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.
Sexual Orientation is already defined and there is no need to define it, as is "race" and as is "gender". Pedophilia is not a form of sexual orientation, period. Again, it is a criminal psychiatric DISORDER. Just check the DSM-IV.
so what's the problem with specifically defining that as being the case in this bill?
as fatchance quite accurately stated, without defining the terminology used, it will always be open to interpretation.
I believe the whole point of hate crimes is to pile on charges so the prosecutors can have more lattitude in getting people convicted of their actual crime while plea bargaining. "OK, we'll remove the hate crime charge if you plead guilty to aggravated assault." Something like that.
Are you going to define every other type of sexual attraction in the bill as well?
Are you going to define every type of race?
Are you going to then say pedophilia was defined as not applying, but bestiality was not, so this covers protection for people who bang sheep?
i'm not going to define anything, considering i'm not currently a member of congress
but yes, if they are going to use terms open to interpretation or subject to change, they should certainly define as precisely as possible what those terms mean.
Sexual Orientation is already defined and there is no need to define it, as is "race" and as is "gender". Pedophilia is not a form of sexual orientation, period. Again, it is a criminal psychiatric DISORDER. Just check the DSM-IV.
But hey, believe whatever hype and outrage the machine is pumping out today.
I wouldn't bet my Rights on the DSMV-4, nor should anyone else. It was not that long ago (in my life) that being homosexual was listed in the DSMV as a psychiatric disorder, and treated a criminal offense in all 50 States, as a form of perversion or deviant behavior.
They meet periodically to revise the DSMV and one year they decided they were wrong about homosexuality, and they took it out of the DSMV. Within a decade or so homosexuality was decriminalized in most places (I hesitate to say all). NAMBLA has been filing lawsuits to try to gain the same status as homosexuals pretty much from that point on.
The people who maintain and revise the DSMV-4 are not bound in any way to follow the Constitution, have no oversight of any kind, and not governed by any vote other than their own. Like any group of Medical Professionals they are to some degree at the mercy of economics. For Congress to rely on them to protect the Rights and safety of the millions of children in this country is gross dereliction of duty on the part of Congress, in my opinion.
I believe the whole point of hate crimes is to pile on charges so the prosecutors can have more lattitude in getting people convicted of their actual crime while plea bargaining. "OK, we'll remove the hate crime charge if you plead guilty to aggravated assault." Something like that.
Maybe. It started with cases where local police just didn't do a proper investigation, based on race. Creating the Hate Crime law just lets the FBI step in when the definition is met, which it could not do before. The first case, or one of the first was here in Kansas City, about 1979. A popular black musician (who may have also been gay) was beaten to death in a public park by a group of young white men. They were observed leaving the scene and freely discussed the crime among their friends and neighbors, saying they "killed the N****r". The local police declined repeatedly even to interview them until the case got National publicity. In the end no charges were filed. A lawsuit alleged that his Constitutional Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness were violated by the fellows who beat him to death alleging the crime was racially motivated. That is a Federal Crime, and the FBI investigation turned up sufficient evidence to convict 3 of the 5, and one actually served about a year. At some point this set of conditions was formalized into a "Hate Crime". It was a means to deal with the jurisdiction issue in cases where the local jurisprudence fell short.
Last edited by fatchance2005; 04-28-2009 at 02:02 PM..
I wouldn't bet my Rights on the DSMV-4, nor should anyone else. It was not that long ago (in my life) that being homosexual was listed in the DSMV as a psychiatric disorder
In 1973 Elvis was alive, John Lennon was alive, and Elton John was straight. That's a long time ago.
Quote:
and treated a criminal offense in all 50 States, as a form of perversion or deviant behavior.
Actually, Illinois was the first state to decriminalize homosexuality--in 1961, 12 years before the APA vote. Obviously the APA does not have the influence you implied they do.
Quote:
They meet periodically to revise the DSMV and one year they decided they were wrong about homosexuality, and they took it out of the DSMV. Within a decade or so homosexuality was decriminalized in most places (I hesitate to say all).
About twenty states still had criminal anti-homosexual laws on the books in 2003, when Lawrence v. Texas struck them down. Obviously the APA does not have the influence you implied they do.
Quote:
NAMBLA has been filing lawsuits to try to gain the same status as homosexuals pretty much from that point on.
NAMBLA has never done any such thing. In fact, they spent most of the last 9 years and whatever resources they had defending themselves in a malicious wrongful death action.
