Thursday, June 10th, 2010
- Yet more misery in North Korea.
- New evidence in the Amanda Knox case. Man claims his brother admitted to the crime, can show investigators the murder weapon.
- This article starts as a decent critique of paternalistic tax policies, then advises lawmakers on how to better implement them: Lie to the public about what the tax is intended to accomplish. Silly rubes. Standing up for “liberty” and such. Better to trick them!
- Yay, democracy!
- Glenn Greenwald on the too-cozy relationship between the Washington press corps and the politicians they cover.
- Woman gets life in prison for asking 13-year-old-boy to touch her
press breast and (allegedly — she denies the second part) have sex with her.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, June 10th, 2010 at 8:30 am by Radley Balko
and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
So does South Carolina have open primaries? Because that would explain a lot.
The porno loving felon who hits on young girls in libraries OR the incumbent?
Wait…I’m thinking…(looks at tax bill)…I’ll take the creepy felon.
Life in prison . . . for “forcing” (yeah, right!) a 13 year old boy to touch a breast.
There just aren’t words for the stupidity of the state.
The puritans among us have really ridden this sex abuse hysteria to absurd lengths.
As a male who had a sexual relationship with a 35 year old woman at the age of 13 let me tell you emphatically. This is complete bullshit! There are lots and lots of people like me who have had positive, joyful sexual experiences before the age of 18. You don’t hear about it becuase we don’t want fucking idiots like this prosecutor tracking down those people we still care about and have fond memories of and harming them for sharing something wonderful with us.
To all the puritanical nutjobs out there who keep pushing for these laws please die off like the pathetic dinosaurs you are and let the world move on.
Nothing in this should be construed to make light of actual nonconsentual rape where force or fraud is involved.
Woman gets life in prison for asking 13-year-old-boy to touch her press
Whatever happened to freedom of the press?
And yes, horrible story.
From the NYT article:
“A lot of bad people had gotten rich doing illegal trading with China, while the good people at the state companies didn’t have enough money,” she said. “So the haves gave to the have-nots.”
So, let’s see here…
“A lot of bad people had gotten rich [speculating], while the good people [who got subprime mortgages] didn’t have enough money,” she said. “So the haves gave to the have-nots.”
Sounds kind of like Barack Obama’s idea of utopia to me. I’m having trouble figuring out why the Times is taking such a disapproving tone of Kim’s disastrous economic policies while cheering the same philosophy from Obama.
regarding the reporters enjoying all the cool social events our royalty throw- surely no one thinks this isn’t a calculated move on the government’s part to get the ‘correct’ spin out! most of these reporters seem like the nerds in a john hughes’ movie trying to crash the cool kids’ parties.
That slate article is one of the most disingenous things I’ve read in a while, and from a publication that is usually quite thoughtful. For one thing, the phosphate example is more an example of not explaining the alternatives. People thought “My detergent works well, and they want to ban it. Better stock up.” If you didn’t know or didn’t trust carbonates, then this was a perfectly rational response.
I find the argument about reactance a little specious. Most evidence with respect to alcohol and tobacco finds that an increase in price leads to a decrease in consumption. A 29% increase in the price of drinks will hit those people hard and will hit consumption.
But it pisses people off. After all, most people have their own healthcare, and food is one of those things, unlike smoking, that doesn’t have an externality. If you’re fat and your private insurance goes up, that’s your problem, right?
The real reason behind the “reframing” argument isn’t that otherwise, we could incite reactance. It’s that selling the tax to the public depends on the marketing. What she’s saying is that this tax can be sold as a way of Protecting Our Children while paying Nurses and Teachers. What, don’t you love Nurses and Children?
Most taxes are about “what can I get away with?” In the UK, tobacco taxes are about 3x the total actually spent on tobacco-related illnesses. When asked why he was increasing the tax further, Brown said that it was the one that was the least unpopular. Very few taxes are ring-fenced, that is to say can only be spent on the original reasons included in the sales pitch. This is why.
This article could have been better written without trying to sound like some kind of popular scientist. Here goes. When introducing a new tax, remember the following talking points:
1. I love liberty and the American way of life. And Mom.
2. The new taxes won’t affect 95% of you (as long as you do what we say).
3. The money will keep nurses and teachers on the front lines.
4. It’s for the children.
5. God bless America.
Yet another reason why juries need to be told of mandatory minimum sentences. They never would have convicted had they known a life sentence was the result.
“If you don’t trade, you die,” … wow.
Creepy? Hell yes.
Should it be a crime? I don’t think so.
If social conservatives want to stop women from having sex with underage boys, the simplest way is to deny those women any claim to child support from the boy, even when he turns 18.
South Carolina has all the best political gossip.
Greenwald has become my favorite political op-ed writer on the left. He can turn a phrase and is not a bit hesitant about bashing the Dems when he sees fit. I don’t always agree with his positions (I don’t always agree with anybody’s positions) but he’s almost always worth reading.
Regarding the teacher asking the kid to touch her, I keep seeing a double standard. For some reason I doubt that anyone would be complaining that life is too harsh of a sentence for a 35 year old man that asked a 13 year old girl to touch his ding dong.
Is it suddenly less offensive and wrong because the gender roles are reversed? If anything, at least this makes me feel that abuse laws are being applied fairly (even if the laws themselves don’t necessarily make sense).
From the Yay, Democracy link: “Felons can serve in federal office…”
OK, I’m done wiping the coffee off my monitor now.
The North Korea story is depressing.
It makes everything we complain about seem like picayune whining.
I don’t hope they shoot “Dear Leader”:
I hope they burn him at the stake.
I just don’t understand why everyone views sex as such a dangerous thing. From the religious right to the feminist nazi’s, I just don’t understand how these people can be filled with such self righteousness when they are so obviously wrong.
What this woman did was wrong, but this kid isn’t going to grow up to be a serial killer. He didn’t lose any innosence. I mean, have you heard how 13 year old boys talk to each other? They’re pretty aware of the world around them. How exactly has he been injured? Something tells me that if he suffered any emotional distress, it was from the trial of this woman more than her advances.
I still think that the sadists in this world have to have someone to sexually abuse via law enforcement. Since it can’t be gays anymore, they’re just finding new groups of people to attack.
I believe the only distinction between Greene and most of those currently holding Federal Office is that he has actually been charged…
“Woman gets life in prison for asking 13-year-old-boy to”
Bout time they get tough.
Cases like this increase the USA’s role as world police. By handing out
draconian sentences, we show other countries we are intolerant and unforgiving, thereby enhancing our own moral authority,
which gives us greater clout and ability to bypass the Constitution
and Geneva Convention and other important duties such as
war and hegemony.
Something more positive to start the day:
Coffee owner throws cop out of shop ( http://www.kptv.com/news/23830032/detail.html ): “If there’s a police officer there, I wouldn’t feel safe in that situation. I would feel worried that the officer might Tase the person or potentially shoot them for having a mental health issue.” And the cop respected the owner’s wishes.
Agree with Aashish. I hate the insane penalties we have for anything to do at all with minors and wish we’d have more sensible policies. But aside from libertarian sites like this one, the ONLY time I ever see anyone else complain about it is when it’s an adult female and male child, and that pisses me off to no end! If there’s going to be onerous penalties for an act, at least they are enforcing it fairly across the board.
@#8,
You had me “it’s for the children”.
It IS different. Breasts are better to touch than the ding dong. C’mon, get real.
Also, I would be complaining if a dude got life in prison for drunkenly propositioning a 13 year old girl.
RE: The soda tax article; my interpretation was slightly different, although the article was still by all standards awful. In essence, I saw it as, “Well gee, people get really upset when we tell them what to do. Let’s do it anyways but make sure they don’t think we’re telling them what to do.” Yeah, okay assholes.
Also:
I knew the Washington press corps was scandalous, but never this much!
http://www.kptv.com/news/23830032/detail.html
“The Portland coffee shop booting of cop” story needs more publicity.
Good news all around:
1. Decent journalism without bias: “Langley is a self-described anarchist.”
They didn’t follow this up with calling him crazy, so this is a step forward.
2. The cop who got booted calmly stated that is the right of the shop owner. Don’t know what he said/did off camera, but so be it.
