In My Memory

Thomas Kirby, I think you're reading it out of context. According to the article: First, Its a sex crime because its written as such in the law. It is impossible for the court to "reach for a way to make it look like a sex crime", because he is either guilty or not guilty of unlawful restraint of a minor (which happens to be a sex crime). It doesnt work by saying this man is guilty of unlawful restraint, then trying to add the sex-offender label after-the-fact. Second, you are reading some comments out of context. When the court mentioned "his actions are the type that are 'often a precursor' to a child being abducted or molested", they arent saying they believed this guy was going to molest the little girl. What they were doing is taking the time to review this law, to see if such a crime really needs to be sex-crime - the court decided it was a fair law with a serious rationale (that being its a precursor to more serious crimes) without need for revision. Here is a visual diagram of what happened: Part 1: First court trial Is the guy guilty of unlawful restraint of a minor (which happens to be a sex crime)? [x] Yes [ ] No Part 2: Appeals court trial Should unlawful restraint remain as a sex crime? [x] Yes [ ] No Raging? No, I'm as nice as a kitten, I swear. But, I like to encourage critical thinking - however, it just seems unusual that so many people think the judges actions were out of the ordinary (and, I've seen elsewhere on various blogs people claiming this judge was acting unconstitutionally), but that isnt true. Also, a lot of people believe this law has no rationale, or that this law was hastily written, or that certain effects of the law can be avoided in certain circumstances, or that the law wasnt subject to some kind of review, but that isnt true either. Although I could see how anyone would be upset with the conclusion, just take the time to understand the details, and its obvious there is really nothing to question about the actions of the judge. The only real place for debate is whether the appeals courts actions were correct, whether they should have ruled that the law was fair in its present context without need for revison. I am, to a certain extent, giving the benefit of the doubt that the appeals court knows the law better than I do, and that they have good reason for not amending a special "whereas restraint was sexually motivated" clause to it. However, as far as I'm concerned, the appeals court did its job, and the law is upheld in its current form, so there is little room to debate whether this law is practical or not. Its when you are uncritical that your brains turn to mush, then you start watching FoxNews, and that's bad ( ).

Pangloss, I think it may just come down to the fact that the BBC is writing for real people, and real people just dont care about academic definitions. As an example, just take a look at the social connotations that overcame the words socialism and fascism. Academically, these words mean "having to do with the distribution of wealth and opposing vast bureacracies", and "prioritizing the interests of the state rather than the interests of individuals" respectively. Both words have a completely neutral meaning, neither positive nor negative. But, socially, these are dirty words, very dirty words with dirty meanings that are dirty dirty dirty. "Terrorist" is the new dirty word, and due to social stigma it no longer has anything to with violence to achieve ideological goals - now, the word "terrorist" singles out arabs, painting them as criminals. If being academically responsible means inadvertantly fueling racism, perhaps the BBC wants to have nothing to do with. (This is only my speculation )

Anyone who sets off bombs to kill civilians is a terrorist. But I think the BBC's censoring the word "terrorist" - if it has any rationale at all - is to avoid feeding the flames of an anti-Arab witch hunt.

Fuel Pod, Almost all of those things are mentioned in Sayonara's Link' date=' almost verbatim:

I always wonder where that whooshing sound comes from when space ships zoom by. And this isnt really science related, but there are lots of movies where a computer genious shows a blurry or pixelated image on screen, then clicks a button and magically produces a crystal clear image. The only way this can be done is by blurring an image, then pressing the "undo" button - but, the way its portrayed in the movies, it simply isnt possible to add any more detail than the resolution allows.

Thomas Kirby, Have you read anything written in this thread? He would be impeached, fined, and in the worst case scenario removed from his seat as judge, because judges dont have the leeway to circumvent laws that they dont like (as an example, just take a look at Judge Roy Moore when he tried to do just that). No, the entire reason the guy was "persecuted" was because he grabbed the girl and wouldnt let go. That is a crime, and that makes him a criminal. You cant grab others children and hold them at any time, not when you walk past kids on the street, not when you're on the bus, not when you've nearly hit one with a car, never. Thomas, understand this: the news article cited in the opening post is a slanted account. It was written to obscure the fact that everything the judge did was entirely consistent with the law, that the mans actions were indeed a crime, and the man recieved a completely fair trial and fair appeal. (Believe me, if someone wanted to, they could slant the article the other way by calling it "jerk with road rage picks on little girl"). In several posts, and nearly 1500 words, you seem to have written so much in this thread without even a vague familiarity with the facts or what they mean. Please take the time to re-read through this thread, there is lots of useful information. Otherwise, you are playing right into the authors hope that you would be simply too uncritical to see past the spin-doctoring.

I think our courtrooms try their hardest to achieve something close to an Ideal Observer view - which would be a single judge who has no biases, who is completely rational, completely competent, who has appropriate understanding of laws and their application, who weighs his or her decision by considering all the evidence completely and fairly. Meaning, the most fair trial would determine a party's guilt or innocence based on whether an Ideal Observer would be convinced of their guilt or innocence. (Short of omniscience, this standard is the unachievable but the ultimate ideal.) So, what it comes down to is how closely a trial by jury comes to this ultimate ideal. Thats a good question. A trial by jury is undoubtedly better than "if she floats, she's witch; if not, she's innocent". But, there could be better alternatives to a jury trial in its current form, such as replacing all the biased uninformed laymens on a jury with a group of specially trained experts and examiners.

