Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: This is absolutely ridiculous. But hey it is the damn U.S.

  1. #1

    This is absolutely ridiculous. But hey it is the damn U.S.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/surpr...fender-2013-10

    #2 Visiting a prostitute. While former New York governor Eliot Spitzer does not appear to be on New York's sex offender registry, patronizing a prostitute is considered a "registerable offense" in the Empire State. Until recently, some prostitutes in Louisiana could be registered sex offenders, too.

    I can understand a pedophile, a rapist or some other sick sexual deviant but this is absurd yet not surprising.

  2. #2
    For people who so obsesses about sex, they seem to be enjoying very little of it, the americans. Sad.

  3. #3
    God I fucking hate the media.

    This publication uses the word Business in its title, but it is just sensationalist shit.

    Here is the New York Law:

    http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/nsor/sortab1.htm

    If a person takes a further step and reads all of the details and googles each statute, a person finds that the listed patronizing a prostitute offenses for the sex offender registration requirement all involve the prostitute being less than 17 years old.

    The two felonies that are cited involve soliciting a prostitute 14 or younger and eleven or younger (the 11 or younger is more serious, thank god).

    The "high" level midemeanor that is listed includes patronizing any prostitute, but sex offender registration is only required if the "victim" is 16 or less, according to the footnote.

    It took me 5 minutes on Google to find this. The reason Spitzer is not on the list is that Ashley and the others he saw were 18 or over.

    The writer of the article knew this, but his statements were the "literal truth". The sex offender registry includes patronizing a prostitute. The writer omitted the part about it only involving prostitutes that are 16 or younger.

    The writer said Spitzer is not on the list. That is the literal truth, but the writer omitted the reason. It is not because he is a bigshot; it is because the ladies were 18 or over.

    God, I fucking hate the U.S. media more than the lawmakers who do, in fact, often write bad laws.

    The Louisiana law the writers mentioned was a terrible law. It was partially fixed, but not retroactively. So a lot of ladies got left out of the fix and are still on the registry.

    The ladies who are on it are almost all African Americans who offered anal sex.

    A lot of southerners do not like black people or anal sex, since they dislike homosexuals. So they really hated these ladies.

    I am not in love with the South, but I think things are slowly get better there. The U.S. media does not get better; it gets worse with the sansationalist bullshit.

  4. #4
    Supporting Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    57
    Some of those southern states are still living in the 1800's. Its truly unbelievable how messed up some of their politicians are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Numerati View Post
    http://www.businessinsider.com/surpr...fender-2013-10

    #2 Visiting a prostitute. While former New York governor Eliot Spitzer does not appear to be on New York's sex offender registry, patronizing a prostitute is considered a "registerable offense" in the Empire State. Until recently, some prostitutes in Louisiana could be registered sex offenders, too.

    I can understand a pedophile, a rapist or some other sick sexual deviant but this is absurd yet not surprising.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by erotq View Post
    Some of those southern states are still living in the 1800's. Its truly unbelievable how messed up some of their politicians are.
    The problem goes well beyond prostitution. Normal sex in the south, as defined by statute involves a penis in a vagina. A penis inside another orifice is often a serious deviancy under their laws, which is what happened to the Louisiana prostitutes who were sex offenders with required registration. The law I believe has since been changed but not retroactively. For some fascinating reading, google the Generlow Wilson case. He was a high school student wiith a promising future who received oral sex and prrformed intercourse on camera from a younger high school student in Georgia. He received a long prison sentence with sex offender registry primarily because of the oral sex. People were outraged and the law was changed but not retroactively. Finally he was released from prison and not required to register as a sex offender when the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. Not only are US sex laws ridiculous, and are actually enforced in a ridiculous manner, but the tendency of people to use their cell phones to provide evidence for the prosecution is not exactly helpful to the defense.

