Sentencing Reform

Man Convicted of Sex on the Beach Likely to Get 15 Years

Excessive PDA, excessive sentencing

|

Couple
Dreamstime

Sex on the beach: It's a delicious beverage, and also a crime. A Florida man convicted of having it (sex, not the drink), is expected to get 15 years in prison, while his girlfriend will serve jail time. Both must register as sex offenders.

The man, Jose Caballero, faces a harsher sentence because he is a repeat offender subject to mandatory minimum sentencing: he was previously convicted of trafficking cocaine and spent eight years in prison. His next stay in prison will likely be twice as long, however, for the comparatively less serious crime of getting intimate with his girlfriend on a public beach in Bradenton, Florida.

According to The Miami Herald, the couple were noticed by a 3-year-old girl. Exactly what the girl saw is unclear; it's not even obvious that the two were actually having sex, according to video footage of the encounter:

Family members who witnessed the act and a Bradenton Beach police officer, as well as Caballero, testified in the case. The defense argued that the two weren't actually having sex, but that Alvarez had been dancing on Caballero or "nudging" him to wake him up.

"She wasn't dancing," [Assistant State Attorney Anthony] Dafonseca said during closing arguments. "It's insulting your intelligence to say that she was dancing."

[Defense attorney Ronald] Kurpiers said since the witnesses had not seen genitals or penetration, and neither was visible in the video, either, that saying the two had sex was speculation.

"You folks cannot speculate," Kurpiers told the jury. "And in order to say they had intercourse, you would have to speculate."

Brodsky said they weren't calling it the crime of the century, but it was still a violation of Florida law.

"Did they try to cuddle, or do it discreetly? Did they go in the water, where people couldn't see?" Brodsky asked the jury. "Did Ms. Alvarez try to drape a towel over herself, or anything? They didn't care."

Excessive PDA? Maybe. Felony carrying a 15-year sentence? No way in hell. They should have gotten off (pardon the pun) with a warning or a fine, but discretion is impossible when judges are bound to follow insanely harsh sentencing laws.

NEXT: Leaving a Guy Imprisoned for Five Days Without Food, Water Not Enough to Get Fired from DEA

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yeah complain to me again about prison overcrowding you stupid fucks!

    1. Who are you talking to?

      1. Sorry Zeb that was a blanket lash out at the reflexively “lock em all up” crowd!

        1. I always have the decency to go in the water.

    2. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……
      http://www.work-cash.com

    3. Well that’s our asshole prosecutors for you. Especially in Florida, that prides itself on the highest incarceration rates. Unless you are a government employee or personal injury lawyer you are going to prison for even a petty Misdemeanor in that state. If you are well connected you can commit as many crimes as you want.

    1. I nominate Mulatto as Robby’s new editor.

    2. i mean she’s definitely attractive, but 15-years-in-jail-attractive, i’m not so sure

      1. So, if it weren’t for the government involvement, she’d be attractive?

        I think a libertarian would find her attractive regardless of the law.

        1. oh, i find her attractive, don’t you worry

          just saying in a choice between sexing her up and going to jail for 15 years or not sexing her up, i would choose the latter

          1. just saying in a choice between sexing her up and going to jail for 15 years or not sexing her up, i would choose the latter

            tl,dr; “I bet you’re gay!”

            Sure, but I get the distinct impression those aren’t the cards being played here, doing the deed and getting 15 yrs. as opposed to not doing the deed and getting 15 yrs.

            Saying she’s not attractive enough to do 15 yrs. for is a pretty deliberate way to slight her looks and announce the vigor of your commitment to libertarianism.

            1. lol believe it or not, i actually don’t need to constantly, or even on a regular basis “announce the vigor of (my) commitment to libertarianism.”

              quite being so uptight and combative bro, try and be more casual

      2. No one…NO. ONE., is 15 years attractive.

          1. Very nice, but you need to go the Latina or Asian route if you’re going to get me to say a woman is worth doing a dime and a half in the slam.

            1. I agree that no woman is worth that.

            2. Miss Thorne is of Cuban-American heritage.

              Go get her, tiger!

              1. *sprints away leaving flip flops stuck in sand*

            3. What if it were a Latina and an Asian not or ?

              Would that be worth 15 ?

      3. The question isn’t so much is she hot enough, but does she know her way around a cock well enough to be worth 15 years. I would need to conduct the appropriate “research” before answering that question, and since I don’t live in FL and I’m married I can’t really do the required research. Perhaps Florida Man could look her up and report back to us?

        1. I’ll be back in a jiffy!!!

          1. Don’t boast about how quick it will be!

            1. He is only speaking the truth about the inevitable.

            2. “He proposed a unit of time called the “jiffy” which was equal to the time it takes light to travel one centimeter in a vacuum (approximately 33.3564 picoseconds).[“

  2. They should have argued that their behavior resulted in a guy being locked up for five days without food and water. The judge would have been much more understanding, and given them five days unpaid suspension.

