to protect.

[dunphy]

a "case by case" evaluation cedes a lot of power to the govt. is that what you want?

as for the case of a 5 yr old being with another 5 yr old. in my state, there would be no criminality whatsoever. a 5 yr old can murder somebody and we can't touch him (the criminal law)

you argue for MORe police power by proposing a subjective "case by case " evaluation

what govt. agent should have that power to decide that no, it's wrong for ThAT fucktard to have sex with a 12 yr old, but perfectly fine for THIS one to do it.

you don't believe in equality before the law?

personally, i think the age of consent should be 13. with the other party within 36 months. at 14, it should be 48 months. at 15 it should be 48 months, and at 16 it should be legal period.

that's my proposed law. PRETTY similar to what we have now in my state, with a few tweaks

[Psychic Octopus]

I was thinking more of the juries and at worst judges, than the police. The police would still have the task of arresting everyone (at least in theory*); just that the burden of proof wouldn't be on the forensic, but on the "does anyone here really deserve jail / registration?"

* In practice, it is possible and likely that the police will get savvy about who is more likely to be convicted and arrest only the more likely cases. That isn't good either, but it's a different subject.

[dunphy]

drugs and gambling are self-regarding acts and no self-respecting libertarian (if that isnt an oxymoron) would applaud govt. banning of same. (my state makes online gambling a C felony, which is typical of liberal nannystate fools).

age of consent laws attempt to protect OTHERS from the actions of people, which is completely disanalogous.

one can disagree with the particular age set as the age of consent in any particular jurisdiction, or even argue that bright line age is not the way to go, iow that in each individual case, a determination should be made as to maturity for the purposes of consent.

however...

we can probably all agree that sex , even "consensual" sex with a 5 yr old should be illegal, and with a 20 yr old should not be

so, in reality, few people have a problem with the concept of defining an age of consent, merely the details are what is hard

[prolefeed]

Is anyone arguing that adults should be legally permitted to have sex with 14-year-olds?

Almost half the legislators in Hawaii were in fact arguing for keeping the age of consent at 14. They'd compromise on 15 in committee, someone would leave for a different hearing, and that would tip the balance toward 14 or 16 again until another legislator on the committee entered the room and restarted the fray.

It was entertaining as hell to watch.

[Episiarch]

Naga is just afraid that it'll become illegal for him to sleep with cougars. The age disparity is huge.

[dbcooper]

It would also complicate his Helg Sgarbi-esque schemes.

[Episiarch]

OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA

Should we start calling Naga "Rupert"?

[dbcooper]

It's a suitable name to adopt when poisoning old ladies on cruise ships.

[hmm]

Why is the cork on the fork?

[dbcooper]

I thought he was "Ruprecht" in that movie.

[juris imprudent]

No, that was Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.

[Episiarch]

I think you're right, but you get the point.

[dbcooper]

I do, but I suspect that poisoning is more in tone with this site.

[prolefeed]

Should we start calling Naga "Rupert"?

Unless you're black, you should be careful about calling him "Naga".

[Hugh Akston]

Naga please.

[?]

Is anyone arguing that adults should be legally permitted to have sex with 14-year-olds?

I wouldn't argue it, per se, but I'd be all "Why would anyone care if there's a law against anything that happens so rarely there are Lifetime movies about it?"

I mean, don't fuck a kid. Maybe advise a kid how not to get fucked, if it comes up. Problem solved?or solved enough. There's no kid-fucking horde to repel. Almost no one is into that shit.

Why is this a thing? It wasn't, not long ago.

[PIRS]

Almost noone is into murder also.

[PIRS]

I forgot, there is an exception for people in countries the current administration does not approve of.

[hmm]

Balko hit the nail on the head. There is a legislative creep to this sort of thing. Each person has to up the ante.

[dunphy]

i agree. it's the classic "defining deviancy up" thang.

we see this in the war on domestic violence as well. DV "Advocates" and other ideological ninnies define "dating violence" and "domestic violence" with a wider and wider net. what used to be stuff like smacking your spouse around is now defined by such stuff as "belittling words or controlling behavior"

sorry, that's not domestic violence, any more than somebody who got caught streaking is a "sex offender'

[otherhmm]

What's wrong with having sex with 14 year olds? I wouldn't quite consider many 14 year olds "kids" either.

[Psychic Octopus]

That is the single point that most strikes me about age of sexual majority debates. Kids are more sexually aware than ever these days, whether or not their parents are comfortable with it - and yet the legislative trend continues to be to increase ages of sexual majority and to raise the penalties for underage sex. Clearly the law is moving in the opposite direction than society is. That alone should be enough to rethink the laws, either the definition of the crime (meaning, the ages) or the punishments for it.

[dunphy]

just to be clear here, whatever one thinks the age SHOULD be, it's not really an issue of sexual awareness. it's a matter of maturity to be able to consent. those are not really the same thing.

of course, whatever age is chosen by a state legislature is completely arbitrary. iow, one 14 yr old may be very emotionally mature, and one 18 yr old might be a complete basket case.

but the law says to draw a bright line, so it does.

i think WA state has a pretty fair compromise in that at ages 14 and 15 it is not rape IF the other person is within a certain # of months of age from the other . however, once the person turns 16, then it is across the board legal - period.

one exception i have seen used is that parents still have the option in many cases of getting a protective order on behalf of their minor child against another (usually an adult).

so they find out their 16 yr old is schtupping some 35 yr old jackass. not illegal. but they get a protective order served on him and THEN if he has sex with her, it's a crime (violation of a protective order)

[hmm]

but the law says to draw a bright line, so it does.

Laws say and do nothing. People say and do, not laws. To attribute the arbitrariness of such legislation to "the law says" is intellectually dishonest. If the laws made are completely arbitrary, if the age limit is arbitrary the law based on an age limit must be arbitrary, then why are such arbitrary laws even created? If the burden is maturity then why is an arbitrary metric, by your own admission not correlated to maturity, used?

[prolefeed]

Laws say and do nothing. People say and do, not laws. To attribute the arbitrariness of such legislation to "the law says" is intellectually dishonest.

The words in a law say to do certain things, and the people charged with enforcing those laws generally carry them out unless the public starts pressuring politicians to change or at least not enforce those laws.

And laws have to draw, if not a bright line, at least a line that applies to everyone, otherwise you get the rule of men instead of the rule of law, which leads to tyranny.

The problem with any law is that it is based on coercion, and has to be to some extent applied to situations where it doesn't meet with the common sense notion of justice.

The age of consent is particularly hard, since knowing that the "average" 14 or 16 or 18 year old girl is able to meaningfully consent doesn't mean that any particular girl of that age is so capable. Some precocious girls are ready early, some mentally damaged girls are never able to give meaningful consent. So ANY number picked will invariably result in injustice.

[hmm]

I disagree. Laws don't say anything. They dictate an if then punishment scheme. If X then P. By making one of those arbitrary you turn this into a rule of man because the defining violation in X has been chosen arbitrarily by men and not based on something that is correlated to the intent of X. This is why legislating morality becomes difficult.

Old men having sex 10 year old kids is bad. 15 18 year old's having sex with 16 year old's not bad. Yet your bright line creates no distinction between the two because you are dictating the morality based on age and not action or ability to consent. But on something arbitrary with zero correlation to the basis of your argument. That being that age is directly correlated at all times to the ability to consent.

Take this mistake and compound it with the strange desire to protect us from the unknown and fear of the unknown and you are now creating second class citizens of not only the ones you want to label criminals (those old men having sex with children), but also compounding the problem mentioned above.

[hmm]

So ANY number picked will invariably result in injustice.

forgot... I agree. That is the reason it's wrong. There has to always be a better way. If we can create metrics for everything else in law way is there no means to determine consent w/ respect to a minor other than the blunt use of age?

[prolefeed]

There has to always be a better way.

There is no way that ANY written law will not result in injustice in some instances. Where a lot of liberals go wrong is in thinking they can legislate away all bad things and prevent them from happening.

All you can do is try for the least bad possibility, and hope that juries will use judgment in deciding when to show clemency when a law is too harsh for a particular case. Sometimes a bad status quo is nonetheless the optimum possible result -- something that can only be worsened by legislation.

[dunphy]

there are only two ways, when it comes to this issue

1) draw a bright line by age (which is what the law does in every jurisdiction inthe US i have studied

2) make the determination on a case by case basis.

the former is arbitrary, but it is well defined. those are not oxymoronic.

iow, there is nothing magical that happens when one turns 16, biologically speaking or emotionally speaking, but many states choose to draw the line there. this creates a uniformity in the law. it may be arbitrary in concept, but it's "cosmically fair" since the law is clear. don't schtup a 15 yr old (in that state). but a 16 yr old is fine, even if she is a complete emotional idiot and less able to consent in a practical sense than some 14 yr olds

if you do it on a case by case basis, you give the power of deciding about the propriety of a given sex act either to a judge, a jury, or some sort of god-forbid govt. appointed expert.

do we really want THAT?

whatever one can say about an arbitrary bright line, it is not prone to abuse, subjectivity, and political shenanigans like a subjective test of consent-worthiness.

so, unless one thinks that sex with any age should be legal, one only has those two options to define when it is and isn't criminal.

so, in my opinion it's the lesser of two evils. it sucks, but it sucks LESS than any other option i am aware of.

and of course, juries still have the option of nullification.

if you know, or reasonably should have known, a person is 13, for example, you are responsible for the crime in my state, regardless of how "mature" he/she actually is.

we draw all sorts of other bright lines in the law - the age to carry a gun, to drink alcohol (although many states allow juvies to drink if the alcohol is provided by parents), to make various medical decisions to include abortion, to enter legal contracts, etc. etc.

