From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jul 07 2003 - 21:19:57 BST
Hi Rick,
>Hi Johnny,
>
>J
> > Why didn't they make non-consensual sodomy a crime then? They don't use
> > fornication statutes to prosecute rape, they have a seperate law for
> > non-consensual intercourse called rape. The justices are implying the
> > Framers were idiots who couldn't make a law that addressed the issue
>they
> > were trying to address.
>
>R
>No Johnny, you're misunderstanding the point. They're implying that the
>criminal sodomy statutes were legal addendums to the rape statues. They
>didn't have to be explicitly limited to cases of non-consent because their
>status as addendums to the rape statutes imposed that requirement
>automatically (this point was first explored during the oral arguments back
>in May).
So someone argued that... There is nothing in my state law that says it is
a legal addendum to rape statutes. I don't know if they are as they were
written back in 1787, but I don't see why they would have taken out the part
that specified it was only an ammendment to rape statues. You're grasping
at straws there.
Or are you saying that their "status as addendums" is implied by the
substantial number of non-consent cases that were prosecuted? Again, I say,
why wouldn't the lawmakers have made it explicit? I think you should admit
that the framers didn't intend to make sodomy un-criminalizable (is there a
better word for that?), nor did the 14th amendment writers.
> J
> > *and what does the Court mean by "substantial"? They say a substantial
> > number of the prosecutions were for non-consentual sexual assault (like
>Kobe
> > was just charged with). I bet that a substantial number were for
>consentual
> > sodomy also, especially if you take into account how hard it is to find
>out
> > about them.
>
>R
>As the Court uses the word "substantial" there can be only one. That is,
>if
>a substantial number were for non-consent prosecutions, then the number of
>prosecutions of consensual behavior are "insubstantial" (and almost every
>criminal statute is at one time or another abused to reach an insubstantial
>number of cases that it wasn't meant to cover). This argument (and the
>entire history of sodomy prosecutions) is very carefully treated in the
>petitioner's brief to the Court (they go into far more detail than the
>Court
>did and cite the sources which they, and the Court relied upon)--- if you
>care enough to read it, I believe it is still available through a link off
>the Court's own website.
Just one or two arrests for consensual sodomy is substantial, considering
how it is done in secret. And I didn't know that if one thing was
substantial that means that everything else can be ignored. Drunk drivers
could say that they were substantially sober, only .08% of their blood was
alcohol, states could say that their racist laws are substantially fair.
There were prosecutions for consensual sodomy all along throughout history.
>Oh, one more thing, I don't want to be one those annoying people who
>correct
>you on spelling, but the word is "consensual", not "consentual".
Thanks, I noticed that but I'm the bad habit. I'll try to break out of it.
I think consensual is too much like "sensual" for me.
Johnny
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 21:20:58 BST