If you think that “following the money” means that those with whom you exchange money have a duty to report it to the government, then we are going to have to agree to disagree.
It’s “statute” not “statue”, and the reason for it is to protect defendants accused of crime. Are you opposed to it in general, or just in cases where child abuse is the allegation?
- Protecting America from the evils of liberal sexuality
If he’s a man of integrity, the world could use less integrity.
1 Like
Sure, it’s never worked before and, sure, it hurts a lot of people and, sure, we look like a perfect counter-example of how to live…
…but if we don’t follow Evangelical Christian rules, we’ll all become terrible sinners!
Or something.
I really hope America grows to love reasoned argumentation, in which both parties respectfully consider the other’s position, and maintain a healthy respect for factual common ground.
- In a single term, “critical detachment”. The ability to consider facts and arguments even when they don’t support your preferred conclusion. It’s not easy, but it’s the path to peace.
I won’t be holding my breath.
1 Like
I wonder if the defense used ‘secrecy’ as a way to convince some of them to write the letters: “nobody will ever know, the letters will not be released to the public.”
oops.
3 Likes
So you think there should be some ability to track finances but not financial transactions?
1 Like
There should be reasonable cause to believe that a crime has been committed first.
For example, if there are credible allegations of embezzlement, or blackmail, or bribery, that’s a perfectly appropriate reason for law enforcement to ask for a warrant and, if granted, to see if the suspect’s patterns of financial transactions support the allegation.
It’s very different to require banks to report all cash withdrawals above a given level to the government when absolutely zero allegations of crime are present.
The clear implication is that choosing to make cash transactions is in and of itself cause to believe a crime has been committed, and if our judiciary had respect for our civil liberties (yeah, I know…) such a warped concept would long since have been ruled unconstitutional.
There was. A bank reports all currency transactions above 10G, but transactions it finds as suspicious require a separate report.
A bank is a party to the transaction, and regulated. What do you find out of place?
Also, a bank reporting cash movement above 10G is a far cry from reporting all cash withdrawals. BTW the rule applies to deposits as well.
Usually these tools sweep up small-scale criminals, that a large-scale criminal was caught up in one out of his own personal ignorance is a real bonus. Most large-scale criminals aren’t dealing in cash but, politically, in influence and other trappings of power.
2 Likes
I suppose a country could raise the age of consent to 25, but they’d end up with most of their population breaking the law (teenagers are going to fuck, laws can’t stop that). Instead, why not amend to law to specifically exclude relationships where one party is in a position of power (eg a teacher) of the younger party?
1 Like
If you haven’t done anything wrong, you shouldn’t have anything to hide.
2 Likes
The problem isn’t teenagers having sex with each other, though, which I’m sure you know. It’s adults (and no, not 18 year olds sleeping with 17 year olds - I’m talking people like Hastert) having sex with (or more correctly) raping teenagers. But you’re right that it’s about power, because rape is always about power.
7 Likes
Yeah, I’m mentally translating “four as a highschool wrestling coach” to “30+”.
But he’s such a good guy.
3 Likes
The fact that America got along just fine without this law until 1970, without turning into Somalia, or Mad Max.
Hmm. 17 is there legal age of consent in my state.
While I don’t think there’s always a 1:1 ratio on it, I do think there is a large correlation between how much a given politician (or other public figure, really) screams about “family values” and how likely they are to be engaging in the acts they’re decrying. (The loudest, of course, verge into the non-consent territory.)
2 Likes
So this is awful, but I feel like this type of story and the discussion happening in this thread plays into a kind of GOP-bashing / implicit support of Democrats. The two sides of this equation don’t form a 1:1 relationship but the relationship is definitely there. But you know, this hypothetical headline would be equally true:
“Leading Democrats support Obama, who blows up babies”
I’m just saying, perspective.
Thank you for perusing the warm, sticky damps to find these sullied gems. Cognitive dissonance is one hell of a drug.
1 Like
And 16 is the age of consent in many states. Which gets exactly to my point: would it be “pedophilia” in some states and perfectly normal in others? Can we just agree that it’s super creepy and very illegal to coerce your students into having sex when you’re a coach/teacher and leave the “little boy / pedophile” labels out of this?
3 Likes
I think the finances of every representative of the people should be publicly audited, investigated, scrutinized, and otherwise gone over in excruciating detail when they’re in office and for the rest of their lives, regardless of whether they’re accused of a crime or not. There have been enough cases of criminal conduct to suspect every last one of them. This is a real case where “why should you be worried if you haven’t done anything wrong” really makes sense.
2 Likes
Two things often said by a friend who prosecutes sex crimes:
-
“He’s not charged with not going to church.” According to my friend, just about every single person accused of molestation has several (sometimes dozens) of people who stand up for them at sentencing and talk about how great they are, how they went to church, how they offered to babysit for free, etc. etc. I’m forced to conclude that the emotional pain caused by believe that someone you know and like is a child molester is enough to drive most people into deepest denial.
-
“We value the liberty of adults more than the health and well-being of children.” Again, everyone talks about how much they hate child molesters, but when they’re on a jury, suddenly they’re bending over backwards to find something they can call reasonable doubt.
Given the above, I’m not one bit surprised to find a huge fucking line of people springing to this creep’s defense.
7 Likes