CreatnScienc, That is the definition of "theory" in everyday speaking - however' date=' that definition has nothing to do with the way scientists use the word "theory". A theory in science is a large group of related facts, observations, and laws to describe natural phenomena (think General Theory of Relativity, germ theory, gravitational theory, plate techtonics theory, theory of electrolyte solutions etc.) If you want to talk about science, use its terminology in a scientific context. Evolution makes lots of testable conclusions, it is demonstrated every year when we observe bacterial resistance to antibiotics and insect resistance to pesticides, and it has been demonstrated in the lab (see here). According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Creationism, "true science" is defined according to a few characteristics:

Pangloss, I'm not a legal scholar (only a legal dabbler ), but I think some case precendents might be found in how far judges are allowed to deviate and be creative with the sentencing structure. As far as that is concerned, the amount of deviation has been limited very much in some recent Supreme Court rulings. On Blakley v Washington, according USAToday - Supreme Court starts term with prison sentencing rules: This is about mandatory sentencing, but it suggests a judges ability to circumvent the certain guidelines in handling criminals is limited. More relevant cases would be those limiting a judges ability to selectively apply certain laws to individuals. Can the judge apply certain laws to some people, but not the others? No, of course not, as an established precedent in Kansas v. Snelling: As far as I'm concerned, this is why I dont join the rest of the SFNers in claiming this ruling as silly. (Besides, not only is this ruling valid enough constitutional grounds, but its really really practical to prohibit judges from selectively applying law.) However, on the scope of the 8th Amendment and Sex-offense registration, there is more than enough precedent to see that the 8th amendement rights are protected even with the use of the sex-offender registry: Sex offender registration statute does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment: Illinois Judicial Rulings Revisited:

Husumen,

Swansont, Not in this case, because sex-offense registration was not a part of his punishment or sentence, but was a result of the mandatory registration laws following his conviction.

Douglas, Hmmmm... I have a hard time reading what you're saying literally, because to me it means that you are allowing the judge room to circumvent the application and punishments of particular laws he doesnt like. In this case, because the conviction of the man required his mandatory registration, if the judges of the original trial or appeal had ruled any differently, they would have been circumventing the laws penned down and definitely overstepping their boundaries. The judicial body exists to see that laws passed by the congress are fairly applied, so the judges actions were essentially correct and should not be in dispute. Laws involving minors are a special case. There are really lots of different offenses that arent usually sex crimes with adults, but are when they involve minors, which includes kidnapping, abduction, murder, manslaughter, and in some cases child endangerment (source). Phi for All, I'm going out on a limb, but perhaps this law was written as a sex crime for cases where pervs get their rocks off by grabbing children and holding them against will. According to the original article, the man appealed his registration, but the appeals court ruled against him. Apparently the appeals court believes there is enough rationale behind this law that it should still remain a sex crime without necessitating that the law include some kind of a "sexual intent" amendment.

Paradox, It has to do with the big honkin' sun in the sky constantly raining down energy into our system. Life is an open system, constantly taking in energy from the sun*. Analogously, its like seeds growing in the ground. Seeds need to constantly take in energy from its surroundings to grow and develop, otherwise the seed either does nothing or it decays. (If we were to accept the creationist misconception that simple things cannot build up to larger things, then growing things should be an act of God.) * Note: there is creationist strawman that "shining light onto a dead plant does not cause it to become alive again" - these kinds of comments are so silly that they dont even merit refutation.

Dave, It has nothing to nothing to do with political correctness, its just the way the law was defined. According to the judges very own words from the article:

I believe in turtles all the way down.

... says he whose dirty lymricks could make even a trucker turn red

Its not that, its just everyone is sending flirtatious PMs to one another

Oh no! :-(

Actually that one is a joke' date=' its not a real phobia. Lots of "phobias" are created as word games, sometimes for their irony value like that one above. See Wikipedia - Phobia List for many examples of "phobias" that arent actually phobias.

According to the article: According to Illinois Meagon's Law Legislation: So, it looks like the ruling is consistent with Illinois law, and I cant really find a good reason to challenge it. (I could imagine that most people would argue that "unlawful restraint" isnt a sex crime, but that is a red-herring argument because it doesnt deal with the actual facts or ruling of the case.)

Schrodngr's_cat knows the location of the secret map, he's just the guy to save Lance.

Pangloss, The purpose of these flag-burning bans isnt to protect the flag, its to rouse patriotism when politicians are in a perpetual state of campaign mode. These flag-burning bans come along everytime the Republican party begins to lose popularity, it gives a really easy opportunity for politicians to say "I love the flag more than anyone else, vote for me". Besides, its virtually tradition every year for the House to pass this amendment and the Senate to vote it down. By the way, I found an excellent commentary on flag burning, from the Chicago Suntimes - Don't worry, Old Glory can take the heat: I like that

Phi for All is for everyone, his nemesis is Psi for None. Now in palindrome form: eno yrev e rofsi lla rofi h, phi for all is for everyone!

Its almost 4 AM (I should be in bed!)

YourDadOnAPogos is short for "YourDadOnAPogoStickOhMyGodLookAtTheSizeOfThatThing". 'benson yourdadonapogos' anagrams to 'Good Day! Up snob on reason.' You know, I bet we could win a 10,000 post race if we started a thread called "Thread Killer", where the last person to "kill" a thread (i.e. be the last poster on the thread before it falls of the front page). Or start a lymrick thread, or a three-word-story thread, or create postbots to post en masse for hours.