  3. I’ll play:
    If he had punched her fucking lights out, on the beach, would the penalty have been greater, or lesser?
    This country is fucked up.

    1. Way to ignore the ruined life of a three-year-old girl who may or may not have seen the vile act.

      1. If she’d caught her parents mid-coitus, would CPS have intervened?

        1. Of course. Why?

        2. Probably, if she told a teacher.

          1. Kids say the darndest things.

            1. Another reason not to have them.

      2. “ruined life”? Seriously?

        If that’s all it takes to “ruin her life”, she’s a waste of protoplasm.

  4. but discretion is impossible when judges are bound to follow insanely harsh sentencing laws.

    Eichmann defense again?

    1. Not entirely off topic but this reminds me of a story that appeared a couple of days ago in the news here. A father tried to get a a parking ticket rescinded given to his recently deceased son. When the news reporter asked Mayor Denis Coderre what he could do on humanitarian grounds, the cynical fuck responded ‘there’s nothing I can do’.

      Which is total bull shit given he’s the effen Mayor of Montreal where Mayors have always acted like megalomaniacal dictators in a thoroughly corrupt city.

      He just didn’t want to do it because believe you me if it was one of his pals, cronies or a family member he’d do it.

      1. When the news reporter asked Mayor Denis Coderre what he could do on humanitarian grounds, the cynical fuck responded ‘there’s nothing I can do’.

        There almost needs to be a political smear organization that goes around setting up GoFundMe accounts just to kick assholes like this in the teeth.

        1. This is a brilliant idea. GoFundMe. If you raise X hundreds of dollars I will go a kick so-and-so’s ass. Or, you know, at least humiliate them in public through legal means.

          We need this.

          1. Or, you know, at least humiliate them in public through legal means.

            We need this.

            It exists. I was saying either some PAC or rival candidate needs to open an account on their behalf, “Please help pay my dead son’s parking ticket.” collect whatever $$$ the city needs and then paint Mayor Coderre as more heartless to his citizens than strangers on the internet.

            That is, if they didn’t want to pay the ticket out of their own pocket anyway.

      2. Uh, what?

        Criminal cases cannot proceed against a deceased person, because a person has the right to defend himself in court and he cannot do that if he is dead.

        A civil case can proceed against a dead man’s estate, but I don’t think traffic tickets are a civil matter.

  5. Are they making an example for some reason? That seems quite extreme.

    1. The man, Jose Caballero, faces a harsher sentence because he is a repeat offender subject to mandatory minimum sentencing: he was previously convicted of trafficking cocaine and spent eight years in prison

      He’s an undesirable so they’re using this as an excuse to get rid of him. For the children, of course.

      1. I was thinking more the local community, out of concern for their family tourism message or something like that.

  6. I don’t see this case being held up as an example of the need for criminal justice reform. Maybe for an episode of Cougartown, though.

    1. Nevermind, I got the ages mixed up. I was wondering how he served eight years by the age of 20, and how she looked so good at 40.

  7. I don’t know what the big deal is. In 2030 when this guy finishes serving his time won’t he be less likely to do something like this again? That’s kind of the point.

    1. You. I like you. You should produce a newsletter or something that we can subscribe to.

    2. Considering he’ll be 55 the answer is probably yes, he’ll be less likely.

      1. Watch it.

        I am that age and I can still scratch glass with mine on instant command.

        1. Take off that diamond laced cockring buddy and then we’ll talk….

  8. Here we go, 15 years for sex on the beach?
    pretty soon all romantic couplings will have to be blessed and sanctioned by our benevolent government and every third person you fuck must be the same sex as you
    it’s only fair

    1. To be fair, the dude only got consent from the gal. He didn’t get affirmative consent from every other person on the beach. So technically it was rape.

      1. oh, wait it was rape?
        nevermind, 15 years isn’t enough, i say death penalty
        i mean there were children on that beach and he raped every single one

      2. I misread this ” affirmative consent from every other person on the beach”

        as ” affirmative consent from every other position on the beach”.

        I think I need to get laid.

        1. That’s okay. I saw something about “affirmative action” and was remarkably confused. I didn’t know why — but wasn’t surprised — that there is an affirmative action law around sex with semi-attractive people.

      3. She should’ve said she was raped. Then she wouldn’t be a sex offender, & his penalty would’ve been less.

        1. its not too late, she can always wait and see how she likes her cell and then decide if she was raped or not

  9. They should have gotten off (pardon the pun) with a warning or a fine

    They should have told the arresting officer and prosecutor to pound sand. And then both should have been charged with wanton misuse of public resources, or whatever statutes are applicable. Oh, the many shoulds that might have.

