Kiddie Diddlers - Bad for the FSP!

[Sam A. Robrin]

I have changed my mind, and would like to say that I was wrong for suggesting that we not assist people convicted or accused of certain criminal acts.  I have two reasons

Wow.  Now I'm feeling all apologetic for my, uh, vociferous enthusiasm. . . .

[SpeedPhreak]

Please do not come here.  I say again, Please do not come here.  Especially if you love the cause of the FSP and Limited Government.

Quite frankly, I do not want the FSP to help sex offenders move here.  I cannot imagine a better way to get the people here to be INCREDIBLY HOSTILE to us.

Tomorrow's Newspaper Article:

Free State Project arranging Sex Offender Moves to NH

In order to reach their stated goal of moving 20,000 government hating, law-detesting people to New Hampshire, they are reaching out to sex offenders.  On one Free-State Project related website, a man who was convicted of committing sexual assault on a minor was organizing help to move to New Hampshire.  ___________, a mother of a young child who lives in Manchester, near Porcupine row on elm street says, "I don't know why they want to bring baby rapists to attack children!  They should be marginalized politically!".  The police chief has said that there is nothing that he can do legally to prevent the Free State Project from organizing an effort to move sex offenders to New Hampshire, but that when the 80% of offenders who recommit their crimes on children here, they will be caught and arrested.

In fact, there is an organized effort by members of the FSP to start a chapter of an organization called "Reform Sex Offender Laws Now!", which opposes "vindictive" punishment of child rapists and is concerned with the shame the rapists feel.  _____________ of Protect our babies from kiddy diddlers, says "They do not have the right to talk about shame, they should imagine the shame that young victims feel after the vicious attacks of these predators.  These attacks haunt children for the rest of their lives, and the predator DARES to be concerned about vindictiveness.  These predators are evil and I cannot believe the Free State Project is supporting them".

____________ of the FSP denies having an official program to assist Child Predators moving to New Hampshire.  He did not mention "unofficial programs".

A. Hack
Newspaper Reporter and Sensationalist

See also:
http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080203/NEWS/80203007

This post does almost nothing to explain what this thread is about.  I honestly have no clue what you are talking about.  Please try to be more clear in the future.

The post was an example of what a news paper article could look like if a SO moved to NH for the FSP.

[DigitalWarrior]

The factors that I have to support jail time for this crime is committing sexual acts upon a person with no legal ability to consent.   It does not matter if the person you had sex with was an exceptionally rational girl from a two parent household, well cared for, nurtured, with no history of criminal activity or acting out.  Simply put, a contract with a 15 year old is legally null.  A verbal agreement between a 15 year old and an adult related to sex is null because she cannot consent.  Sex without consent is rape.  I believe the sentence should be lighter than for forcible rape, but that is where I am.

Radical, I am sorry, this was a comment I made to a convicted sex offender who was asking about moving here.  As I said later, this is no longer my opinion, because while the fear of bad press may be justified, we cannot be paralyzed by the fear that our truth will be twisted by knaves and made a trap for fools.

On receiving unsolicited pictures: I have thought it would be absolutely terrible to have a situation where a bad man kept mailing illegal substances to random powerful people and then turning them in for possession to police when the package was in their hands. "I swear officer, its not mine" says every governor in the US.

I have to say I liked the idea of quoting a hysterical woman shouting through tears "They should be marginalized politically"

[SpeedPhreak]

Thanks for the clarification - let me pose this:

You, I, & the young women in question all live in Spain where the AOC is 13.  Where someone 13 & over can legally give "informed" consent to another person (teen or adult).  Would you still support a felony conviction & jail time?

[Fluff and Stuff]

Thanks for explain the point of this thread.

[DigitalWarrior]

You, I, & the young women in question all live in Spain where the AOC is 13.  Where someone 13 & over can legally give "informed" consent to another person (teen or adult).  Would you still support a felony conviction & jail time?

I would likely support changing the AOC to 16.  It is a guess, because I am not familiar with the culture there.  Maybe I am seeing this issue through the lenses of my experiences and my awareness of the children of that age I have met in conjunction with the little to no research I have done on the topic.  Perhaps there is no ill effect of having the AOC that low in that area, in which case: no harm no law.  I certainly would not say you were not criminal in that case since it was legal at the time in your place and because not all unethical or wrong things are crimes. 