[hmm]

Your dichotomy is false. There are several metrics and tests outside of bright lines and simple case by case/human judgment calls in law. Some tests are stupid like "I know it when I see it." and others more specific like adverse possession.

[dunphy]

so give me a way to codify your better way . be specific

every state i am aware of (i haven't studied every country, but i know that both canada and the UK codify similarly to the US) and canada and the UK codify it the way i described.

if you don't codify it by bright line (age) then you necessarily will have to write a law that gives significant discretion to somebody and who do YOU trust to decide that? and under what metric?

the law as written is quite clear. if they are under a certain age, it's illegal. otherwise, it's not. that offers a security from prying state eyes into the private sexual arena, in such cases.

if you have a better way to codify than say specifically what it is...

put it here --->

because otherwise, you are just spouting.

[robc]

so give me a way to codify your better way . be specific

Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed.

No age necessary. Very specific. It may not be the standard we want, but it actually makes some sort of sense.

[dunphy]

men don't bleed, and the law needs to be (and is) gender neutral.

i guess you could say "it is illegal to have sex with a woman who has not yet menstruated" but what would the equivalent test be for a man ?

and how does a man know if a woman has menstruated yet? does he look at the thickness of her pubic hair?

some women (especially with environmental estrogens etc) achieve menses at 11 or 12. so, it should be legal for a 30 yr old to have sex with somebody's 12 yr old daughter because she happened to get her period?

really?

that's the law you want to write?

and what if the person doesn't menstruate and she is 17? because she is extremely (un?)lucky in this regards, it should be a crime to have sex with her?

and you are arguing that THIS is the BETTER law than using age?

really?

[robc]

Which part of:

It may not be the standard we want

dont you understand?

I gave a specific, testable (at least for women, and why do laws need to be gender neutral?) example of a possible law that doesnt involve age. It isnt what I prefer, I gave an example.

does he look at the thickness of her pubic hair?

If there is grass on the field, play ball.

See, there are plenty of sayings that do the same thing. Tests for puberty arent that hard. Its the difference between pedophilia and hebephilia.

[dunphy]

yes, you gave an example of a POSSIBLE law that doesn't involve age.

i didn't say there weren't other metrics. i asked for a BETTER metric than age. which you admit this isn't

and under the EPC (equal protection clause) these laws do have to be gender neutral. for example, you couldn't make the age of consent 14 for boys and 15 for girls

[dunphy]

actually, i said give me way to "CODIFY A BETTER WAY", and then you gave me an example that you admit is NOT a better way?

iow, not a valid response.

IS there a better way?

[hmm]

so give me a way to codify your better way . be specific

What part of,

There are several metrics and tests outside of bright lines and simple case by case/human judgment calls in law. Some tests are stupid like "I know it when I see it." and others more specific like adverse possession.

was hard to understand? Be specific.

[dunphy]

that wasn't specific. how do you CODIFY it? show me the law.

see, i can show you a law that says "it is a C felony to have sexual intercourse with a person who has not yet achieved the age of 14". that's easily definable

show me how you would write this law. be aware of concepts such as "unconstitional for vagueness" etc.

[dunphy]

still waiting for you to tell me how to codify these "several metrics and tests" into a law .

so, butch the fuck up and give an example

you keep criticizing the status quo and hinting that you know a better way to do it, but you won't say what that it.

that suggests you are full of it, but i'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt . so, go ahead.

put your proposed law here:

[robc]

still waiting for you to tell me how to codify these "several metrics and tests" into a law .

See above.

[hmm]

put your proposed law here:

No one cares you're a cop in WA. Your legal background consists of 4 months of school and following orders like a fucking lap dog and you are proving the lack of theoretical education in the field of law with every post. You are a fucking glorified code monkey. You are told what to do and how to do it in order for some 28 year old shitball municipal attorney (probably one of the worst in his class) to get his conviction. You are doing an excellent job of highlighting the deficiencies in our current crop of law enforcement personnel, at least in WA. (I applaud you for that.)

