Now that's a story that has pretty much everything for critics of American justice system. Publicity-seeking prosecutors, ridiculous sentences, abusive plea deal system, sex offender registry, and children, the children. And Mitt Romney thinks that Hillary was completely off base in her probably half-hearted and empty call to stop "mass incarceration"?
QuoteCouple found guilty of having sex on Florida beach
A jury Monday found a couple guilty of having sex on Bradenton Beach after only 15 minutes of deliberation.
The convictions carry a maximum prison sentence of 15 years.
Jose Caballero, 40, and Elissa Alvarez, 20, were charged with two counts each of lewd and lascivious behavior for having sex on a public beach on July 20, 2014.
Video played in the courtroom during the 1- 1/2-day-long trial showed Alvarez moving on top of Caballero in a sexual manner in broad daylight. Witnesses testified that a 3-year-old girl saw them.
Both Caballero and Alvarez will now have to register as sex offenders.
A sentencing date was not announced, but Assistant State Attorney Anthony Dafonseca said they will pursue a harsher sentence for Caballero than Alvarez, since Alvarez has no prior record and Caballero has been to prison for almost eight years for a cocaine trafficking conviction.
The state will ask for jail time for Alvarez and prison time for Caballero. Dafonseca said due to Caballero being out of prison less than three years before committing another felony, he's looking at serving the maximum time of 15 years.
"We gave them a reasonable offer, what we felt was reasonable, and they decided it wasn't something they wanted to accept responsibility for," Dafonseca said. "Despite the video, despite all the witnesses."
Ronald Kurpiers, defense attorney for the couple, said his clients were "devastated," by the verdict. Though Dafonseca hinted that they'd be speaking with the judge about whether or not 15 years was appropriate for Caballero, Kurpiers said the judge would have no discretion.
"That's what he'll get," Kurpiers said.
Ed Brodsky, elected state attorney for the 16th judicial district, joined Defonseca in prosecuting the case. When asked why the case was an important one to the state attorney, Dafonseca said it was important that the community knew what wouldn't be tolerated on public beaches.
"We're dealing with basically tourists, that came from Brandon and Riverview and West Virginia, and they're here on the beaches of Manatee County, our public beaches," Dafonseca said, referring to the witnesses. "So you want to make sure that this isn't something that just goes by the wayside. And that it is well known to the community, what will be tolerated and what won't be."
Family members of the couple defended the two outside the courthouse, saying the crime did not deserve this kind of attention.
"He's a great person," said Caballero's mother of her son, declining to give her name. "There are other things out there we need to worry about, and they're still loose, people who have done worse stuff."
"She's an 18-year-old woman, with a 40-year-old man," said Carlos Alvarez of his daughter Elissa Alvarez. "I always say women can be better than men ... but they fall in love, and they make a lot of mistakes."
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," Dafonseca said during closing arguments. "It's insulting your intelligence to say that she was dancing."
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."
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article20191164.html#storylink=cpy
I hope the sex was worth it.
Without going into the question of whether or not having a sex offender registry is a good idea - if this is the stuff that gets you on it, the list becomes pretty useless when it comes to gauging whether someone is a dangerous sex criminal.
I only pay attention to the tier III sex offenders anyways.
But pretty useful in ensuring someone never obtains gainful employment again.
..and for the record, I'm strongly opposed to lifelong offender registries. If you're not going to allow someone to be a functional, productive member of society, then just keep them in prison.
But Syt, it is still useful to demonize and ostracize people. And us humans really like doing that, so it serves an important purpose.
Also, I find it interesting that the guy could get more jail time for this than for his cocaine smuggling. How does sentencing work in Florida? I guess he wasn't on parole, so how does jail time for a completely unrelated crime factor into this?
Quote from: Syt on May 05, 2015, 09:17:39 AM
Without going into the question of whether or not having a sex offender registry is a good idea - if this is the stuff that gets you on it, the list becomes pretty useless when it comes to gauging whether someone is a dangerous sex criminal.
Has it ever been its purpose? Americans just have this very dangerous tendency to identify people they don't want to be part of their society, and then hit them hard with any means at their disposal.
Quote from: Caliga on May 05, 2015, 09:23:35 AM
But pretty useful in ensuring someone never obtains gainful employment again.
..and for the record, I'm strongly opposed to lifelong offender registries. If you're not going to allow someone to be a functional, productive member of society, then just keep them in prison.
I'm strongly in favour of lifelong offender registries. I mean we have several already - fingerprints, DNA...
It's making them public that I question.
