I'm sure that's what the police say in court. I'm sure that's what the bartender is claiming. I'm sure that the bag full of purple money was right where they planted it.
But that's still not to say he's dead-to-rights guilty, because there's always more to it.
And to start acting as if he was guilty of a crime before he is convicted is to presume guilt before due process, which is a violation of a man's rights.
If you don't care about preserving rights, go ahead and bind him up and shoot him in a field. From here it seems that's what you want to do.
In a justice system that worked, his ability to mount a righteous defense wouldn't count on his assets. Also the Justice System wouldn't fear a robust defense warchest, which is essentially what the whole asset seizure set of laws implies: that a fancy enough lawyer can beat the system.
In that case, the system's broken, and it is the responsibility of the government and the people to fix it. And not by sticking band-aid devices such as legalizing asset forfeiture to prevent them from buying a sweet defense.
So no. And not a simple yes or no no, because things don't work like that in real life. The movies, maybe.
Maybe the quality of lawyer you can hire shouldn't depend on your bankroll. Why, if I am poorer does my case deserve a less-qualified lawyer?
It is not the intention of our people our our government for our society's laws to be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.
When we can no longer require our law enforcement to know the laws they enforce, how can we require it of our people?
To say that my representation should be limited by what I can afford is to say that I am unequal to those wealthier than I. If that is not the case, then let us stop pretending and then let us teach America's inequality to our first graders.
Where did we get this idea that a hidden opinion can be binding?
The paper trail is supposed to cover people's asses when the opinion is that a terrible action (e.g. a covert drone strike) must be done.
If we were a nation of laws and that drone strike turned out to, instead, kill a bunch of civilians and journalists, butts would be busted, and the line of command would go up to the guy who placed this order based on that intel based on this legal standing.
And if any of those things are missing, he loses his job, is disgraced and maybe even goes to jail for murder.
But the paper trail doesn't serve that function anymore, does it? If grandmothers and children get blown up accidentally we don't have a court martial. We don't have a commission. We just say eh, whatcha gonna do?. So the paper trail, and the public access to it isn't necessary.
So we are not a nation of laws. We're a nation of kings.
Be sure to bow to your officials and address them as My Lord
Probably because people are stupid (and we didn't have the internet)
Much the way that the Cartesian system (or thirty-six barleycorns to a foot) were based on multiples of twelve to simplify the math, yeah, it makes sense when people can't compute do decide that on one birthday you get all your rights.
Except we already don't.
We can often drive as early as Fourteen. In California, the license is provisional (meaning you can only drive at day, and lose the privilege with very few infractions). The age varies from state to state.
In the United States, one is eligible for military service and to vote at Eighteen, but sexual consent can be as young as sixteen (I think -- New Mexico used to be the youngest at Thirteen years).
(And that's normal consenting intercourse with an opposite-sex partner. Many states have differing ages for same-sex partners. There are, obviously different ages for other acts, such as using video. Obviously our amateur porn and sexting laws need some serious adjustment.)
You can't drink, smoke or gamble until you're 21. In some places they have 1% beer that you can drink at 18. (Classical Root Beer or Sarsaparilla was 2%)
And then there are many offices you cannot hold until you are 25 or 35 respectively.
So yeah, once upon a time it made sense that after you came of a certain age or went through a specific ritual that you became an adult, but we already don't have that anymore.
So to properly embrace a variegated majority system we'd only need a means (or many) by which a person can be informed of their rights and responsibilities as they cross them, such as a schedule that can be dropped into their eCalendar of choice.
Incidents of abuse lasting for long periods of time, usually across families of siblings as they each enter and leave the abuser's preferred age-range, are a different stat than recidivism of convicts who were charged with child sexual abuse.
Unfortunately numbers for how often long-term child sexual abuse occurs in the population are not being easily found for me, so I'd have to research more than I'm willing to do at the moment. I doubt it's epidemic.
Obviously long term abuse is a problem when it happens, though I'm pretty sure that the solution is not to treat every CSA perpetrator as the wicked stepfather who victimized all his step-daughters one by one. Or, for that matter, as someone like Jimmy Saville
In the case of Jimmy Saville, or, for that matter the Roman Catholic Church, or Woody Allen, or Jerry Sandusky, or whoever... these are people with resources and reputation who were active during an era in which the testimonies of children (or of adult child-victims) was often not believed when weighed against the words of the famous person they were accusing. And these famous people typically also had fortune enough to launch a legal counterattack. Bill Cosby's transgressions (as a non-child-abuse example) were able to remain suppressed for a good part of a century, and they're still not entirely believed.
Note the pedo-witch-hunts were sparked off by the whole McMartin preschool affair in 1983 and 1984 which depended on testimonies from children that were conducted by folks who didn't realize children that young are highly suggestible, which is why their testimonies featured underground tunnels, Satanic Ritual Abuse, flying witches on broomsticks, hot-air balloon rides and Chuck Norris as one of the abusers. It resulted in acquittal. There may have been abuse, but whatever there was, it was obfuscated by the general desire for the allegations to be valid. One of the kids made a statement in 2005 denying any incidents of abuse. This also was pretty much the first time the public ever considered that diddling children might not actually be good for them. It was a rough start all around.
Famous people are pretty rare, let alone famous people who victimize children. So looking at the scandals of famous people is not a very good source from which to derive statistics for the general population.