I actually do things other than post here. So barking like you're some sort of internet hard ass who's going to pwn me in an argument is fucking retarded. You aren't that fucking important. I don't care if you responded. I have other shit to do and a response to your rambling is ranked about as high as swilling rancid tuna salad out of a dead hookers ass. As a matter of fact I'd be willing to go as far as saying you are decidedly un-fucking-important.

Oh no, I criticize the status quo. You're so fucking stupid you can't delineate the difference between saying "there has to be a better way" and "I have a better way." Fuck me that isn't even college level reading comprehension. You then try and use the argument that I haven't derived some sort of totally awesome and perfect legislation that some how your false dichotomy is valid. Fuck me you not only don't even understand the false dichotomy, you don't understand that the fact you don't have a do nothing option makes it easy to shoot your retarded dichotomy in the ass. (I learned that when I was maybe 13, you can always do nothing) It's even better that you go on trying to use other logical fallacies and fail miserably at it. You're fucking clueless on a level only surpassed by Lindsey Lohan.

You want full of it? I'm not the retarded assclown who states his shitty, "I'm a cop in WA and we?" anecdotal evidence for every situation. And if anyone knows anecdotal evidence I do since I post it here all the time. But I'm not so fucking stupid or arrogant that I think my analogy and experience isn't biased or incomplete and I usually state this. You on the other hand write these shitty fucking diatribes (irony detectors on?) like you're a fucking Harvard JD with 40 years experience. When all you are is a useless cop in a shitty ass Northwestern state that is damn near a fucking communist enclave. (Communist =/= democratic republic (or federal republic for that matter))

Put your bloated, anecdotal, shitty response right here:

Let me start you out.

In WA where I am a cop and?

Daft
Uneducated
Neanderthal
Pusillanimous
Hyphy
Yammering

Retard

[dunphy]

that was a poor trolling attempt and the sign of an immature mind, that you cannot address facts and issues but instead must make personal attacks.

i can't help it that you are that emotionally stunted and intellectually inferior that you must resort to such childishness.

if and when i am wrong on the law, please point it out. you simply have no idea what you are talking about. you just kneejerk from an uninformed viewpoint - "these laws are dumb. cops are fascist. bla bla bla"

if you have time (i think yer momma's calling you for dindin) to educate yourself, do so.

you belittle nobody but yourself.

hth

[robc]

Stop calling the regulars here trolls, fucktard.

We have trolls, but hmm and me arent amongst them.

[dunphy]

hmm is a classic troll . i don't think you are. and fwiw, i didn't say you were. i did say one of your one posts was an example of trolling, and for that i apologize, but hmm is clearly a troll imo

i have yet to see him demonstrate intellectual honesty. it's that simple

iow, he;s interested in arguing, not exchange of idea where he is willing to admit he's wrong when he is.

that's a troll

[hmm]

The problem with me trolling you is it would be no fun. It wouldn't even be a challenge. I really think the above about you, it as my true opinion of you based on your posts here.

Now, go die in a camel shit fueled inferno.

[dunphy]

translation: you said there were plenty of better ways to do it, mr/ms/mrs hmm and when i called you on it, you went into a childish rant.

iow, you were lying, you don't know a better way. and you are too intellectually dishonest to admit it.

sad

hth

[hmm]

It's a little to easy to say no law doesn't have the potential to be unjustly applied. My point is that why enact a law that is so obviously flawed in its application. Correlating age with the ability to consent is fine if you are only looking at very young children, but as they become teens doing so creates a problem. You're using a finite number to correlate a broad idea to a spectrum. It seems like one failure after another.

[dunphy]

then again, what is the BETTER way? be specific.

if you don't codify it by age, then what DO you use?

and who decides?

and how does this work when a person meets somebody they want to schtup?

as the law is currently written in WA state, for example, you meet a 16 yr old and you KNOW they are able to legally consent.

under your proposed (which you still haven't explained) plan, what is a person to do in such a case? make an appeal to the state before schtupping her as to whether they can qualify this 16 yr old as legally able to consent or not? does every teenager have to get a "permission ot have sex" card from the govt. to eliminate the possibility of stat rape charges against their boyfriend? what exactly IS your better remedy.

you can criticize this system as flawed, but unless you can tell me the rememdy, you are just spouting

the law is a blunt instrument and all sorts of laws are going to be flawed like this, but at least it's clear. unlike a box o chocolates, you KNOW when it is and isn't legal. for those, like me, who criticize state power and state discretion to fuck with people, such laws are refreshing because they take that power away from the state and rest it with the individual.

so, again... what is your better way? be specific?

[robc]

if you don't codify it by age, then what DO you use?

See above.