    1. That bring up a good question for libertarians. Should sex in public be illegal at all?

      I really don’t care, but I imagine a lot of people would consider it kind of a big deal.

      Who does it really harm? I suppose some people think it could traumatize children. Maybe that’s true. I really don’t know.

      In any case, any prison time seems inappropriate. The idea of what constitutes a “sex crime” is way too broad. If the act doesn’t involve assaulting someone sexually, it shouldn’t be in the same category.

      1. I suppose some people think it could traumatize children.

        “Hey, look, Jimmy! *That’s* where babies come from!”

        *** Jimmy keeps staring at video game ***

      2. I think local ordinances should cover this. You want to be naked all the time, live in a nudist community, don’t want your kids to see people naked, live in a non-nudist community.

      3. The usual libertarian response, and the reason we’re so popular at parties, is: depends. Who owns the beach?

        To be honest, it’s one of those issues I just don’t care to speculate too much about. The strain of sexual puritanism in our country remains strong almost three centuries later. It’s inevitable that we’ll have laws against it whatever we think, and it’s almost reasonable to argue for light sentences rather than no laws at all, but… this is what they do with light sentences. Their moral outrage is strong. At several junctures in this case people considered it reasonable to nail fellow citizens to the wall over the crime of immodesty.

        So, no. Like drug use, it’s a matter better handled by social stigma.

        1. Agreed. I don’t especially care, but I’d prefer to not share a beach with numerous couples bangin’ away. Sorry, I was raised Episcopalian, and some hang-ups you just can’t shake, particularly when tackiness is involved. However, this is one of the many situations best addressed with eye-rolls and pointed sarcasm.

          1. Private ownership of beaches would make this easier. Some beaches would be full bang, some would be less bang, some would be no bang.

            1. Excuse me, I’m a little lost, how do I get to the full bang beach?

              1. Get on the ferry to Bang Island.

            2. More bang for one’s buck!!!

            3. I would only be offended if she were a fat chick.

        2. The usual libertarian response, and the reason we’re so popular at parties, is: depends. Who owns the beach?

          And what other sort of social/legal tools are at my disposal as well?

          I think social stigma can/does work but if laws like ‘public nuisance’ are there to back it up, I don’t need ‘indecent exposure’ or ‘public lewdness’, etc. Then specifically illegal sexing is grotesquely redundant.

      4. You have to be OK with the 500 pound couple going crazy on the next beach towel over. That may be somewhat traumatic.

        1. All these comments about social acceptance and possible traumatization of minors and others sensitive to such make me have to ask those of you who are historically or anthropologically disposed:

          What do aboriginal types do? What did early human tribes do?

          Do/did they sneak off into the woods for a quickie? Or, did they just get it on without worrying who might hear/see/smell, etc.?

          And, what about the children? Did couples with children living in a teepee or in a room in the Pueblo cease sexual relations after their children got past the toddler stage?

          With the standard acceptance of “traumatizing a child”, I’ve got to wonder what evidence there is of such.

          I know that by first or second grade, my buddies and I found Playboys to be of great interest. Although I’m sure none of us knew why we found those pictures so enticing. And, if anything, we certainly weren’t traumatized by seeing them.

          1. I’m sure it varies quite a lot, but I think that in a lot of primitive societies people fuck where they sleep like everyone else. Which is often also where the kids sleep.

            I think that the risk (if you want to call it that) is more that exposure to that will lead to earlier sexual activity rather than any kind of trauma. In modern societies with extended childhoods that is not so desirable to many people.

            I tend to think that as long as adults don’t act like it is some horrible thing kids probably aren’t harmed by catching a glimpse of some people fucking.

      5. Misdemeanor public indecency. If they’re not repeat offenders let them off with a warning.

        1. Yeah, having trouble seeing how the guy’s totally unrelated prior offenses should have any aggravating effect on his sentencing. Besides, she was clearly doing all the work.

          1. For public indecency, I’d say let repeat offenders cool off in jail for a couple of weeks, not 15 years, just to be clear.

            1. I wouldn’t mind this if jail wasn’t an unsafe place. I have an issue with putting a dude who, while drunk, whips out his dong to pee behind a trash can, into prison, even if just “for a couple of weeks.” I hate fines, but this may be a good option.

              How about house arrest? Or comunity serice? Jail seems a bit much.

              1. How about nothing? You can’t fuck on a beach in this country? The beach has about four functions. Being fucked on is one of them. This is an issue that should be dealt with by the sublegal sanctions of etiquette.

                1. I 100% agree, Tony.

                  There should not even be a question and there should be no punishment at all in a sane world. It should be social and, as stated above, come down to who owns the beach and what they want to allow.

                  However, that is not the world we live in — we live in a world where the political class want to punish people for acting a way they find “indecent.” My comment was only that, if there MUST be punishment, there is no reason to use incarceration. There are better optins — again, if there MUST be punishment.

                  Thank you for pointing out the lack of clarity in my post.

                  *As a side note, I disagree about the uses of beaches. Beaches exist for no purpose other than to be viewed out pub windows, preferrably when they are stormy. Everything else is a waste of a perfectly good beach.

      6. I can see a reason for prohibiting public sex on sanitation grounds. Think about the bodily fluids that would inevitably be left behind.

        However, I do think that nudity should be left up to the owners of the property. It might be this way already; I’m not actually sure what the law is.

        1. Public-order offenses are designed to maintain a minimum degree of civility in public places. In principle it’s fine, though any law could be abused, as here.

          1. It certainly is in San Francisco, not far from where I currently reside.

            Gay men sitting about naked in public are tolerated on the mantle of “tolerance”.

            Whereas naked non-gays (say that fast five times in a row!) would be prosecuted for public indecency.

            Go figure.

            1. I would imagine it might sometimes be vice-versa in straight areas.

              But in principle, I’m fine with certain inappropriate public behaviors being misdemeanors, or infractions.

              Not 15-year felonies!

              1. I was just supporting your comment with a real world example that I have some familiarity with. Not arguing one way or the other.

                I really do want people to get a room. The civility you refer to. Which I just see as class vs vulgar behavior.

                Having class cannot be determined by law…or by income or wealth. It comes from something else. Like a good upbringing? 😉

            2. San Francisco outlawed public nudity a few years ago.

        2. On a beach, I think that the dead fish and seagull shit are a much bigger health concern than a little love juice left on the sand.

        3. Most people’s genitals are probably cleaner than their hands, but you don’t outlaw hands from being exposed to the public.

      7. It should be illegal for dogs.

        1. Don’t be a such a bitch about it.

      8. That bring up a good question for libertarians. Should sex in public be illegal at all?

        Depends on what you mean by “public” and “libertarian”.

        In a truly libertarian world, roads, neighborhoods, and beaches would be privately owned, so it would be up to the property owners. And “privately owned” doesn’t mean Mr. Moneybags owns them, but something like an HOA. Does your HOA allow nudity and sex around the pool? Probably not. Can they throw you in jail for it? No. They may be able to assess monetary penalties if that’s what you agreed to as part of joining the HOA.

        In a semi-libertarian world with government-owned roads and beaches, there is no consistent libertarian answer. Generally, though, libertarians prefer to decriminalize most things and rely more on civil lawsuits. I.e., you pay for the demonstrable harm you caused (none in this case).

        1. And it depends on what you mean by “public.” I live in an area of the world (Johnson County, Kansas) where, if I eff my wife in our privately owned hot tub behind our privacy fence I have broken the law if someone in another house can look out his or her window and see the goings-on.

          Sure, that person is ALSO at odds with the law, for peeping, but that depends on weather or not we made a reasonable effort at privacy or had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

  10. Whatever happened to “beyond a reasonable doubt?”

    1. That was my question too. Either reasonable doubt has some special legal definition that I don’t know about or juries are useless.

      1. If you saw the video, there’s no reasonable doubt as to what is going on. I agree 15 years is too harsh, but let’s not buy the “we weren’t screwing” defense. That’s an insult to our intelligence.

        1. I agree 15 years is too harsh, but let’s not buy the “we weren’t screwing” defense.

          The suggestion that she was dancing or trying to wake him up very much came across as them neither confirming nor denying they were having sex, at least to me.

          1. Which is reasonable doubt. The burden of proof………………and all that.

            “This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no “reasonable doubt” in the mind of a “reasonable person” that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person’s belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty.”

            If you’ve ever served on a jury, and I have been on several, you’d realize how biased most people are. It’s easier to convict and get back to one’s normal life, than it is to actually ponder the evidence.

            I’ve really started to believe that professional juries might be preferable than this “of your peers” stuff.

            1. You only say that because you haven’t experienced professional juries and all the inevitable corruption and power-madness that will ensue. At least juries of peers are only inconsistently awful.

            2. Which is reasonable doubt. The burden of proof………………and all that.

              Ah, didn’t mean to say they were guilty. Just that it’s pretty clear what was happening and that the best ‘evidence’ of what was going on was the couple’s lame answer to the question “What were you two doing?”

              Best lie or worst lie doesn’t matter wrt their innocense/guilt, but just because they told a bad lie doesn’t mean we’re all dopes.

        2. Do you see PIV? IF not, there is reasonable doubt. Assuming the charge is that that was what was happening. Maybe I misunderstood the charge.

  11. Too bad the gal was 20. It would have been a GREAT story if the gal had been 17. Then not only could they have rung up the couple, but the prosecutor could have also charged the hag who video taped them with a child porn accusation.

    That would have been the perfect situation ever for the DA.