Quote from: Caliga on May 05, 2015, 09:23:35 AM
But pretty useful in ensuring someone never obtains gainful employment again.
..and for the record, I'm strongly opposed to lifelong offender registries. If you're not going to allow someone to be a functional, productive member of society, then just keep them in prison.
I'd favor sending them to some lawless island in the South Pacific and filming the resulting violence for a reality TV show. Prison is too expensive.
Quote from: Syt on May 05, 2015, 09:25:13 AM
Also, I find it interesting that the guy could get more jail time for this than for his cocaine smuggling. How does sentencing work in Florida? I guess he wasn't on parole, so how does jail time for a completely unrelated crime factor into this?
The assumption appears to be that once one is shown to be morally degraded, they should be hammered as hard as possible, even if the crime is fairly trivial.
Quote from: Barrister on May 05, 2015, 09:37:00 AM
I'm strongly in favour of lifelong offender registries. I mean we have several already - fingerprints, DNA...
It's making them public that I question.
Ok, I should have qualified my statement... yes, I agree they should not be available to the general public/employers, etc.
Why do conservatives fear sex so much?
America is stupid.
Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2015, 09:01:26 AM
I hope the sex was worth it.
Would you say the same thing to the gay teenagers hanged in Iran few years ago? Because that would make you as douchebaggy.
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2015, 09:50:23 AM
Why do conservatives fear sex so much?
Having fun = BAD. No drinking, dancing, and fornication allowed! Just sit around praising JEEBUS all day! :)
Quote from: Syt on May 05, 2015, 09:17:39 AM
Without going into the question of whether or not having a sex offender registry is a good idea - if this is the stuff that gets you on it, the list becomes pretty useless when it comes to gauging whether someone is a dangerous sex criminal.
Yep. This is the kind of thing I have been talking about for years. There is nothing to differentiate whether somebody had sex with their 15 year old partner at 18 or whether or not one is a serial rapist.
It is basically used to destroy people and not to actually keep the public safe.
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2015, 09:52:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2015, 09:01:26 AM
I hope the sex was worth it.
Would you say the same thing to the gay teenagers hanged in Iran few years ago? Because that would make you as douchebaggy.
Yeah that was some pretty fucked up shit for garbon to say.
I hope the sex wasn't worth it.
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2015, 09:50:23 AM
Why do conservatives fear sex so much?
they are afraid that, if society tolerates public sex, it will become more open to tolerating public dancing.
Quote from: DGuller on May 05, 2015, 09:33:51 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 05, 2015, 09:17:39 AM
Without going into the question of whether or not having a sex offender registry is a good idea - if this is the stuff that gets you on it, the list becomes pretty useless when it comes to gauging whether someone is a dangerous sex criminal.
Has it ever been its purpose? Americans just have this very dangerous tendency to identify people they don't want to be part of their society, and then hit them hard with any means at their disposal.
The problem is also that the mechanism for dividing the lambs from the wolves seems rather screwy.
Pretty well everone I know has, at some point or another, used an illegal drug, or had sex in public - often at much the same time. :lol: Oh, to be 19-24 or so again ...
None have, to my knowledge, ever robbed people, committed acts of violence, or the like; it strikes me that society ought to reserve serious sanctions for that.
Quote from: Caliga on May 05, 2015, 09:23:35 AM
But pretty useful in ensuring someone never obtains gainful employment again.
..and for the record, I'm strongly opposed to lifelong offender registries. If you're not going to allow someone to be a functional, productive member of society, then just keep them in prison.
Yep.
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2015, 09:50:23 AM
Why do conservatives fear sex so much?
I don't think Conservatives are actually for this. It is one of those unintended consequences of a law meant to deal with something else. And it is damn hard to get them reformed or repealed.
Despite this it is still damn hard to lock up actual rapists so...go figure.
What I find rather disappointing is that massive explosion of privacy breaches due to Facebook etc has not yet resulted in employers of the younger generation essentially saying "fuck this shit" and starting to ignore this in employment decisions. I thought we would eventually reach the critical mass.
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2015, 10:03:06 AM
What I find rather disappointing is that massive explosion of privacy breaches due to Facebook etc has not yet resulted in employers of the younger generation essentially saying "fuck this shit" and starting to ignore this in employment decisions. I thought we would eventually reach the critical mass.
Ignoring criminal records?
Sure why not?
Also, why does the judge not have discretion in sentencing? Is this a "sentencing guidelines" thing?