[dunphy]

and you admit that's not a BETTER way. i never said there wasn't any other way. i said IF there was a better way, then what was it?

hmm refuses to give an answer even though he claims there is a better way.

at a minimum then, he's a liar. if not an outright troll, which he clearly also is

[robc]

and you admit that's not a BETTER way

No I didnt. I said it isnt what I prefer, its still better than age. I will take physiological development test over an age test any day.

I would prefer "onset of puberty" to an age 12 law, for example. I just think both are too young, which is why I dont prefer my suggestion. A physiological test that occurs around 16ish would be my preference.

[dunphy]

and again, i am saying what is the remedy? what is the BETTER law?

if we don't use age, then we put people in the situation of fucking somebody, and then ex post facto having the state say that THAT particular person wasn't (due to what? some sort of state defined maturity test? psychologist interview? what) old enough to consent. sorry, charlie.

the fact is that by setting these BRIGHT lines we SIGNIFICANTLY reign in state power. that's a GOOD thing. we do NOT leave it to the state's discretion to make subjective decisions about whether sally or johnny was old enough to consent. and we protect people by saying --- if you wait until the age of consent, you are ok.

nobody denies that it's a blunt instrument. but it offers the best element of fairness, justice, and protection to all involved.

if we make it subjective, we leave that protection up to subjective measures, political pressure, etc.

do you really want to cede that sort of power to the state?

a famous saying about stocks is that if you can't explain simply what the company does - your not ready to invest in it

similarly, in law, the more vagaries, subjectivity and the more locus of control we cede to the state, the worse off we are.

it is not a PERFECT solution. the perfect is the enemy of the good. it's the BEsT solution i am aware of, and i have yet to see you offer a better one. you just keep harping on why it;'s flawed.of COURSE it's flawed.

this is not logan's run, where as soon as a boy or girl is psychologically ready to consent (which is OF COURSE SUBJECTIVE, that's why we use AGE as a proxy), a little light flashes on their palm.

[robc]

See above (btw, this is partly me bitching at the stupid squirrel - its a protest of nested comments).

[dunphy]

robc, i don't have a problem with your intellectual honesty, unlike this "hmm" clown. i saw your response and responded as to why i don't think it's a better solution, and as to the problems with it when regarding MALEs (males don't menstruate) .

age is nice because it's gender neutral.

saying that it's legal to have sex with a 12 yr old because she had early menses but another girl who happens to be 16 and hasn't will get you a felony conviction makes FAR less sense to me than using age.

do you really think it's a BETTER metric?

[robc]

Can you not fucking read?

See above.

[robc]

robc, i don't have a problem with your intellectual honesty

Then dont call me a fucking troll, fucktard.

[dunphy]

i was referring to hmm, fucktard ;p

considering this retarded threading though, maybe i put it in the wrong place

if that's the case, mea fucking culpa

[dunphy]

btw, prolefeed, this was an excellent post. you demonstrate the classical fallacy of the best being the enemy of the good, etc.

nobody denies that a bright line age statute doesn't have some degree of suckitude and inability to account for individual variance. we just agree that other remedies are WORSE and give the govt. way too much power to be "the decider".

[robc]

you demonstrate the classical fallacy of the best being the enemy of the good?

While that is the commonly stated fallacy, that isnt the problem. The real problem is people letting the good be the enemy of the best.

People will fight for mediocre to avoid the best.

Or, to quote Tom Cruise: Sometimes you just gotta say "What the fuck".

[juris imprudent]

At least you didn't say this.

[hmm]

Not this.

Healing the physical embodiment of language one, "Not this." at a time.

[dunphy]

i don't grok it. this hmm clown claims that the age thing is flawed. well, of course it's flawed. we are talking law. there is no way to write the "perfect law" that accomodates all the individual variance in the best way possible. it's a false hope (obi wan).

if we are going to agree that at some point, boys and girls are too young to have sex and it should be a crime to fuck them, then we need to decide what distinguishes when it is and isn't legal

age is the best metric i have seen. even though it leaves a lot to be desired.

i am not about to cede the power to the state to individually interview every boy and girl on an annual basis and assess their ability to consent to sex and then issue them :"sex is ok with me:" cards. short of that, what other way is there than age?

[robc]

No law is the perfect law.

Im not an anarchist so I dont strive for perfection, but that doesnt mean the anarchists arent right.

[robc]

what other way is there than age?

physical development. You already acknowledged it would be a way, just because you dont like it doesnt make it a legitimate metric.

Personally, Im fine with age and common sense. Problem is cops and prosecutors refuse to use the latter.