3. Journalist included news that 3 police shootings, a fired police chief, and serious safety concerns about the police by Portland citizens lend merit to the shop owner.
However; badge-lickers immediately signed up to boycott the shop on Facebook.
RE: Slate
we think The Man is trying to influence our behavior.
Yes, and we think that Slate is one of the official organs for such efforts.
#15, I would definitely say that life sentence is too harsh for a man propositioning a 13 YO girl. Forcefully raping her, sure.
And I hate to say it, but I think there is a difference between a girl and a boy in this situation. For what 13 yo boy is that not the ultimate fantasy? Things like this should be judged by harm done, not by some arbitrary standard.
Concerning the South Carolina Democratic Senate candidate charged with felony obscenity, I read the article. Here’s what he did.
He sat down next to an 18-year-old college student, in the college computer lab, surfed to some pornographic sites, called her attention to them, and when she expressed shock and asked him to stop, he laughed and suggested he and she go to her room.
Okay, the man is a bad-mannered ass. But, how is this a felony? She claims that she was afraid because he was big (and black?). But, they weren’t in a dark alley or drunk in an isolated corner of someone’s house party — they were in a public place. What danger was she in?
If a woman in South Carolina flashed me some porn and said, “Come up and see me sometime,” would the D.A. prosecute her for a felony?
The life sentence is the logical consequence of the last 40 years of politicians winning by accusing their opponents of being soft on crime. We get the law we deserve.
# 27 Ray
great point. I especially like how Slate sites “the man”, but then goes on to use the word “we” when referring to their noble altruistic desires.
um, as soon as your flex your “we” muscle against a “them”, you’re “the man”
I liked this quote too:
Most scientific evidence suggests that an increase in price does lead to a decrease in consumption
just so you know, Slate was unable to debunk the rule of Supply & Demand prior to press time. there will probably be more on this later. I’m just glad it still doesn’t apply to housing or health care.
** unrelated note: how do I get font to be bold or italicized?
“Regarding the teacher asking the kid to touch her, I keep seeing a double standard. For some reason I doubt that anyone would be complaining that life is too harsh of a sentence for a 35 year old man that asked a 13 year old girl to touch his ding dong.”
This double standard does not exist to the extent you think it does, in my experience.
I’m staff over at a true crime site. Just yesterday, a member posted a new “hot teacher” story – a 16 year old boy lied to his girlfriend to get away to have a tryst with an attractive female teacher in a Kmart parking lot. While the general consensus was one of disapproval, it wasn’t as vitriolic as one poster thought it should be. “If the genders had been reversed, it would be a lynching around here,” he wrote.
One of our moderators tested his theory and queried for articles in which the roles were reversed. She posted a sampling of 7 such articles and, sure enough, the male poster was wrong. It had not, in fact, been a lynching when the roles were reversed.
Now, that said, there IS a “double standard”, so to speak. I don’t like to use that term, because it insinuates that two fairly identical situations are treated differently based on bias. I’m not sure that older male/minor female IS fairly identical to older female/younger male situations, and I’m not sure that unjustified bias is what drives the sentencing disparity.
Stereotypes sometimes exist for a reason. Based on behavior, we have reason to believe that young men and young women are perhaps wired a bit differently in terms of sexuality. I think of the young men I knew as a teenager, with pictures of nearly nude women plastered all over their bedroom walls, nearly obsessed with sexual matters – how quickly they could lose their virginity, how many girls they could sleep with, etc. This generally is not the case with young women, whose wallpaper heart throbs were overwhelmingly clothed, the attraction seemingly more emotional than physical.
So, if one gender at this age range is wired to be geared toward sex and the other is not as much, this suggests that the sexually-motivated gender would not have to be manipulated to the extent that the not so sexually-motivated gender would be. And this SHOULD reflect in sentencing, because the manipulation is what’s damaging.
With over three years of spending time at this true crime site daily, I’ve seen HUNDREDS of sexual misconduct with a minor-style cases, exhibiting every variation that you can imagine. When the older individual is male, you are much more likely to see brute force, threats or plying the victim with drugs or alcohol as a means to get what they want. This is simply less common when the genders are reversed. As a result, the incident is generally less damaging (or not damaging at all).
In my opinion, it doesn’t matter which gender is playing what role. I’d like to see consentual situations to be sentenced lightly (or not at all). But if an adult is attempting to force, threaten or ply their way into a minor’s pants, that’s when things change – but that would apply to two adults, too. In the absence of violence, though, I can’t even imagine a situation where a life sentence is a reasonable punishment. In this case, it’s an absolute travesty.
If anything, at least this makes me feel that abuse laws are being applied fairly (even if the laws themselves don’t necessarily make sense).
I don’t think it’s fair in any meaningful sense of the word to send a person to prison for life because a minor touched one of their secondary sexual parts. Doing something unfair to men and women alike doesn’t suggest to me that “laws are being applied fairly.”
Stereotypes sometimes exist for a reason. Based on behavior, we have reason to believe that young men and young women are perhaps wired a bit differently in terms of sexuality. I think of the young men I knew as a teenager, with pictures of nearly nude women plastered all over their bedroom walls, nearly obsessed with sexual matters – how quickly they could lose their virginity, how many girls they could sleep with, etc. This generally is not the case with young women, whose wallpaper heart throbs were overwhelmingly clothed, the attraction seemingly more emotional than physical.
Did you not have female friends that read romance novels which can be as explicit as an issue of Penthouse Letters?
Agree with parse. “Equally” does not mean “fair.”
And from here we have to ask what the cause of the harm is. If a 13 yo girl is harmed more greatly in this situation than a 13 yo boy, how much of that is due to our culture telling girls over and over that if they like sex, they’re sluts?
I know of someone (admittedly, it’s a friend of a friend) who’s pretty fucked up because she genuinely enjoys sex and sexual experimentation, and her family treats her like a slut because of it. In that situation, she’s been harmed. Who caused it? The people she’s had sex with, or her family with their fucked up values?
There are genuine differences between genders. But assigning blame in situations like these isn’t trivial, even if we can determine that harm was, in fact, done.
Pretty sad country where Michelle Taylor should have cut the boys throat inside of offered sex (if she did). The puritanism of the United States is sickening. And yes, I blame religion. It’s the root of all evil.
It’s different when a 13 yr old boy is propositioned v. a 13 yr old girl.
It reminds me when I was a 13 yr old boy and I went around soliciting the neighbors for lawn care. A comely 30ish woman in our neighborhood who was mentally unstable answered her door stark naked. I, of course, was pleasantly surprised. She didn’t proposition me, however, she simply stated that her lawn had already been cut (but by the looks of her – that clearly wasn’t true… /rimshot)
Not to be anymore crass than I already have been… that moment in my adolescence drained a few bottles of my mother’s hand lotion.
And I’m a better man for it!!
Cheers.
@ #19 | Aresen
My unwritten point — they’re all felons in my mind. But it is nice of the federal government to be so inclusive and open about it. Kind of like an anti-don’t ask/don’t tell policy.
CinCA
Oh, I know.
From reading your posts since I first visited this site, I kinda got the impression that, should the paysannes storm Congress some day, you’d be there with pitchfork, tar, and feathers. (Not to mention a length of hemp rope.)
;)
Totally off topic of any of the morning links but apparently about 400 DC drunk driving convictions may be getting reversed because all of the DCPD’s breathalyzers weren’t calibrated correctly.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/09/AR2010060906257.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Well at least North Korea has its drug problem under control!
————————————————
Aashish: “Is it suddenly less offensive and wrong because the gender roles are reversed?”
I don’t know, have you noticed that boys and girls are different? If we’re going to demand equal treatment then the 35 year old men get to hit on the 13 year old girls, because I can tell you that having the attentions of an older woman when I was that age would have been highly desirable. So it’s either different rules for boys and girls or people are overestimating the damage done to young girls. Equality for the sake of equality is silly, especially when it doesn’t result in equal results.
#26 | Boyd Durkin
If I knew of a local coffee shop that was being boycotted because it asked cops to stay out, I’d drive out of my way every day to buy a cup from them.
Luciano Aviello has a history of making such claims. They always turn out to be false. Judge Federico Cafiero described him as “completely unreliable”. Aviello’s account of what happened to Meredith is completely contradicted by the established facts.
The fact that the defence teams are relying on the ridiculous claims of a convicted child killer and a convicted mobster shows that they are desperately clutching at straws.
Amanda Knox. I bet she really gets Kafka now. This is not unique to Italy. Getting crushed in the slow moving wheels of “justice” could happen anywhere at anytime to you. Call it the unlucky lottery of life.
Although Knox is lucky compared to the roommate.
Regarding Greene in SC, an awful lot of people are wondering just how an unemployed man living with his parents and facing a felony charge (even if it is bullshit, it is a felony and it’s the fucking SC justice system!), could suddenly get 10,000 and the urge to run for the US Senate…and win the nomination with no campaign, no website, no door knocking and no campaign contributions or filings or records of any sort. The TV interview of him is cringe inducing.
It does look like he got paid off by the other party as a political dirty trick of some sort.
I don’t agree that a life sentence is appropriate, but I’m bothered by any adult engaged in a sexual relationship with a minor. I get that some gray area exists when you get close to the age and consent, but 13 is pretty egregious. Would we be okay with this if the genders were reversed?
I see some people addressed my point and with some interesting statements. While acknowledging that there are certainly differences between males and females, there is also a difference emotionally, socially, developmentally, etc. between an adult and a child. A 13-year-old is still very much a child. A 35-year-old is an adult. Male or female, there is quite a wide gap there. And I’m not saying that every relationship with an age gap is inappropriate. But I don’t know that 13-year-olds have reached a point where they can reasonably consent to a sexual relationship with an adult. Add in the fact that this was a teacher, in a position of authority over the child, and the situation gets even more problematic.
Now, that’s is not to say I’m generally in favor of statutory rape laws. When two 16-year-olds have consensual sex and the boy gets arrested or a 19-year-old gets arrested for having a consensual sexual relationship with his 17-year-old girlfriend, we see how wrongheaded the law is. But I just don’t think a 13-year-old has reached a point of being able to consent. I’m curious to hear more other perspectives on this.
BSK, what do you know of history? Barely over 100 years ago most 13 year old girls were married, a 16 year old unmarried girl was branded an old maid. Frequently, their husbands were in their 20s or 30s.
One of the greatest errors created in the 20th century was the invention of the extended childhood and the idea that we should prevent teen sexual experimentation. We are asking these kids to refrain from sexual encounters for 8 or more years past the point where their bodies are telling them to go for it. (Our government is attempting to extend childhood to cover our entire lives but that’s another issue.)
Sexual attraction knows no age limits, so (IMNSHO) any consensual sexual encounter or relationship should be legal, regardless of the ages of the couple. Any forced or (as Athena put it) plied sexual encounter should remain illegal, regardless of age. And, yes, the severity of the punishment should be tied to the amount of obvious mental and/or physical damage done by the experience.
Windy,
“BSK, what do you know of history? Barely over 100 years ago most 13 year old girls were married, a 16 year old unmarried girl was branded an old maid. Frequently, their husbands were in their 20s or 30s.”
If you’re talking about the United States and closely related cultures 100 years ago, this is complete bullshit. Western Europe and its overseas offshoots have long been characterized by relatively late marriage ages for women and fairly small age gaps between husbands and wives, compared to most cultures.
“Teen sexual experimentation?” We’re not talking about two junior high kids groping each other in a closet. There is a a qualitative difference in the decision-making capacities of an adult and a 13-year old. Life in prison is excessive, but frankly I find the draconian punishment of this woman less bothersome than the indifference, tolerance, or outright approval that so many people display towards female sexual predators.
“Sexual attraction knows no age limits, so (IMNSHO) any consensual sexual encounter or relationship should be legal, regardless of the ages of the couple. Any forced or (as Athena put it) plied sexual encounter should remain illegal, regardless of age. And, yes, the severity of the punishment should be tied to the amount of obvious mental and/or physical damage done by the experience.”
The mental damage caused by sexual abuse very frequently isn’t obvious. That’s often especially true in the case of boys, since 1. they are relentlessly socialized to deny and conceal pain and distress in general, and 2. they know damn well that dismissive attitudes that treat female sexual criminals with a wink and nudge, or with a shrug- such as yours- are the norm.