Also, part of the problem is how child sexual abuse is defined, which is often for the convenience of the one talking about it, and whether you want to put someone away, or exonerate them.
Romeo and Juliet laws have been established nation wide in order to rule-out specific scenarios from being regarded as statutory rape (which is often a subcategory of CSA). It's indicative that teens being prosecuted for sexting themselves maybe should not be regarded as CSA or the production / distribution of child-porn. That we've seen other manipulations of the law, for instance giving the same person child status for sake of determining that their photos are child-porn, then adult status for sake of eligibility to be tried, indicates that use of CSA is often in bad faith, just to ruin lives.
In the meantime, throughout the twentieth century, it was perfectly legal to marry a nine-year-old girl in many states with parental consent (which they often gave, if the groom was an upstanding figure in the local religious community), after which the child would be expected to engage in marital duties at nine. Only in the nineties have all fifty of state laws regarding early-age marriages have been adjusted at least to requiring the assessment of a family judge in the interests of all parties (including the child bride). But still, having sex with a child is not considered CSA if she's married to you. (We also can't say that child marriages have ceased, since we have counties in which other extralegal marriages occur, such as polygyny.).
Then there's the case of Representative Mark Foley who was accused by his colleagues of child sexual abuse in 2006 for propositioning sixteen-year-old (male) pages. Inappropriate, yes, but not CSA. It was plenty enough to turn into a scandal. Maybe if he tried to coerce them, but I don't believe he did.
But we have strong instincts to protect our urchins, especially from the kind of monsters that we think Bruce Willis should shoots in the face at the end of a movie. If an author puts an infant in Godzilla's path, the whole universe will warp to assure that he doesn't step on li'l miss pink-toes. But all that goes out the window when the children are the uncounted faceless that got lost on Alderaan. So really it sucks to be a kid in the US. We have ridiculous numbers homeless and starving. Most children only see their parent(s) exhausted after a full day's work. Our schools have become militarized zero-tolerance penitentiaries. Foster care is a poorly-regulated nightmare. The bar for satisfactory childcare in the home has dropped to the ground, since the only alternative is to rehome kids to foster care or juvie. Child beauty pageants are still a thing. We still portray our children as sexual objects in our mainstream media. Our education system still doesn't include consent or limits and boundaries, even though both of these concepts are useful not just in sexual negotiation, but day-to-day interaction, and would probably vastly reduce the rape problem. And then child rape victims are still regarded as used goods after the fact.
This list goes on and on, and this is just America (on the global scale, the human trafficking trade makes our local CSA issues look like a hoodlum stealing apples from the local produce. When your parents threatened to sell you to the gypsies, it was into this market. A white virginal American girl is particularly coveted and can fetch $25k). In the meantime, yeah, in this incident above, we'll just convict the ones we can try as adults for distributing child porn and tag them like all other CSA perps as a sex offender. Do you think they deserve it? Do you think their scarlet letters will help them rehabilitate? And in the meantime, there are so many other ways in which we could be trying to make life better for kids, but aren't.
Attacking pedophiles is easy so we do it a lot without a wit of interest in actual child-welfare issues. Making the United States a not-terrible place to be when you're a kid involves actually dealing with children. And who wants to do that?
It's the same problem with comic books. People still have this notion that games and comics are just for kids and so you have instances where grandmas get their grandson GTA V and then take it back for being age inappropriate.
Heh, but exposure of kids to Rated M games might have helped push them into our culture.
Specifically parents who are realizing for the first time that their kids are sexually curious (and are not ready for them to be), and administrators and attorneys who don't know how to handle panicking adults for whom the (outdated) law is on their side.
And so scapegoating a few 18.2-year-olds to appease the freaking out parents may be regarded as the easiest option with the least amount of school liability.
So it's a cover-your-ass solution rather than one that recognizes some real truths about human development.
The United States is seriously hung up about sex, and we're in a strong conservative swing, which is why kids (particularly girls) are often lectured about how despicable they are if they ever use their genitals once (or get them non-consensually used for them). Because that works about as well as just say no.
Yes. They're teaching in public schools that one rape and you're expended and valueless.
It's safe to say they probably are. But they haven't been found yet.
Maybe that's the problem. Maybe the scale of this incident is big enough to be embarrassing, but not big enough to indicate that the problem is bigger than the administrators.
Maybe we need thousands of kids across many schools (and districts) before they'll decide maybe little boys and little girls just like each other and want to express it. It's safer than Romeo and Juliette sex, after all.
Child sexual assault has one of the lowest recidivism rates among the violent crimes and yet we permanently ruin their lives. It turns out child molesters often actually like kids, and would rather consider alternatives (e.g. role-playing with consenting adults) than knowingly harm them.
(This isn't all of them, obviously. But we tend to treat them all like John Wayne Gacy.)
In the 90s and aughts, it was a witch-hunt, and it still pretty much is, since we have more data but it's unpopular to actually look at it.
What's about to happen with the TPP is pretty much that...
Essentially corporations will be able to sue nations to censor or block parts of the internet, holding hosts as aiding and abetting for alleged crimes. It doesn't even have to be a real crime if it's costing a company profits.
That sounds like they're nationalizing the whole internet anyway if TPP passes.