Quote:
The people who maintain and revise the DSMV-4 are not bound in any way to follow the Constitution
What does that even mean? They aren't lawmakers or public officials. That's as absurd a comment as saying "Bakers aren't bound in any way to follow the Uniform Code of Military Justice." And if they did vote to remove pedophilia from the DSM, what the heck would that have to do with the Constitution?
Quote:
have no oversight of any kind, and not governed by any vote other than their own. Like any group of Medical Professionals they are to some degree at the mercy of economics. For Congress to rely on them to protect the Rights and safety of the millions of children in this country is gross dereliction of duty on the part of Congress, in my opinion.
Congress is not bound to follow the APA's definition of anything whatsoever, nor to "rely on them" in any way. You're crossing into the realm of paranoia here and fundamentally misunderstanding our form of government.
In 1973 Elvis was alive, John Lennon was alive, and Elton John was straight. That's a long time ago.
The dinosaurs were a long time ago too. If that's when it happened, there's nothing I can do about it.
Quote:
Actually, Illinois was the first state to decriminalize homosexuality--in 1961, 12 years before the APA vote. Obviously the APA does not have the influence you implied they do.
Interesting. I didn't know about Illinois doing that. So make it 49 of 50. I wasn't implying that local police departments sat around waiting for the next issue of the the DSMV-4 to come out. My point is that if Psychiatry classifies something as abnormal or deviant sexual behavior it automatically will fall under State and local Laws prohibiting abnormal or deviant sexual behavior, depending on their wording.
Quote:
About twenty states still had criminal anti-homosexual laws on the books in 2003, when Lawrence v. Texas struck them down. Obviously the APA does not have the influence you implied they do.
I'm not at all surprised. That's why I said "decriminalized in most places (I hesitate to say all). " rather than "decriminalized in all places"
Quote:
NAMBLA has never done any such thing. In fact, they spent most of the last 9 years and whatever resources they had defending themselves in a malicious wrongful death action.
According to the links I posted (and Google pulls up many I can't access at work) they've been doing a lot of fundraising and maintaining a high profile politically. They claim an official membership of a few hundred. I'm sure that's low, and we're talking about all pedophiles, not just them. Maybe I shouldn't have included an example.
Quote:
What does that even mean? They aren't lawmakers or public officials. That's as absurd a comment as saying "Bakers aren't bound in any way to follow the Uniform Code of Military Justice." And if they did vote to remove pedophilia from the DSM, what the heck would that have to do with the Constitution?
What it means is that a number of people had suggested that pedophiles didn't need to be specifically excluded from protection under the Hate Crimes legislation because pedophilia is in the DSMV-4. I disagreed because they can put anything they like in the DSMV-4 and remove anything they like, any time they like. It isn't intended to regulate Hate Crimes.
Quote:
Congress is not bound to follow the APA's definition of anything whatsoever, nor to "rely on them" in any way. You're crossing into the realm of paranoia here and fundamentally misunderstanding our form of government.
No I'm saying Congress should not create a legal protection for pedophilia inadvertantly. If they refuse to address it as some have advocated it will fall to the courts to determine whether or not pedophiles are protected. That will mean a pedophilic offense occurring and the legal defense claiming that pedophilia is protected by law. I am saying I'd bet dollars to donuts that when that happens one or the other lawyer will have a copy of the DSMV-4 under his arm. If Congress fails to exclude pedophiles, and the American Psychiatric Association changes it mind--again-- the defendant walks. I did not bring it up in the first place, but many others did. My point is similar to yours. It carries very little weight and is no substitute for legal language in a Law and was not intended to be.
No I'm saying Congress should not create a legal protection for pedophilia inadvertantly. If they refuse to address it as some have advocated it will fall to the courts to determine whether or not pedophiles are protected. That will mean a pedophilic offense occurring and the legal defense claiming that pedophilia is protected by law. I am saying I'd bet dollars to donuts that when that happens one or the other lawyer will have a copy of the DSMV-4 under his arm. If Congress fails to exclude pedophiles, and the American Psychiatric Association changes it mind--again-- the defendant walks. I did not bring it up in the first place, but many others did. My point is similar to yours. It carries very little weight and is no substitute for legal language in a Law and was not intended to be.
This is all ridiculous! Who in their right mind would want to "protect" someone who harms a child? That's what pedophiles do. They harm children physically, psychologically and emotionally. If I'd ever caught anyone doing that to one of my sons, he wouldn't have even made it to court because I would have used my giant cast iron skillet on his head!
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.