QuoteRonald Kurpiers, defense attorney for the couple, said his clients were "devastated," by the verdict. Though Dafonseca hinted that they'd be speaking with the judge about whether or not 15 years was appropriate for Caballero, Kurpiers said the judge would have no discretion.
"That's what he'll get," Kurpiers said.
Article sucks, no mention if she is hot.
Quote from: Malthus on May 05, 2015, 10:18:59 AM
Also, why does the judge not have discretion in sentencing? Is this a "sentencing guidelines" thing?
QuoteRonald Kurpiers, defense attorney for the couple, said his clients were "devastated," by the verdict. Though Dafonseca hinted that they'd be speaking with the judge about whether or not 15 years was appropriate for Caballero, Kurpiers said the judge would have no discretion.
"That's what he'll get," Kurpiers said.
Better than if he's facing re-election and doesn't want to be seen as soft on crime? Or worse?
Quote from: Syt on May 05, 2015, 10:22:38 AM
Better than if he's facing re-election and doesn't want to be seen as soft on crime? Or worse?
I'd say "worse", because the absurd result in this case (15 years for public sex) would then be hard-wired.
Quote from: lustindarkness on May 05, 2015, 10:21:50 AM
Article sucks, no mention if she is hot.
Googled her. I'd say yes. Not perfect, but still hott.
Quote from: lustindarkness on May 05, 2015, 10:21:50 AM
Article sucks, no mention if she is hot.
There's a picture (not a very flattering one, though) in the link.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.miamiherald.com%2Fnews%2Fstate%2Fflorida%2Fqb3lsd%2Fpicture20191161%2FALTERNATES%2FFREE_960%2Fsex%2520on%2520the%2520beach&hash=fd697dc6e3cce0bdbdc424148716fa1d6da07b45)
Quote from: Malthus on May 05, 2015, 09:55:19 AM
The problem is also that the mechanism for dividing the lambs from the wolves seems rather screwy.
Pretty well everone I know has, at some point or another, used an illegal drug, or had sex in public - often at much the same time. :lol: Oh, to be 19-24 or so again ...
None have, to my knowledge, ever robbed people, committed acts of violence, or the like; it strikes me that society ought to reserve serious sanctions for that.
Maybe we're like pigs in the pen. We don't need good consistent reasons to pick the ones to pick on, we just need the ones to pick on.
Quote from: The Larch on May 05, 2015, 10:26:34 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on May 05, 2015, 10:21:50 AM
Article sucks, no mention if she is hot.
There's a picture (not a very flattering one, though) in the link.
Oddly enough, women being sentenced to lengthy terms of incarceration rarely look their best. :P
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2015, 09:52:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2015, 09:01:26 AM
I hope the sex was worth it.
Would you say the same thing to the gay teenagers hanged in Iran few years ago? Because that would make you as douchebaggy.
Thumbs up for waiting until the end of page 1 for your attempt to make yet another thread about gay sex.
Did I miss something? Why is there even a possibility for a prison sentence for having sex, never mind up to 15 years? Yes, it was in a bit of a public place but does it really deserve a long prison sentence and a sex offender label? We've gone too far with the sex offender stuff, unless there's a lot more to this case but I didn't see it in the article.
Because children.
Quote from: Habbaku on May 05, 2015, 12:47:37 PM
Because children.
As an aside, I never really understood the hysteria over children maybe witnessing sex.
I know from my own kid that kids prior to puberty typically find sex just gross, have no interest in it - when he's watching a TV show or movie at home and there is any "kissy stuff" as he calls it, he covers his eyes and makes retching noises until it stops. I don't think he's ever seen more than kissing, but I would imagine his reaction would be exactly the same.
What exact harm is witnessing sex supposed to do to them?
Not sure. My ancestors witnessed their parents doing it several times a week and all they did was colonize the world...huh maybe that is it.
They don't look like they have an age difference of 20 years in the picture.
This is what happens when we hand political power over to the old people, instead of executing them en masse as I have been advising all along. :)
Quote from: alfred russel on May 05, 2015, 12:59:45 PM
They don't look like they have an age difference of 20 years in the picture.
Couldn't that be her lawyer sitting next to her?
Quote from: Caliga on May 05, 2015, 01:00:38 PM
Couldn't that be her lawyer sitting next to her?
Shysters don't take off their jackets.
She doesn't look 20. Probably because she spends so much time at the beach.
Also drugs.
Quote from: Malthus on May 05, 2015, 12:57:00 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on May 05, 2015, 12:47:37 PM
Because children.
As an aside, I never really understood the hysteria over children maybe witnessing sex.
I know from my own kid that kids prior to puberty typically find sex just gross, have no interest in it - when he's watching a TV show or movie at home and there is any "kissy stuff" as he calls it, he covers his eyes and makes retching noises until it stops. I don't think he's ever seen more than kissing, but I would imagine his reaction would be exactly the same.
What exact harm is witnessing sex supposed to do to them?
So it's nothing to worry about at all, then?
Quote from: derspiess on May 05, 2015, 01:23:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 05, 2015, 12:57:00 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on May 05, 2015, 12:47:37 PM
Because children.
As an aside, I never really understood the hysteria over children maybe witnessing sex.
I know from my own kid that kids prior to puberty typically find sex just gross, have no interest in it - when he's watching a TV show or movie at home and there is any "kissy stuff" as he calls it, he covers his eyes and makes retching noises until it stops. I don't think he's ever seen more than kissing, but I would imagine his reaction would be exactly the same.
What exact harm is witnessing sex supposed to do to them?
So it's nothing to worry about at all, then?
It's not.
Quote from: derspiess on May 05, 2015, 01:23:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 05, 2015, 12:57:00 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on May 05, 2015, 12:47:37 PM
Because children.
As an aside, I never really understood the hysteria over children maybe witnessing sex.
I know from my own kid that kids prior to puberty typically find sex just gross, have no interest in it - when he's watching a TV show or movie at home and there is any "kissy stuff" as he calls it, he covers his eyes and makes retching noises until it stops. I don't think he's ever seen more than kissing, but I would imagine his reaction would be exactly the same.
What exact harm is witnessing sex supposed to do to them?
So it's nothing to worry about at all, then?
Why would it be?
Disagree. I'm actually pretty easy-going with how I raise my kids, but I don't think it's healthy for them to be exposed to this sort of thing. "Kissy stuff" on TV is easier for them to filter out than two people right in front of them going at it on the beach in broad daylight. Which btw is a public decency offense.
If all you hippies think it's perfectly fine for young children to watch two adults have sex in public, fine. I just happen to disagree with you. I'll tell my kids about the birds & the bees when I think they're mature enough to handle it. I'd rather not have the conversation forced at an earlier time.
All that said, the sentence is harsh. A misdemeanor with a fine/community service or whatever would be appropriate IMO.
Quote from: derspiess on May 05, 2015, 01:23:22 PM
So it's nothing to worry about at all, then?
Maybe something to worry about. Not sure that something is worth destroying lives. Can't we just fine people or do something normal instead of draconian bullshit?
Yeah, I wasn't saying earlier that they shouldn't have been punished at all... but the punishment should be much, much lighter.
Quote from: derspiess on May 05, 2015, 01:43:01 PM
All that said, the sentence is harsh. A misdemeanor with a fine/community service or whatever would be appropriate IMO.
And everybody sane would agree. But our lawmakers are not sane.
Quote from: Malthus on May 05, 2015, 12:57:00 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on May 05, 2015, 12:47:37 PM
Because children.
As an aside, I never really understood the hysteria over children maybe witnessing sex.
I know from my own kid that kids prior to puberty typically find sex just gross, have no interest in it - when he's watching a TV show or movie at home and there is any "kissy stuff" as he calls it, he covers his eyes and makes retching noises until it stops. I don't think he's ever seen more than kissing, but I would imagine his reaction would be exactly the same.
What exact harm is witnessing sex supposed to do to them?
It might be like in this commercial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ7qY0KXSVg
Quote from: KRonn on May 05, 2015, 12:47:13 PM
Did I miss something? Why is there even a possibility for a prison sentence for having sex, never mind up to 15 years? Yes, it was in a bit of a public place but does it really deserve a long prison sentence and a sex offender label? We've gone too far with the sex offender stuff, unless there's a lot more to this case but I didn't see it in the article.
Yeah, I have no problem with charging them for public indecency (though even that's shaky if none of the witnesses could testify that they saw genitalia or penetration), but it should just be a misdemeanor that carries a fine.
OTOH, as always, we can't rule out that there's more to the case than the article says.
Quote from: derspiess on May 05, 2015, 01:43:01 PM
Disagree. I'm actually pretty easy-going with how I raise my kids, but I don't think it's healthy for them to be exposed to this sort of thing. "Kissy stuff" on TV is easier for them to filter out than two people right in front of them going at it on the beach in broad daylight. Which btw is a public decency offense.
If all you hippies think it's perfectly fine for young children to watch two adults have sex in public, fine. I just happen to disagree with you. I'll tell my kids about the birds & the bees when I think they're mature enough to handle it. I'd rather not have the conversation forced at an earlier time.
All that said, the sentence is harsh. A misdemeanor with a fine/community service or whatever would be appropriate IMO.
I'm sure there will be 5 pages upcoming parsing your statement.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 05, 2015, 01:49:35 PM
I'm sure there will be 5 pages upcoming parsing your statement.
Huh. I thought we were done.
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2015, 01:50:26 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 05, 2015, 01:49:35 PM
I'm sure there will be 5 pages upcoming parsing your statement.
Huh. I thought we were done.
You nerds and aspies cant help yourselves.
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2015, 01:45:11 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 05, 2015, 01:43:01 PM
All that said, the sentence is harsh. A misdemeanor with a fine/community service or whatever would be appropriate IMO.
And everybody sane would agree. But our lawmakers are not sane.
In fairness, I doubt that anyone in the Florida legislature intended that someone go to prison for 15 years for this.
Quote from: dps on May 05, 2015, 01:52:42 PM
In fairness, I doubt that anyone in the Florida legislature intended that someone go to prison for 15 years for this.
Yet people have been complaining about this for years and similar laws with similar perverse results exist in many other states. If that was not their intention they have had plenty of time to fix it and plenty of examples to bring it to their attention. They seem to be fine with it.
Quote from: derspiess on May 05, 2015, 01:23:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 05, 2015, 12:57:00 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on May 05, 2015, 12:47:37 PM
Because children.
As an aside, I never really understood the hysteria over children maybe witnessing sex.
I know from my own kid that kids prior to puberty typically find sex just gross, have no interest in it - when he's watching a TV show or movie at home and there is any "kissy stuff" as he calls it, he covers his eyes and makes retching noises until it stops. I don't think he's ever seen more than kissing, but I would imagine his reaction would be exactly the same.
What exact harm is witnessing sex supposed to do to them?
So it's nothing to worry about at all, then?
It's gross and offensive - like taking a shit in public - something neither I, nor my kid for that matter, wants to see. It should be treated the same way - with a fine to discourage people from doing it.
15 years in jail is just nuts, though.
And no, not something I'd really "worry" about. What exactly would happen to the kid seeing sex?
They're not getting 15 years for public humping. He's getting 15 for committing 2 felonies within 3 years.
Having sex is like taking a shit?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2015, 02:00:22 PM
Having sex is like taking a shit?
If she consents, then yes.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2015, 02:00:22 PM
Having sex is like taking a shit?
Well, not the way I do it - your experience may vary. I'm not judgmental. :P
The point I was making was that it was offensive in a similar manner - doing something in public that, by public standards of decorum, ought to be done in private.
Quote from: derspiess on May 05, 2015, 01:43:01 PM
Disagree. I'm actually pretty easy-going with how I raise my kids, but I don't think it's healthy for them to be exposed to this sort of thing. "Kissy stuff" on TV is easier for them to filter out than two people right in front of them going at it on the beach in broad daylight. Which btw is a public decency offense.
If all you hippies think it's perfectly fine for young children to watch two adults have sex in public, fine. I just happen to disagree with you. I'll tell my kids about the birds & the bees when I think they're mature enough to handle it. I'd rather not have the conversation forced at an earlier time.
All that said, the sentence is harsh. A misdemeanor with a fine/community service or whatever would be appropriate IMO.
That's all fine, and your right to do as you see best.
My point is that I can't see any actual "harm" done to children by seeing public sex, such as would justify a harsh sentence.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 05, 2015, 01:49:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 05, 2015, 01:43:01 PM
Disagree. I'm actually pretty easy-going with how I raise my kids, but I don't think it's healthy for them to be exposed to this sort of thing. "Kissy stuff" on TV is easier for them to filter out than two people right in front of them going at it on the beach in broad daylight. Which btw is a public decency offense.
If all you hippies think it's perfectly fine for young children to watch two adults have sex in public, fine. I just happen to disagree with you. I'll tell my kids about the birds & the bees when I think they're mature enough to handle it. I'd rather not have the conversation forced at an earlier time.
All that said, the sentence is harsh. A misdemeanor with a fine/community service or whatever would be appropriate IMO.
I'm sure there will be 5 pages upcoming parsing your statement.
Oh yeah. The thought crossed my mind right after I hit "post". But this crowd is also sort of contrarian, so since you posted this they may not do it. Yi should be able to come up with some odds.
WTF are you even talk about? Since when do I spend time parsing out posts?
Quote from: derspiess on May 05, 2015, 02:09:44 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 05, 2015, 01:49:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 05, 2015, 01:43:01 PM
Disagree. I'm actually pretty easy-going with how I raise my kids, but I don't think it's healthy for them to be exposed to this sort of thing. "Kissy stuff" on TV is easier for them to filter out than two people right in front of them going at it on the beach in broad daylight. Which btw is a public decency offense.
If all you hippies think it's perfectly fine for young children to watch two adults have sex in public, fine. I just happen to disagree with you. I'll tell my kids about the birds & the bees when I think they're mature enough to handle it. I'd rather not have the conversation forced at an earlier time.
All that said, the sentence is harsh. A misdemeanor with a fine/community service or whatever would be appropriate IMO.
I'm sure there will be 5 pages upcoming parsing your statement.
Oh yeah. The thought crossed my mind right after I hit "post". But this crowd is also sort of contrarian, so since you posted this they may not do it. Yi should be able to come up with some odds.
and nicknames. Fucker is Dennis Miller with a yellowish tinge.
(https://thepadre10.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/more-stirring-the-pot.jpg)
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2015, 02:13:44 PM
WTF are you even talk about? Since when do I spend time parsing out posts?
He may not have been specifically referring to you.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 05, 2015, 02:16:45 PM
(https://thepadre10.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/more-stirring-the-pot.jpg)
Is that what people call anal these days? :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2015, 09:52:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2015, 09:01:26 AM
I hope the sex was worth it.
Would you say the same thing to the gay teenagers hanged in Iran few years ago? Because that would make you as douchebaggy.
No, I wouldn't. But then that isn't really the same as having sex in public*.
*Not that I oppose it but you gotta have some class about it. ;)
Quote from: Caliga on May 05, 2015, 01:00:05 PM
This is what happens when we hand political power over to the old people, instead of executing them en masse as I have been advising all along. :)
Exactly. Once a person reaches 30 years of age, they should be culled.
I was thinking more like 65. Sorry big guy :console:
Quote from: Caliga on May 05, 2015, 02:29:40 PM
I was thinking more like 65. Sorry big guy :console:
You were thinking "older than me, because duh!" :P
Luckily, you were thinking older than me, as well. Maybe even older than KRonn and RH.
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2015, 01:45:11 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 05, 2015, 01:43:01 PM
All that said, the sentence is harsh. A misdemeanor with a fine/community service or whatever would be appropriate IMO.
And everybody sane would agree. But our lawmakers are not sane.
Our lawmakers are not sane because our voters are not sane. Let's stop with this vapid "politicians are dumb and stupid" bullshit.
Quote from: grumbler on May 05, 2015, 02:27:30 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 05, 2015, 01:00:05 PM
This is what happens when we hand political power over to the old people, instead of executing them en masse as I have been advising all along. :)
Exactly. Once a person reaches 30 years of age, they should be culled.
Oh good thing I'm having my 2nd 29th birthday this year. :)
Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2015, 02:46:28 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 05, 2015, 02:27:30 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 05, 2015, 01:00:05 PM
This is what happens when we hand political power over to the old people, instead of executing them en masse as I have been advising all along. :)
Exactly. Once a person reaches 30 years of age, they should be culled.
Oh good thing I'm having my 2nd 29th birthday this year. :)
Run Logan, Run!
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2015, 02:49:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2015, 02:46:28 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 05, 2015, 02:27:30 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 05, 2015, 01:00:05 PM
This is what happens when we hand political power over to the old people, instead of executing them en masse as I have been advising all along. :)
Exactly. Once a person reaches 30 years of age, they should be culled.
Oh good thing I'm having my 2nd 29th birthday this year. :)
Run Logan, Run!
Was that Garbon I spotted?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSUAAKFLoL0
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-ec.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2Fenhanced%2Fwebdr06%2F2013%2F7%2F26%2F14%2Fanigif_enhanced-buzz-6854-1374864943-25.gif&hash=b5964221ddde5e13c5a249cb76ea5a1217fb84f0)
Old people
I didn't see any black people. :sleep:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2015, 01:59:47 PM
They're not getting 15 years for public humping. He's getting 15 for committing 2 felonies within 3 years.
I'll be interested to see what she gets, since she has no prior stuff on her record. The article here says they're asking for jail time for her (vs. prison for dude who just got done with 8 years for cocaine trafficking).
E: Apparently everything less than a year goes to jail in Florida.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2015, 01:59:47 PM
They're not getting 15 years for public humping. He's getting 15 for committing 2 felonies within 3 years.
It's ridiculous that this is a felony. It should be a misdemeanor.
How much should the ticket be for opening your raincoat and whacking off in the elementary school playground?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2015, 05:05:14 PM
How much should the ticket be for opening your raincoat and whacking off in the elementary school playground?
Seventeen.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2015, 05:05:14 PM
How much should the ticket be for opening your raincoat and whacking off in the elementary school playground?
Not at all the same crime. :rolleyes:
Come on man, even Derspeiss thinks this sentence is way over the top.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 05, 2015, 05:18:35 PM
Not at all the same crime. :rolleyes:
Come on man, even Derspeiss thinks this sentence is way over the top.
I also think 15 years for committing two felonies in 3 years is excessive. However, that doesn't address the question of whether humping on the beach should be a felony or a misdemeanor (or nothing). If it should be a misdemeanor, should Raincoat Boy also be charged with a misdemeanor? If not, why not?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2015, 05:45:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 05, 2015, 05:18:35 PM
Not at all the same crime. :rolleyes:
Come on man, even Derspeiss thinks this sentence is way over the top.
I also think 15 years for committing two felonies in 3 years is excessive. However, that doesn't address the question of whether humping on the beach should be a felony or a misdemeanor (or nothing). If it should be a misdemeanor, should Raincoat Boy also be charged with a misdemeanor? If not, why not?
The reason wacking off in a playground ought to be treated more seriously is that the wacker is deliberately targeting children - it's a form of harrassment/intimidation.
Not all public exposure is the same.
A drunk dude pissing in an alleyway isn't 'just the same' as a man deliberately exposing himself to schoolkids while wacking off - so treating them both the same (with prision terms/sex offender status) is unjust, a waste of time, and counterproductive - for example, diluting the sex offender registry with guys pissing in alleyways makes it less useful.
This, even though an aspect of the two actions is the same - public exposure.
I'm against the entire concept of an offender registry. But then again I've never given birth and therefore I'm denied all of the cosmic knowledge and shit that apparently you magically manifest when that happens. :rolleyes:
There is a legit reason for a sex offender registry: that certain types of sex offenders seemingly can't reform and so there is a public need to keep a closer eye on them. First-time offenders (of any stripe) don't fit that pattern, so shouldn't go on it, because (as many have noted) it simply dilutes the effect and harms the purpose of the registry.
Maybe the registry, even if only of repeat offenders, does more harm than good. there's an argument to be made. But there's no argument to be made, IMO, for putting people like this on an offender list, barring some bizarre 'feel good" element among some of the puritans.
But I think we all can guess from the story (if accurate) that the offense of this couple is that they didn't take a plea bargain. Gotta hammer people who don't take plea bargains.
And the guy has been in prison for eight years, so hasn't "committed two felonies in three years" even if this act was a felony.
Quote from: grumbler on May 05, 2015, 06:48:03 PM
There is a legit reason for a sex offender registry: that certain types of sex offenders seemingly can't reform and so there is a public need to keep a closer eye on them.
Yes. It should be for people who are dangerous. Not just anybody who ever committed a sex crime. It is considered part of the sentence rather than something done for public safety. Like ooooh now you are fucked for life, what a deterrent!
Of course if somebody is so dangerous they should never be allowed to hold a job or rent an apartment then why are they even being released from jail at all?
Quote from: DGuller on May 05, 2015, 02:33:36 PM
Our lawmakers are not sane because our voters are not sane. Let's stop with this vapid "politicians are dumb and stupid" bullshit.
This would be biting criticism if I was not also vocal about the voters so you are pissing in the wrong wind here. But in this case it is on the lawmakers. But there is nothing vapid about this, I have seen this issue play out for years. The voters lack the ability to influence policy issues this specific and I doubt they would be in favor of this sort of thing if they could.
Heaven forbid I ever hold the people writing the laws responsible for writing bad laws.
Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2015, 07:58:54 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 05, 2015, 02:33:36 PM
Our lawmakers are not sane because our voters are not sane. Let's stop with this vapid "politicians are dumb and stupid" bullshit.
This would be biting criticism if I was not also vocal about the voters so you are pissing in the wrong wind here. But in this case it is on the lawmakers. But there is nothing vapid about this, I have seen this issue play out for years. The voters lack the ability to influence policy issues this specific and I doubt they would be in favor of this sort of thing if they could.
Heaven forbid I ever hold the people writing the laws responsible for writing bad laws.
It's the voters who vote for "tough on crime" politicians, and who feel safe when hearing the phrase rather than curious about weather a punishment is still fitting the crime.
I am fine with a registry but so long as it only contains names of truly dangerous criminals, like rapists or child molesters etc. Having consensual sex on a beach should get a fine or community service at most.
Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2015, 07:54:15 AM
Of course if somebody is so dangerous they should never be allowed to hold a job or rent an apartment then why are they even being released from jail at all?
Our justice system punishes past acts, not potential future ones.
Quote from: grumbler on May 06, 2015, 08:14:25 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2015, 07:54:15 AM
Of course if somebody is so dangerous they should never be allowed to hold a job or rent an apartment then why are they even being released from jail at all?
Our justice system punishes past acts, not potential future ones.
And conveniently enough, our esteemed Supreme Court does not consider scarlet letters to be punishment, it's just a helpful information for the public.
Quote from: DGuller on May 06, 2015, 08:01:48 AM
It's the voters who vote for "tough on crime" politicians, and who feel safe when hearing the phrase rather than curious about weather a punishment is still fitting the crime.
If there was a debate going around these days about being "tough on crime" with one party promising ever increasing draconian practices I would agree. But this debate is not really taking place right now. Moral and economic issues are what are moving the needle. If anything when the voters get a chance they tend to go softer on crime these days.
But even if this was not the case, and there was movement to hammer down crime, the Pols still deserve the blame. This was not the intention of the public, this is bad laws being written with unintended consequences. The intention, to keep habitual rapists from being able to be predatory to the public, is basically the good one. The devil, in this case, is in the details. The voters do not vote details, that is their representatives job.
Quote from: Caliga on May 05, 2015, 01:00:05 PM
This is what happens when we hand political power over to the old people, instead of executing them en masse as I have been advising all along. :)
I don't think it is old people as much as people with children, to be honest. Old childless people (other than priests and the like) are usually pretty cool.
That is why I have been advocating all along that children should be raised in Platonesque Republic facilities away from their biological parents. Most of the evil in this world comes from parental instincts going awry, whether it is wealth concentration, censorship or inflation of college degrees.
Because orphanages work so well.
Quote from: Martinus on May 06, 2015, 10:22:20 AM
I don't think it is old people as much as people with children, to be honest. Old childless people (other than priests and the like) are usually pretty cool.
Huh. Does that mean you are finally going to be cool when you get old?
Quote from: Martinus on May 06, 2015, 10:22:20 AM
Old childless people (other than priests and the like) are usually pretty cool.
Often they are, unless they have little yappy dogs they refer to as "their kids".
:lol:
Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2015, 07:54:15 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 05, 2015, 06:48:03 PM
There is a legit reason for a sex offender registry: that certain types of sex offenders seemingly can't reform and so there is a public need to keep a closer eye on them.
Yes. It should be for people who are dangerous. Not just anybody who ever committed a sex crime. It is considered part of the sentence rather than something done for public safety. Like ooooh now you are fucked for life, what a deterrent!
Of course if somebody is so dangerous they should never be allowed to hold a job or rent an apartment then why are they even being released from jail at all?
:yes: They should either be in jail or in a mental hospital. Registry serves no useful purpose.
Quote from: derspiess on May 06, 2015, 10:39:26 AM
Often they are, unless they have little yappy dogs they refer to as "their kids".
Like my parents, for example.
Quote from: Caliga on May 06, 2015, 03:38:03 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 06, 2015, 10:39:26 AM
Often they are, unless they have little yappy dogs they refer to as "their kids".
Like my parents, for example.
Well your parents had you first. ;)
Yes but now they have two Yorkies they refer to as "kids", as in "Kids, we're home!" when they come in the house. :bleeding:
Quote from: Caliga on May 06, 2015, 04:05:44 PM
Yes but now they have two Yorkies they refer to as "kids", as in "Kids, we're home!" when they come in the house. :bleeding:
Well, they will never ask to borrow the car ... and you can get them fixed. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on May 06, 2015, 04:05:44 PM
Yes but now they have two Yorkies they refer to as "kids", as in "Kids, we're home!" when they come in the house. :bleeding:
I love your parents already. :lol:
I miss Rufus. All alone home. :(
Their dogs are named Sidney and Trudy and yes they also dress them. :grr:
I refuse to call them by their names and instead refer to Trudy as Gremlin and Sidney as Coward, since Trudy looks like a Gremlin (Mogwai Gremlin, not Gremlin Gremlin) and Sidney is a fucking pussy that hides from me all the time.
Ugh.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 06, 2015, 07:17:01 PM
Ugh.
My dad calls him Sid Vicious. Most ironic nickname ever.