  6. #6
    ebonylover retired...
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Patron View Post
    the Generlow Wilson case.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson...ate_of_Georgia

    ...
    Oral sex has long had a special criminal status in Georgia law; until 1998, oral sex even between husband and wife was punishable with up to 20 years in prison
    ...

    F*$k'n unbelievable ...

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Visiting Planet Earth
    Posts
    4,160
    Gentlemen,

    Quote Originally Posted by John S. Black View Post
    Liebeck's attorneys argued that at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C), McDonald's coffee was defective, claiming it was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment.
    I remember laughing hard when I heard about the start of the lawsuit. I knew some people at the time who worked in fast food places who told me a number of times how people will send back coffee because they don't think it's hot enough if they don't see you pour it for them. I've seen it happen too. So making a lawsuit that it's too hot was laughable when anything suspected of being any cooler meant sending it back. I could see if the container was defective, but it seemed ridiculous to sue when the customer fumbled it and she was given what she asked for.

    Quote Originally Posted by John S. Black View Post
    us law is a lot different from here
    thank god

    over there they sue if you look at someone the wrong wayl
    My only legal case experience was a positive one. The lawyer was helpful and cut his fee to suit the amount of work he did instead of taking a percentage of the amount I received. But the U.S. is a very litigious country in part because of the huge emphasis on rights and legal support, and in part because of ambulance chasing lawyers and people who either don't understand what the law is meant to address or deliberately try to exploit it regardless of understanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patron View Post
    The problem goes well beyond prostitution. Normal sex in the south, as defined by statute involves a penis in a vagina.
    Well, first of all people here shouldn't be branding "The South" for archaic legal codes when the situation also exists in other areas and other countries. Whether Southerners are generally a little more prissy/archaic in their views about sex also depends on individuals and specific regions. Many are quite modern in thinking and attitudes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patron View Post
    He was a high school student wiith a promising future who received oral sex and prrformed intercourse on camera from a younger high school student in Georgia. He received a long prison sentence with sex offender registry primarily because of the oral sex. People were outraged and the law was changed but not retroactively.
    If the Wiki is accurate I have a problem with the idea Wilson was just innocent as some seem to suggest. If you are a promising student don't be stupid enough to allow yourself or put yourself in a position to be video taped performing any kind of sex on anyone, especially someone is in no condition to give consent.

    Still, the way the law was written to block any reflection in the final judgment of the actual circumstances is ridiculous. The whole idea that anything but vaginal intercourse should get people registered as sex offenders is nuts. Follow through on that and soon people would find themselves commonly living next to sex offenders everywhere, if not being labelled one themselves. How then could anyone distinguish between adult consensual sex and real sick dangerous predators.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patron View Post
    ...the tendency of people to use their cell phones to provide evidence for the prosecution is not exactly helpful to the defense.
    You could also say this tendency has lead to conviction of real criminals and without it these criminals would have gone free. It's a double-edged situation that has led to real offenses being successfully prosecuted.

    Still, are you suggesting it was wrong to provide evidence of sexual intercourse on an incoherent and likely passed out person? Are you suggesting turning off to coverup? I think it's a blessing that some are too foolish to realize recording offenses then passing them on is providing evidence. These archaic laws need to go, but that doesn't mean there aren't real offenses being committed on these recordings.



    Merlot

  8. #8
    Merlot, I do not like to brand or stereotype, but most all of the recent sexual cases that piss me off, including the recent Kaitlyn Hunt one in Florida and several teacher - "student" cases like Ms. Culp and Ms. Feenstra, come from Florida, Texas, Georgia and Louisiana. A lot of Southerners are just fine as people, but I have a beef with the police and prosecutors in these states when it comes to sex cases. I just do not read these stories orginating in regions outside of the south. And the hypocrisy is rampant. I am completely fine with Sen. Vitter of Louisiana having seen prostitutes in his life - this is a john discussion board after all. But how can people re-elect him in that state and tolerate that a group of former sex workers are on the sex offender registry merely because they engaged in anal sex?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •