Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If an AG can't nail that creep without invoking a previously overturned law, he needs to find another profession. Or Virginia can get with the program and update their laws to something resembling 20th-century standards.
You would think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Well, I guess he's trying to get another job, so there is that.
Yes especially from what you just said, could be grandstanding. Could be there is something in that law that doesn't apply, dunno? I have no idea how saavy the AG is.
Perhaps you can ask Guy Benson to explain why Cuccinelli isn't relying on the new law that outlaws sodomy between an adult and minors. If his goal is to protect minors from adult sexual predators, doesn't that law meet his goals?
From a link in the OP's article:
"The case involves a man who solicited oral sex from a minor and Cuccinelli's office claims that the Supreme Court decision does not apply to cases involving minors. The majority opinion by the 4th Circuit panel stated that a new law outlawing sodomy between an adult and a minor would likely be constitutional. "
I think that law was discussed as a hypothetical - as in, it would be perfectly constitutional to pass a new law that outlawed sodomy between an adult and a minor. Why that wouldn't be covered under statutory rape is anybody's guess.
I have never heard that term before in a political sense, which in the case of the person in question, living in Northern Virginia for two decades is having a local connection to Virginia because NoVa is still apart of the state. Seriously, would this be any different if the guy lived in just Hampton Roads or just Richmond for the past two decades? This is nothing more than resentment for NoVa that people in the hills of Virginia have for those that live in the urban parts of the state.
Seriously? You never heard of the term carpetbagger? Sheesh, I learned that term in 9th grade Civics. Of course it IS a primarily Southern term, coined during the reconstruction period after the Civil War.
This is upsetting because his opponent is a carpet bagger who doesn't give a crap about the state and has lived in the NoVa bubble the whole time he's lived in VA, and will most likely win (Before you say I'm biased, I'll have you know I liked Mark Warner as governor and he's a democrat )
I don't mind Democrats being governor of Virginia, I do mind carpet baggers.
This is what McAuliffe said on why he's running: "On Thursday, November 8, 2012, McAuliffe emailed supporters announcing his intention to run for Governor of Virginia in 2013. In his email he states, "It is absolutely clear to me that Virginians want their next Governor to focus on job creation and common sense fiscal responsibility instead of divisive partisan issues." Which makes 0 sense because McDonnell has been super bipartisan, has grown jobs, brought Virginia into a surplus and has been fiscally responsibile. So what the heck is he talking about?
So a 47 year old solicited oral sex from a 17 year old and now this wanna be governor wants to make sodomy illegal ?
No, this 47 year-old was found guilty of breaking a law, the Crimes Against Nature Law, which includes sodomy as well as adultery and other sexual behaviors. He was also found guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. This man has several prior convictions for similar offenses, he evidently targets teenaged girls to perform sexual services for him. He appealed his conviction on the basis that the sexual activity was consensual, he didn't compel this girl to do anything by force. The problem is that the girl isn't able to consent, Virginia's age of consent is 18, with an exception for closeness of age when the two participants are close in age. In this case, they were not close in age, so he solicited a girl under the age of consent. However, the law he was convicted of breaking is Unconstitutional in its entirety. And Virginia should have addressed that by passing new laws. They didn't. Instead, they've been prosectuting people and punishing them against the law that is not Constitutional.
The AG isn't just concerned about this case. Every person who was convicted of breaking the Crimes Against Nature Law can now appeal their conviction. And Virginia's failure to repeal an Unconstitutional law and to pass a law that met the Constitutional requirements opens that door. Sex offenders being set free will hurt Cucinnelli politically, as he makes a bid for governor. So he's trying to find a loophole in this case that can be applied to all the future appeals, both to keep sex offenders in jail, but also to protect his political ambitions.
Seriously? You never heard of the term carpetbagger? Sheesh, I learned that term in 9th grade Civics. Of course it IS a primarily Southern term, coined during the reconstruction period after the Civil War.
Can someone explain to me why they can't just charge the perp for statutory rape? the age of consent in VA is 18 right? How would making sodomy illegal help?
Yes, the age of consent in Virginia is 18, UNLESS both partners are 15 or older, but younger than 18.
The Problem is, for anyone who has a modicum of intelligence to have researched it, under Commonwealth law, it refers to vaginal penetration. Those acts defined as sodomy, oral or anal sex aren't included, because they came under a different statute, now tossed aside because of the Texas case.
What that means is, if a 40 year old deviant has anal sex with a 16 year old, they cannot be prosecuted for statutory rape, because sex is defined as vaginal penetration. He's trying to get the sodomy laws active, so they can prosecute a 47 year old person.
Yes, the age of consent in Virginia is 18, UNLESS both partners are 15 or older, but younger than 18.
The Problem is, for anyone who has a modicum of intelligence to have researched it, under Commonwealth law, it refers to vaginal penetration. Those acts defined as sodomy, oral or anal sex aren't included, because they came under a different statute, now tossed aside because of the Texas case.
What that means is, if a 40 year old deviant has anal sex with a 16 year old, they cannot be prosecuted for statutory rape, because sex is defined as vaginal penetration. He's trying to get the sodomy laws active, so they can prosecute a 47 year old person.
Lawrence v. Texas was in 2003. Is it me, or are Virginia's lawmakers kinda slow?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