    And why call the police? When I was in high school I worked at the local Holiday Inn and had to go tell people to take it up to their rooms multiple times, but it never occurred to me to call the cops.

    1. Too bad the gal was 20. It would have been a GREAT story if the gal had been 17.

      What!? She’s not even 26 yet, you monster!

  12. I blame militant anti-feminists.

    Also, ‘beaches’ is phonetically misogynist. ‘Sandyland’, please.

    1. Also, ‘beaches’ is phonetically misogynist. ‘Sandyland’, please.

      I didn’t make that connection until you pointed it out…..you’ve micro aggressed me.

    2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZLBY3lYtsQ

      “So, how do you like New Zealand?”

      “She is taking away my breath. I love her bush. All we need right now is a Kiwi bitch. You know, lying around on a nice, sandy, white bitch. Feel her wind. She is blowing you.”

  13. but it never occurred to me to call the cops.

    And that’s why you’ll never be President, Mister Smartypants.

    1. That isn’t even in the top 10K reasons why I will never be President.

  14. A much better response would have been to dump a bucket of water over the couple and yell at them to get a room.

    Also, what the fuck does reasonable doubt even mean? If there is no direct evidence that they were in fact having sex, or were even exposing their parts-that-must-not-be-exposed, what the fuck are they convicted of.

    1. what the fuck are they convicted of.

      They are literally being convicted of… you know… *wink wink*, nudge nudge, *furtive hand euphemistic hand gesture*, *knowing nod*.

      1. Oh, say no more, say no more!

  15. The tide comes in – the tide goes out – YOU can’t explain that.

    /almost relevant

  16. Wait. They actually had a jury? And not a single person on that jury said, “wtf? We are actually in a courtroom discussing in an actual trial the nuances of whether people are fucking or not? Why are we even here?”

    And the 3 year old parents can’t say, “whoops, people are fucking here, lets just take our daughter down the beach where she wont see.”

    And the cop cant just say, “hey, stop fucking here on the beach..go inside privately and fuck”

    Along this entire chain theres not a single rational person?

    1. I’d also have to guess that the jury wasn’t informed on the length of sentences that they perps were facing?

      Because even if the video showed explicit hard core fucking, how could you as someone on that jury vote to convict knowing this guy would get 15 years?

      1. I couldn’t. But most people aren’t aware that they can make that choice. Either the guy is guilty or he’s not. It’s not up to the jury to refuse to convict because the sentence is too harsh. That’s what voting is for. If you don’t like the law, vote for someone who will change it. Otherwise it’s The Will of The People manifesting itself through the magic of Representation, which magically makes it good and just.

        1. Last summer I got kicked off of one jury during selection because I got into it with the judge over that point.

          According to her, she would tell the jury the law and the jury could only determine guilt as determined by that law.

          The defense lawyer picked up on something I said and when I said the jury does have the right to return not guilty if they believed the law was immoral the judge was not pleased.

          The funny part was the case was a domestic violence case, so it wasn’t like it was a law I would consider nullifying.

        2. It’s not up to the jury to refuse to convict because the sentence is too harsh.

          There’s a school of thought that says that juries are entitled to do exactly that. Jury nullification.

        3. Ah, yes, kind of like the Will of God manifests in burning bushes and toast slices.

      2. Not a guess. You are or, at least I was, specifically instructed by the judge to not consider the possible punishment.

        And yet, the defense slipped that little tidbit into the trial (three strikes and this would be strike three), the jury was told to ignore it. And, lo and behold, it was discussed in the jury room despite the judge’s instructions. And, two jurors held out against conviction because they didn’t want to see the kid sentenced 25 to life for the carjacking. The rest of us were able to sway them away by pointing out if they would feel differently if he had actually fired the gun rather than just waving it around and, would they feel differently if it had been a relative that was victimized. Sometimes, the difference is as clear as life and death.

        Truthfully, those judge’s instructions are a true biasing of any jury. You go to deliberate but it seems like the judge has already steered you to the end result. No room for consideration outside of what the judge tells you.

      3. Generally juries are not informed of the potential sentences involved. As a defense attorney I am prohibited by Pennsylvania rules to directly inform the jury of the potential sentence. I try to do it indirectly, and some juries get it and some don’t.

    2. Florida is a strange and wonderful mix of authoritarian redneck cops, retired northeastern busy bodies, Hispanics, and Mickey Mouse. You show me where the rational people are in that mix.

      1. *crazy Hispanics*

      2. You show me where the rational people are in that mix.

        I’ll show you, but you’ll need to get in this canoe and come with me into the big gum swamp.
        *throws cloth over hunting knife in canoe*

        1. Well the line here is shorter than Disney World

          *jumps in canoe*

          1. *Takes T&T for lovely canoe ride and carves initials into a cypress tree with hunting knife*

            1. Aww, thanks. Unfortunately, I have to report you. Unlicensed nature tours and destruction of natural resources cannot stand. 15 years in the slammer for you.

              1. Sadly you’re probably a decade light on the punishment.

      3. A jury of one’s peers!

    3. I was listening to a call-in talk show the other day, and a man who had left law enforcement years ago basically said that the reason he left was because discretion was taken from the officers by higher-ups. He said there would be cases where they would warn people, etc, but as time went on, they were no longer allowed. Every stop required someone to receive a ticket or be arrested. In fact, he went on to say that it became the rule that if they went to a domestic disturbance, at least 1 of the participants had to be taken in – no exceptions. That’s when he quit, and changed careers.

      1. That’s obviously the case. Anecdotally speaking, my friends and acquaintances who had run-ins with the cops (mostly traffic stops) used to run less than 50-50 that they’d get a citation. Now it’s much closer to 100%.

        1. ~40-50% decline in Crime Rate between 1994-2014…

          Yet spending on Police and Law Enforcement grew by 400+%…. coinciding with a massive increase in prosecutions of drug offenses, and a widespread increase in ‘aggressive policing’ like use of Militarized SWAT teams for non-violent criminal investigations, things like NYC ‘stop and frisk’ trolling of civilians for citations, etc.

          There is almost no issue* in America where the data is so clear, and the problem so theoretically ‘solvable’ – yet telling a politician to ‘cut police budgets’ is effectively requesting political suicide, because Public Sector Unions.

          *(naturally, the other one is, “Why do urban school systems suck so bad despite massive spending?”)

        2. I sort of got sidetracked on that comment…

          …but my point re: your observation of the increased frequency with which ‘run-ins’ turn into citations, is that police now over-enforce every law (and regulation and code and even stuff they just make up on the spot) to the maximum possible degree (& beyond) to ensure that they can continue to justify their own existence.

          police *need* criminals. There aren’t enough real ones around, apparently, so they need to create them out of regular citizens whenever they can. If they have a pre-existing record as well? Boo Yaa! Slam dunk for prosecutors = send them away forever, and give your pals in the Correctional Peace Officers union a warm body to babysit for the next 2 decades. *Everybody Wins*

          1. So, in other words, we need to drastically reduce the number of cops. Might as well–they don’t seem to do much in the crime prevention category, anyway.

            1. I’m not sure “headcount” is the problem. There has actually been a reduction of the size of PDs by about 20-30% since 2000, nationwide.

              Even Bloomberg managed to get the Blue Army of NYC from 44K to around 34K over that period. could probably deserve to be much smaller

              but the problem is the $$. they want more money, one way or the other, and they are going to get it by hook or by crook. @#*$@ even in NYC, in the wake of massive protests, they get the city councilwoman to insist that the solution to “Improved Community Policing”? is to actually give them more money.

              because that’s always the way to show “who is in charge”, politically. Give them more money, more staff, so that they won’t over-do their jobs. it makes sense to someone, somewhere. I’m sure all the fucking ‘activists’ who were doing their narcissistic ‘die-in’ protests in Grand Central 8 months ago will be shocked and dismayed about this. why, they may even create a hastag!

            2. Police cannot prevent crime. They can only investigate and make arrests after one has occurred.

              I HATE it when people use “police” and “crime prevention” together as though they are complimentary in all cases.

              The best crime prevention, is an armed citizenry. Even mobsters don’t fuck with someone they believe capable of taking them out before they get them.

              1. Police cannot prevent crime.

                This is not true. I live in Garland, Texas, just a mile or two from the Curtis Culwell Center. The cops probably prevented several murders there a few nights ago.

      2. The emphasis on domestic violence in the news and public acquiescence that it was factually correct and rampant, resulted in PDs everywhere insisting that at least one person be removed in any public disturbance call. After all, who would be blamed if the cops left at the prep’s request and one later beat or killed the other? Rather be safe than sorry and all that you know.

      3. That may be part of the reason that no one sees cops as helping the community. Having grown up white and middle class, I can remember a time when people would approach a cop to ask for directions, or maybe to say they were planning a party and wondering if it putting speakers outside would likely cause noise complaints before a certain hour. Now, everyone, regardless of race/gender/age gives a cop a very wide berth and hopes to hell they don’t draw the officer’s attention for any reason. No wonder some people run away from them: that’s the natural reaction to spotting a predator.

  17. Along this entire chain theres not a single rational person?
    .
    9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11

  18. Whatever happened to just yelling “Get a room!” and publicly shaming people engaging in excessive PDA/ possible public sex into, well, getting a room?

    1. Laughter would have been more appropriate…
      “See, that’s just like a real penis, but smaller”

  19. Of course, they’ll have to register as sex offenders. Because they’re clearly such dangers to the community.

    This fucking country.