[dunphy]

like i said, i don't think physical development is better, but i concede it IS another way.

i'm not exactly sure how it could be codified, but it's probably doable.

as for what cops and prosecutors refuse to use. imo, some use it better than others. iow, they are like people in general. and of course what is one person's common sense, is another person's example of bad decision making.

we have rule of law. that's what i want. it doesn't mean prosecutors and cops will always use the best common sense (although in my experience, cops have more of it than most people ) :p it means that when laws draw bright lines like this, we don't cede power to the state (iow cops and prosecutors) to inject their subjective morals or desires into the rule of law.

if you are 30 yrs old and you schtup (a boy or girl) 2 days shy of her 16th birthday, you can't blame the cops or prosecutors if you get arrested and charged.

at least you have rule of law and EPC in this case.

[dunphy]

and even you admitted it isn't a BETTER way.

my question was.. for the umpteenth time... if this law has so much suckitude and you know a better way, then bring it...

[robc]

and even you admitted it isn't a BETTER way.

Apparently cops cant read, I said it wasnt my preference. Didnt say it isnt better than age.

Subtlety that hard for you?

[otherhmm]

I have two okay ideas for alternative standards:

If you can articulate to authorities why you were *not* taken advantage of... they should drop the case against the defendant... that simple imo.

OR

Do something like some states have where a parent/legal guardian can get a court order blocking them from having sex with their "child" legally, past the age of 13 or so until 16-18...

[otherhmm]

Or how about this:

Alleged "victim" may at any time create a notarized letter commanding the court to drop the charges, and they must comply. Also, enabling them to have defendant released if they have already been tried and convicted of statutory rape and have them removed from any registries.

Or enable the person sign papers at the courthouse freeing defendant from further prosecution in any sex crimes against said person as well as above said release/removal from registry for said crime.

State should provide assistance in filling out any paper work needed.

[otherhmm]

also.. expungement

[otherhmm]

If you are emotionally mature enough to request the court to not prosecute the defendant in writing then I'd say you are emotionally mature enough to consent to sex.

[otherhmm]

I'll name my law the "Forgiveness Act" in honor of bitch in above video.

[Psychic Octopus]

I could get behind that, and I would even make it more radical. I would agree to get completely rid of statutory rape as it is now, substituted for parents using protective orders, where "she is having sex" is valid as a motive to apply for it. I would even agree to raise the age in this case to 18 always and 24 if they are living under parental roof or with parents footing the bills.

That is much fairer, de facto, than an age-of-consent law, and would reflect much better the situations. There are many reasons for that, but I am not planning to spend all night here, so I will stop.

[dunphy]

that's interesting except fwiw, any parent can already get a protective order for such a reason. i've assisted a couple in doing so.

the problem with your solution is that anybody is free to have sex with a 12 yr old under your scheme and keep doing so UNTIL a protective order is applied for and until it is served.

so people get to fuck 12 yr olds without any punishment?

that's a solution?

[Psychic Octopus]

If parents (and other authority figures in the child's life) cannot either control or educate their child to prevent them from having sex with an adult, AND cannot even discover it if it happens, then the state (through coding and enforcing statutory rape) is doing way more than its share of parenting the child.

A child who at 12 is having sex with adults obviously already had some sort of problems to get there (the lack of control or education). If the people in her own life isn't doing anything, it's not the state's job. If the people in their own life can't even find out about her sexcapades post facto, it means they aren't doing their job properly. Period. When the child has a proper support network, either this never happens or is caught and brought under control.

I had more comments about your other replies - I think the subject is very interesting as a test of the limits of law and of liberty. But the post was bumped off already because of the Monday posts, so I won't extend more.

[Psychic Octopus]

But isn't libertarianism about allowing people to make choices, even immature choices?

[Michael Ejercito]

Kids are more sexually aware than ever these days, whether or not their parents are comfortable with it - and yet the legislative trend continues to be to increase ages of sexual majority and to raise the penalties for underage sex.

The reason for this is very clear.

Parents do not want to feel old, and their kids being sexually aware would make them feel old.

That is all there is to it.

[prolefeed]

Perhaps, but parents DO have a sense of what their children are ready for. My oldest daughter was not ready at 14 to give consent, but she has matured a lot in the 2 years since.

I, on the other hand, am still mulling over what gun to buy to convince her dates that there are severe consequences to not showing the utmost respect.

