Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Arizona now considers changing diapers to be a sex crime. [View all]
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/09/16/arizona_child_sexual_abuse_law_guts_due_process_for_parents_and_caregivers.htmlIf You Change a Babys Diaper in Arizona, You Can Now Be Convicted of Child Molestation
The Arizona Supreme Court issued a stunning and horrifying decision on Tuesday, interpreting a state law to criminalize any contact between an adult and a childs genitals. According to the court, the laws sweep encompasses wholly innocent conduct, such as changing a diaper or bathing a baby. As the stinging dissent notes, parents and other caregivers in the state are now considered to be child molesters or sex abusers under Arizona law. Those convicted under the statute may be imprisoned for five years.
How did this happen? A combination of bad legislating and terrible judging. Start with the legislature, which passed laws forbidding any person from intentionally or knowingly touching any part of the genitals, anus or female breast of a child under fifteen years of age. Notice something odd about that? Although the laws call such contact child molestation or sexual abuse, the statutes themselves do not require the touching to be sexual in nature. (No other states law excludes this element of improper sexual intent.) Indeed, read literally, the statutes would seem to prohibit parents from changing their childs diaper. And the measures forbid both direct and indirect touching, meaning parents cannot even bathe their child without becoming sexual abusers under the law.
Arizonas Supreme Court had an opportunity to remedy this glaring problem. A man convicted under these laws urged the justices to limit the statutes scope by interpreting the touching element to require some sexual intent. But by a 3-2 vote, the court refused and declared that the law criminalized the completely innocent touching of a child. The majority declined to rewrite the statutes to require the state to prove sexual motivation, when the statutes clearly contain no such requirement. Moreover, the court held that the laws posed no due process problem, because those prosecuted under the statute could still assert lack of sexual motivation as an affirmative defense at trialone the defendant himself must prove to the jury by a preponderance of the evidence. As to the risk that the law criminalizes typical parental tasks, the majority shrugs that prosecutors are unlikely to charge parents engaged in innocent conduct. (This just trust the prosecutors dodge doesnt always work out so well in Arizona.)
This country is going insane! I am less and less sure that we will be able to survive as anything other than a third-world country, with a dictator (and his family), people starving in the streets (oh, wait, they already are and people are getting arrested for trying to feed them), purges and pogroms, etc.
The legislatures in tea-party states are going crazy, as are the courts. And we've got a madman supported by the Republican Party with an actual change to become President.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
62 replies, 4108 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (16)
ReplyReply to this post
62 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
And what that article fails to mention is the ruling was regarding a case involving an 11 year old
kcr
Sep 2016
#20
That is not how courts work. Without a constitutional violation at State or Federal level
CBGLuthier
Sep 2016
#15
The decision talks about "parents’ constitutional right to manage and care for their children"
muriel_volestrangler
Sep 2016
#35