    1. No, if it were a fucking country, it’d be no problem, but it’s an anti-fucking country.

  20. First they came for the people who were getting some on the beach, and i didn’t speak, because i wasn’t getting any on the beach…

    1. wishful thinking?

  21. Well, it turns out that Inglourious Basterds was a documentary.

    1. I know the writer wants me to be disgusted because it was “probably a war crime”, but I can’t quite empathize with SS concentration camp guards.

      1. Had I been in that situation I would have done the same or worse the guards.

        1. I totally understand, but I am still in the convict-first-*then*-execute camp.

          1. If I had an iota of faith in the justice system, then I’d be with you. But I don’t.

            1. To be fair, they *did* hang a few nazis, maybe not enough.

  22. “Did they go in the water, where people couldn’t see?”

    What?! Where people *urinate*?!

    1. R Kelly was there?

      1. I thought he was in the closet.

    2. Shark bait?

    3. “I don’t drink water. Fish fuck in it.”

  23. My sister makes $75 every hour on the laptop . She has been laid off for seven months but last month her pay check was $18875 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
    Look At This. ????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  24. The grandmother was so horrified at the site of two people having sexual intercourse on a public beach that she stood there and filmed it with her smart phone for over twenty minutes.

    I can sympathize. Watching naked, attractive women get it on sometimes horrifies me for hours at a time.

    1. Braggart!

      You only watch naked, attractive women get it on for 5-10 minutes. Just like the rest of us.

      1. I wonder if Granny is having any regrets now that she knows her video is sending this guy to prison for 15 years. A decent person would be consumed with guilt over that.

        It’s totally different in degree, but it kind of reminds me of the punk Rutgers student who set up a web cam to expose his gay room mate kissing another guy, and then the gay room mate committed suicide out of shame. Same idea that some self-aggrieved busybody decided “I’ll show HIM” and caused massive harm to someone who wasn’t really harming anyone, which probably wasn’t intended by the busybody. Maybe the lesson is, if you find yourself filming strangers having sex because you’re on some sort of quest for justice, you should probably stop.

      2. What? Have you ever looked at the time stamp on those videos? 1 hour & 55 minutes.

        Yeah, sure.

      3. Endurance training works. Or chafes. Either prolongs viewing enjoyment.

  25. Ha! But people have no problem with Discovery Channel animal sex….

  26. This is the reason the sex offender registry is a joke. I want to know if someone is a rapist of children, not whether they like consensual sex outside the confines of a home.

    1. I think it has no credibility. I, too, thought the intent was supposed to be to warn of dangerous predators with a high likelihood of repeat. Now anyone who gets convicted of anything remotely sex-related seems to be on it and stigmatized by it.

  27. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  28. I think the biggest story here is that this was a case of PIV rape.

  29. I don’t think much of this article (obviously 15 years is absurd). In the first place claiming it’s not even clear they were having sex is grasping at straws, as is the whining that objectors are prudes.

    But most importantly if we want to advance the cause of liberty we need to support reasonable restrictions on public vs private activity. Without this distinction critics of libertarians are strengthened when they claim drug and prostitution legalizers will allow street walking and public drug use. We normally criticize people making this argument as not understanding libertarian positions, yet here we are wiping out the distinction and making their argument more believable.

    1. Fuck you and your “reasonable restrictions”.

    2. I hate that progtard “reasonable” qualifier. As always, the question becomes: “who gets to decide what’s reasonable?” Do we go with mob rules? How about a commission composed of fundamentalist ministers and mullahs?

      Or just leave it to the Top Men to sort out.

      1. Unfortunately “reasonable” is a go-to word used in Anglo-american jurisprudence for centuries for a lot of the tough questions that don’t have clear answers. Sometimes it’s a necessary evil but I agree it’s overused.

      2. So if you own yourself then being naked should be your prerogative?

        Sex is the kind of thing that needs restrictions. It matters and is powerful. There really are no good cut-off points, so reasonable is very difficult.

        The alternative is public fucking where the ppl caught don’t scurry away. In fact, maybe they choose their location based on # of spectators they can offend.

        If you don’t criminalize it, they won’t scurry away. If you don’t restrict distance, they will fuck up against you in a crowded subway bus.

        Can you not see how sex is a different animal?

        1. The alternative is public fucking where the ppl caught don’t scurry away.

          No, the alternative is what every private establishment already does: if people engage in any inappropriate behavior, the owner asserts his property rights and kicks them out and bans them. In some cases, he may impose a contractually agreed upon penalty. Or he may figure out how to divide up his property so that all his visitors feel comfortable and have their fun. Private, contractual agreements are entirely sufficient to protect your sensitive eyes and still let others have their fun. Criminalization is not needed.