[dunphy]

nobody denies that in a de facto sense, some 14 yr olds for example, are VERY mature, and others are literally little children in their minds.

but we also know psychology is a "soft science" at best, and to whom do we trust the decision to decide if and when a particular 14 yr old is ok to schtup and one who isn't?

do we rest that power with the state. example: you fuck a 14 yr old (and you are old enough that in my state, it's illegal. we have an age differential law for 14 and 15 such that they can consent but only with people w/in so m any months of their age). do you then have to trust that the state will administer some sort of magickal psych exam to determine if she is or isn't mature enough to consent? really?

or do you want a system where there is a bright line drawn and the state doesn't have that power?

either we don't codify stat rape at all, in which case it's a NAMBLA wet dream. fuck all the 10 yr olds you want

OR we draw a bright line w/ age (what we do now)

OR we give the state the power to decide on a case by case basis whether you can be charged for fucking some 16 yr old, based on subjective criteria for determining ability to consent

i prefer a bright line. it may be stupid, but to paraphrase what a wag once said about capitalism and democracy, ... it's the worst system in the world, except for all the others.

[BeltwayLurker]

What's her phone number? Proper respect is my covering the WHOLE dinner and bar bill, including tips.

[prolefeed]

What's her phone number? Proper respect is my covering the WHOLE dinner and bar bill, including tips.

1-237-3881-3901

on your numpad, that's 1-Ber-etta 3901

[BeltwayLurker]

If she can make a decent breakfast I won't need the Beretta. Thanks for the offer.

[otherhmm]

my parents had no sense what I was ready for

[dunphy]

clearly, you haven't spent much time around high school kids if you think that 14 yr olds having sex is happens "so rarely".

i like WA;'s law which has a 14 yr old age of consent for people who are close in age, and 16 yr old is the overall age. a 40 yr old with a 16 yr old here is legal, but not with a 14 yr old. whereas a 15 yr old with a 14 yr old is ok.

your argument that this is some sort of theoretical argument against a rare crime is absurd.

heck, ask your friendly neighborhood 14 yr old.

also, fwiw regardless of what you think about people who are or aren't "into that shit", having sex with a 14 yr old doesn't make somebody a pedophile in the clinical sense, unless the 14 yr old is prepubescent. a very fair %age of 14 yr olds are well into puberty, which means they are biologically ready to have sex and look like women and men, at least as far as genitalia and development go. the point is that if you are about to have sex with somebody who could be underage (iow they are not balding or obviously old enough), the burden is on you to confirm they are old enough. in a case like rob lowe's, certainly the fact that her picked her up in a bar should have been an absolute defense. #1 people in bar are (theoretically) at least 21 #2 she managed to get by the doorman or bartender or whatever (iow wasn't obviously that young).

biologists are well aware that, especially for men , perceived fecundity and youthfulness are two of the biggest triggers for sexual response. iow, if the woman/girl appears old enough (to the reptilian brain) to be able to get pregnant, the younger she is, the BETTER.

having laws such as this, place a burden on people to use some due diligence. lots of people aren' t seeking out a 14 yr old, but would be more than happy to schtup some super hawt one they met, IF it wasn't illegal.

as a society , we often pass laws to reign in our more base instincts. and wanting to fuck a hottie is about as basic a drive in man as there is. we say "that's ok, but if she's over a certain age, you gotta get consent, and if she's under a certain age - sorry, she 's off limits"

[jester]

Megan was abducted and raped and was a little girl. Very different from a precocious Lolita that seduces a grown man. I think that's what Radley was trying to say, but the woman was sticking her fingers in her ears...LA, LA, LA, LA, LA. She really echoes a lot of people, sadly enough.

[Number 2]

Worse than that. The dingbat was comparing the murder of Megan Kanka by a psychopath predator to a 17 yr old doing it with a 15 yr old.

[Caleb]

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it sounds like the dingbat thinks Radley wants to change the law because she thinks he's out to get kids himself.

"Think of the children. Oh, why doesn't anyone think of the children?"

[John Tagliaferro]

"Think of the children. Oh, why doesn't anyone think of the children?"

The NAMBLA representative weighed in @ 3:51PM.

[The Libertarian Guy]

The National Association of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes has a position on this?

[John Tagliaferro]

That is just their front group.

[juris imprudent]

You know that is almost as frightening as the real name.

[John Tagliaferro]

It is truly a massive group.

[The Libertarian Guy]

Sadly, I don't qualify as a Marlon Brando look-alike. Or happily, as the case may be.

As for the other group... I'm freaky, but not THAT freaky.

[Fist of Etiquette]

It's not the 50's, Wendy. The kids aren't "bopping" anymore. They're banging each other and doing meth before they hit grade school.

[Hysterical Nanny]

FOR THE CHILDREN!!! FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!!

[Eric]

It sounds like a song where a man breaks into your house and rapes you.

[dunphy]

when german kids do it it's called "the blitzkreig bop"

thanks, folks... i'll be here all week

[rctl]

Free head - 18 and over

[hmm]

It always amazes me when someone with a JD is incapable of simple logic with respect to a few sentences.

