1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Chris Hanson weeps: Appeals court rules "no actual victim, no actual crime"

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by 2muchcoffeeman, Jan 5, 2009.

  1. cjericho

    cjericho Well-Known Member

    and if the police waited until an actual crime was committed to take action, rather than
    do things to prevent crime, we'd have a lot more victims.
     
  2. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    But would he have to register as a sex offender?
     
  3. cjericho

    cjericho Well-Known Member

    those laws vary from state to state, just like age of consent.
     
  4. Point of Order

    Point of Order Active Member

    I pray this is a direct quote from the opinion.
     
  5. PopeDirkBenedict

    PopeDirkBenedict Active Member

    Only if I was the judge.
     
  6. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    To me, that is a big part of the issue. If being charged with the lesser crime means they don't have to register as sex offenders, then that is a major problem. The most important consideration here is protecting children and those registrations are part of the solution. Parents need to know if there is somebody like that nearby, just so they can watch out for their little ones a bit more carefully.
     
  7. The most important considerations here can be found in Amendments IV through VI of the Constitution.
     
  8. PopeDirkBenedict

    PopeDirkBenedict Active Member

    Do you care to actually elaborate on that point?
     
  9. PopeDirkBenedict

    PopeDirkBenedict Active Member

    Why don't you define it for us?
     
  10. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    You hold on to your ideals. I'll watch out for my kid. Think of it this way. If one of these perverts is stopped now, it is less of an opportunity for one of them to hurt the child of a parent like me, which would most likely lead to more laws being broken.

    I say this making the assumption that even if the person in question is a child molester, it would be illegal to cut the bastard's genitals off and make him eat the evidence. Perhaps I am mistaken.

    Obviously, this post is a tad over the top, but I belive it is an appropriate response your inability to understand that protecting children absolutely must be the first priority in these cases.
     
  11. PeteyPirate

    PeteyPirate Guest

    Pope, you come into these threads with your "law degree" and your "legal experience" and act like you own the place. I'll have you know that I have seen every single episode of Law & Order, so back off.
     
  12. PeteyPirate

    PeteyPirate Guest

    I don't agree. I think upholding the law should always be the first priority for the legal system. Protecting children can be the first priority for their parents, if they wish.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page