That said I would be surprised to find out that there was no harm from having an AOC of 13...

[Sam A. Robrin]

On receiving unsolicited pictures: I have thought it would be absolutely terrible to have a situation where a bad man kept mailing illegal substances to random powerful people and then turning them in for possession to police when the package was in their hands. "I swear officer, its not mine" says every governor in the US.

ter?ri?ble? ?/?t?r?b?l/ Show Spelled Pronunciation  [ter-uh-buhl] Show IPA Pronunciation 

–adjective 1. distressing; severe: a terrible winter. 
2. extremely bad; horrible: terrible coffee; a terrible movie. 
3. exciting terror, awe, or great fear; dreadful; awful.
4. formidably great: a terrible responsibility.  

That would be terrible . . .


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:

[SpeedPhreak]

I would likely support changing the AOC to 16.  It is a guess, because I am not familiar with the culture there.

So it's OK in Spain (Italy, S Korea, Germany, Iceland, etc..) because it is culturally acceptable?  Is America not the melting pot of culture? How do we decide a law where some people came from places where you can't have sex until after you are married & others come from a place where the AOC is at puberty?  Mobocracy?  If there were no law - Culturally these people could possibly still live w/in their "microculture" they brought here.  Maybe not.

  Maybe I am seeing this issue through the lenses of my experiences and my awareness of the children of that age I have met in conjunction with the little to no research I have done on the topic. 

THAT is perfect - the proof is in the pudding.  The pudding, in your experience, is the Trauma... I can respect that.  However there are cases where there is no Trauma & even benefits - which is why I support a case by case law.  My experience shows what yours does - but it also shows that young teens can be fully capable of making that decision - & some people that are 20 can't.  In my late 20s I dated 4 women that were 17 (my brothers friends) - I only continued to see 1 because the others were not "mature" enough for me.

Perhaps there is no ill effect of having the AOC that low in that area, in which case: no harm no law.  I certainly would not say you were not criminal in that case since it was legal at the time in your place and because not all unethical or wrong things are crimes. 

That said I would be surprised to find out that there was no harm from having an AOC of 13...

Again - case by case.  Just because it is technically legal doesn't mean an act of force or deceipt hasn't occured.  I would go so far as to say most 13yo would have a neg experience either now or later - I would also say that parental influence & preperations have something to do with that.  &  if an AOC is 13 does that mean a 35yo man/woman should go out & do it because "they can" - absolutely not. 

I also remember being 13/14/15 & I would have sold my soul to have sex w/some of my moms friends, friends' moms, & teachers... some of them well into their 40s... I seriously doubt that experience would have negatively effected me.

[DigitalWarrior]

The nature of the rule of law is that our legislative bodies create a formal list of forbidden activities and their punishments.  In a just nation, the purpose of those laws is to prevent force and fraud. 

I also specifically did not say that it was OK in Spain, just that it was legal, as is honor killing in some parts of the world.  I also stated that in that situation I would look at the effect and see if I should advocate the change in law.  I think that different societal situations make for different just laws (quotas in state college admission rates may have been necessary at one time, but cannot be justified now).

I probably felt the same way at that age.  The fact that we valued sex at such a high premium might be reason to suspect that we were not responsible enough to make that judgment, though we might have tried everything in the book to make it happen...  I know now I would have made a crappy father as a seventh grader too.

[SpeedPhreak]

OK I am pretty sure I see your POV on AOC - I hope you see mine.  I'm not trying to change your mind on anything (yet am glad you changed your position already to some degree) I just want my points to be clear.

I think that your statement

The nature of the rule of law is that our legislative bodies create a formal list of forbidden activities and their punishments.  In a just nation, the purpose of those laws is to prevent force and fraud. 

Prevention of force & fraud (albeit usually noble) will repress the will of the free.  You can't base a law on the what mights & what ifs.

IE, IMO, you can't say the AOC is 16 because at 15 you are not ready to be a father/mother.  You can say (again my opinion) the AOC is puberty because that is when nature/creation has deemed you ready for intercourse.

& if it were really about teen pregnancy - then why do some states have close in age laws?  In CO its legal w/in 4 years... so 14/18, 13/17, 15/19, etc.  That is actually worse because both parents would be teens/young.  If I were to get my partner pregnant I have already demonstrated responsibility as a responsible father to an infant.