    3. But most importantly if we want to advance the cause of liberty we need to support reasonable restrictions on public vs private activity

      Bullshit. “Public” activities are an artifact of having the government own “public property”, which then becomes subject to regulation and political lobbying from people who have no stake in that property. Beaches, in particular, should be private. The would then be governed by the equivalent of HOA rules. As a consequence, on some beaches, you could have sex, and on others you couldn’t. Penalties would be limited to fines that you agree to in advance as part of entering the beach.

      We normally criticize people making this argument as not understanding libertarian positions,

      I’m not sure who this “we” is, but you are no libertarian.

    4. But i have no problem with street walkers or public drug use. I have a problem with people committing crimes to stop peaceful, consensual acts on public (read: unowned) property.

  30. I don’t care what the little girl saw or didn’t see — 15 years?!? It’s not even like the intent was for the little girl to see anything. It isn’t like they were yelling, “Hey kid! Check this out — this is how people make babies.” THAT might actually merit a fine for public indecency.

    And they are also both registered sex offenders? Florida really is the craziest state.

  31. Granted any person has the right to be affectionate, but if they were gonna be serious they could’ve at least got a room. OR gone to a nude beach in general. Anywhere but out of public eye. Still it’s a matter of opinion as to what witnesses “really” saw.

    1. I think 15 years is objectively unreasonable though. When I was in europe two people were fucking on a busy beach and just got some weird looks, it’s inappropriate but not prison-worthy.

      1. Just looked up the laws on the books. Turkey: 2 months jail. Mallorca: EU 75000 fine. Greece: two years jail. Austria: six months jail or 6 months salary. Romania: 7 years jail. Italy: 2 years jail. Croatia: 30 days jail. Germany: 1 year jail. Denmark: 4 years jail.

        A few places are pretty tolerant: Norway, Sweden, Finland, Bulgaria, Canada.

  32. If he serves his full sentence (I hope not), some of the prime years of his life will be gone, for a “crime” that injured no one. His life will be destroyed. Obviously, as a prior convicted felon, he’s no angel, but exactly how does this incredibly punitive sentence help anyone? This is the sort of thing that should be dealt with by a few hundred in fines and community service.

    1. I’d say a weekend in jail would be ok just because kids saw it. I draw my line at 2 days though.

  33. Dui in fl. Killed two teenagers. Hurt two others. Sentence? 16 years (8 must be served).
    http://m.wesh.com/news/man-acc…..d/29713318

    15 years (about the same amount of time) for sex on a beach? Really?

  34. Sex… ewww.

  35. The law thinks it’s doing us a favor by not imposing draconian sentences on a first offense, except they are draconian too and I don’t see why if you served your time that should affect the sentence for a subsequent offense. Also, sex in public shouldn’t be illegal. The only trauma befalling anyone is on the parents of the child possibly having to answer an awkward question. Do I want to see people fucking in public? Not necessarily. Will it harm me in any way? Nope.

  36. Justice in America: if you’re an oligarch who crashes the world economy you get showered with trillions of dollars, and if you’re a peasant who has consensual sex on a beach it’s off to the gulag.

  37. More justice in America: most of us would face at least 15 years in prison for locking someone in a room for five days with no food or water… unless you’re a DEA agent, in which case you’ll get an official reprimand and a week’s suspension.

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetw…..-detention

  38. Robby, you should define PDA, on first use. After that the abbreviation is appropriate. e.g., public display of affection (PDA),

  39. Vodka, Schnapps, cranberry juice, and orange juice now get you jail time?

  40. We have collectively lost our god damn minds.

  41. I get sick and tired of hearing judges excused for obeying harsh sentencing laws. If the law is criminal and you obey it, you are no less criminal.

  42. The incident illustrates the total lack of respect many in the country have for others around them. Many people walk around as if they are the only important people in the world and anything they do, good or bad, is always appropriate. You see then on the highways driving on the shoulders when traffic is bad, cutting in lines or demanding special treatment from businesses. The most glaring example I have seen lately was when a young lady walked into the business where I was waiting to have tires installed on my car. It was @ 11 am on a SATURDAY, so of course the place was packed with all of us smart enough to make appointments. The young lady walks up to the counter, tells the salesman she needs two tires and he needs to be out in no more than 20 minutes because she has an “important appointment”. It was obvious she actually expected for the salesman to bump her to the front of the line because she was in a hurry and had no problem with the rest of us waiting because clearly we were not as important as she.

  43. I could go along with 30-60 days prison for grossing out the public, especially since they forced it to trial. But the pariah (“sex offender”) list is outrageously excessive for an offense that does not threaten the public.

    1. Why should going to trial warrant extra punishment?

  44. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  45. Oh, it’s not unrelated. He clearly has no respect for the state’s authoritah to create ludicrous diktats. That is a thought crime far worse than sex and drugs that cannot go unpunished.

  46. Just remember that if you are going to have sex in public, it’s only polite to share.

    This is what they get for not offering to share.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.