The fact that woman is teaching anything even close to law is scary. She can't even form a logical argument in a panel discussion. I thought Balko was going to fall out of his chair after her repeated stupidity. You are on the show, therefore you are a child molester. Fuck me that is one dumb bitch. No wonder she was a prosecutor, the private sector wouldn't pay a dime for that kind of representation.

What happened to better a guilty man go free than an innocent man imprisoned?

The look on Balko's face after her stupidity was pure shock and priceless. As if someone had hit him with a 2X4 and told him his father smelled of elderberry.

[hee]

Yes, that had me laughing. She made no sense whatever and Radley made no attempt to cover his amusement.

[dunphy]

i've worked with enough lawyers to be WHOLLY UNSURPRISED when one of them is incapable of such simple logic.

many are brilliant, some are just competent, and others are complete idiots

[WTF]

i've worked with enough lawyers to be WHOLLY UNSURPRISED when one of them is incapable of such simple logic.

many are brilliant, some are just competent, and others are complete idiots

THIS.

[Jeff B.]

Great contrast between Radley and Wendy.

Good god, she got upset over nothing.

[John Tagliaferro]

She probably hasn't gotten any in a while.

[hmm]

I'd hit it. But this is akin to the fat chick moped analogy. It's just the dumb chick moped analogy.

Does that make me sexist?

or racist?

or a bigot?

[wayne]

yes...

yes...

yes...

[hmm]

trifecta?

[BeltwayLurker]

Hat trick.

[James Blakey]

She's actually a former NFL Cheerleader.

Hard to believe.

http://ultimatecheerleaders.com/2009/12/authors/

[HaHa]

two four six eight - we don't want kids to copulate!

[Jeff B.]

High five.

[Acuvue]

LOL 🙂

[Jeff B.]

Brin?

I'm not sure who you're talking about. The woman in the interview was "Wendy Murphy."

[scroll down]

check me out

[d]

I hate that woman.

[ola]

whoever edits stossel's show sucks. they should have fewer segments with more information and how about letting the guests respond to each other's lies?

[acuvue oasys]

I just hope they come up with something consistent to protect our kids. It's a real travesty of justice when you see certain offenders receive lighter sentences for any reason be it invoking the mental illness/previous abuse defence, the sex of the victim - at the end of the day a henious crime was committed!

[hmm]

Dunphy, you are either trolling the ever loving shit out of me in this thread or you are truly dumber than back caterpillar shit.

[hmm]

than a bag of...

[dunphy]

again, i feel kind of dirty because demolishing your "legal arguments" (for very loose definition of legal and argument) is obscenely easy.

there are plenty of people i may disagree with who at least understand what they are talking about

i agree with balko a lot and disagree sometimes, but even when i disagree, he has informed arguments and logical thought processes.

you, otoh, are acting pretty childish.

why don't you actually educate yourself about stuff you don;'t understand instead of spouting ignorantly about it? you'd better yourself and save us the entertainment of your contentless screeds

hth

[robc]

As an aside, how many of your co-workers have you put behind bars? Because, based on Radley's work, if your answer is less than "dozens", you are part of the problem.

[dunphy]

i'm not at all sure that this is the logical conclusion of radley's work.

and fwiw, most of radley's critique of (for example) the over swatification (so to speak) of law enforcement is an institutional problem.

it's not an example of misconduct, by patrol, generall speaking

my agency , for a while, instituted the incredibly stupid policy that ALL Drug warrants must be performed by SWAT. i protested and wrote a memo. that's all i could do. the policy was later rescinded

i have only witnessed one egregious (iow obviously) wrong act by an officer that could rise to the level of criminality. i spoke to a IIU detective about it, and the guy got a week suspension. he hates me to this day. so be it.

other than that, i have seen incompetence on occasion, cowardice (which is my pet peeve. especially now that our administration and many others are institutionalizing it. it fucking pisses me off, but in this legal environemtn they'd rather we be pussies and watch somebody die than jump in the water and save them (here's a hint. if im in that situation, i'll violate policy, take the reprimand, and contact the press)

again, i am not at all convinced that radley would concur that i woudl have witnessed the kind of activity that should put ';dozens' of cops behind bars.

maybe i happen to work for a squeaky clean agency. i just know what i have seen.

[robc]

The statistical tests run on the Atlanta PD in the wake of the Johnston murder suggest otherwise.

I would be stunned if the felon rate amongst cops was much above or below 10%. Hence my dozens comment.

[otherhmm]

Read my comment here:

http://reason.com/blog/2010/07.....nt_1826172