[J’raxis 270145]

I have changed my mind, and would like to say that I was wrong for suggesting that we not assist people convicted or accused of certain criminal acts.  I have two reasons

First, as was pointed out to me, it is a slippery slope and how long until they in all seriousness declare the lot of us "Terrorists".  While assisting some people might be turned around on us, it would be morally wrong to avoid the right action because it could be misinterpreted.  To paraphrase Brother Kipling "If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, yours is the Earth and everything that's in it and - which is more - you'll be a Man".  I appreciate everyone that took the time to correct me.

Second, kind of like the legal principal of safe harbor for computer networks, we do not concern ourselves with filtering content, because if we did it in one case, we would have to do it in all.  The FSP is a transportation medium, which hopefully carries far more good than bad...

Digital "belly full of humble pie" Warrior

Very nice. Thank you for not only coming around on this topic, but being big enough to post about it.

[DigitalWarrior]

The ability to enter into legally binding contracts should not be given to a three year old who can sign their name in block letters.  Just because he can physically do it doesn't mean he understands it.

I have never heard protection from force and fraud repressing the will of the free.  Is there something I can read about that, because it seems a bit odd to me?

I imagine that if they were both minors, you wouldn't want to punish them as adults, but 4 years is a hell of a spread too...

[J’raxis 270145]

I would likely support changing the AOC to 16.  It is a guess, because I am not familiar with the culture there.  Maybe I am seeing this issue through the lenses of my experiences and my awareness of the children of that age I have met in conjunction with the little to no research I have done on the topic.  Perhaps there is no ill effect of having the AOC that low in that area, in which case: no harm no law.  I certainly would not say you were not criminal in that case since it was legal at the time in your place and because not all unethical or wrong things are crimes. 

That said I would be surprised to find out that there was no harm from having an AOC of 13...

By the way, the AoC is 16 in New Hampshire. It was in the 13–14 range in several U.S. states up until the pedophile panic got into full swing, whereupon they slowly started pushing it upward.

And the first AoC law was passed back in the 1850s in England. It was 10.

[SpeedPhreak]

The ability to enter into legally binding contracts should not be given to a three year old who can sign their name in block letters.  Just because he can physically do it doesn't mean he understands it.

This is a good point - but his ability to not be able to read can be but 1 of several possible traits that would lend to the knowledge he can't enter into a contract.  Also - he is biologically a child.

I have never heard protection from force and fraud repressing the will of the free.  Is there something I can read about that, because it seems a bit odd to me?

From Wiki -

Law - is a system of rules, enforced through a set of institutions, used as an instrument to underpin civil obedience, politics, economics and society. Law serves as the foremost social mediator in relations between people.

Liberty - the freedom to act or believe without being stopped by unnecessary force. In modern time, is generally considered a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the ability to act according to his or her own will.

So by definition they are opposite - inversely proportional. Every law acts to suppress the will of someone.  I don't personally use drugs - I personally am unaffected by anti-drug legislation - but it is wrong & I oppose it because people who enjoy drugs are being denied their free will.

From - http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/duke/040121
There sure is a way freedom can be measured and it's really quite simple: a nation's degree of freedom will be inversely proportional to the number of laws it has enacted. In other words, the more laws you have the less free you are. This is because a law by definition is the removal of a freedom; it states that there's something you cannot do or something you must do. And, needless to say, if there's something you cannot do, you're not free to do it — if there's something you must do, you aren't free to do otherwise.

I'm not suggesting, though others may, that we live with a complete absence of law.  However, it needs to be very limited.  Thou shall not murder (or initiate force), thou shall not steal, anything other than that really is personal/parental responsibility.  I would support prison for real child molesters & rapists because it is an initiation of force... denying them choice.

Liberty means responsibility.  That is why most men dread it.  ~George Bernard Shaw

I imagine that if they were both minors, you wouldn't want to punish them as adults, but 4 years is a hell of a spread too...

According to you a pregnancy is a rather large "punishment" - an adult sized one.  Even 13/13 getting pregnant would leave them with an adult sized punishm... result - regardless of court.  Therefore if both are capable of producing an adult sized result (infant) they should be considered adult enough to make that decision for themselves.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

And the first AoC law was passed back in the 1850s in England. It was 10.

Wow.