it’s not really clear. blood, urine, etc. can be drawn without 5th amendment violations, since they are “non-testimonial.” i’m fairly sure a penis could be examined under the same conditions.
a 5th amendment defense would, as far as i understand it, come down to whether having an erection counts as speech, or more precisely “expressing the contents of one’s mind.” i lean toward ‘yes’, but i don’t have a good argument. however, if donating huge sums of money to a political candidate to ‘express your approval’ counts as speech, then getting a hard-on probably should too. it’s just another way to ‘express approval’, after all.
Now, there’s a question. Can We the Internet somehow spread a rumour, based on this case, that the prosecutor is gay (assuming it’s a male)? That could resonate with his base there as well.
Fingerprints, lie detectors, and even DNA analyses are being challenged in courts today. They want to introduce “face recognition” software as evidence now?
This is truly a question posed from ignorance, and IANAL.
What would she need to do to communicate her wishes to the court? Does an un-emancipated minor in that part of the world have standing to file an Amicus Curiae?
If she were somehow able to communicate her wishes to the court, and basically say “Don’t press charges!” would that create any obligation on the part of the prosecutor to follow her wishes?
And also:
If the prosecutor really needs a picture of a dickhead, he need look no further than his last selfie.
Couldn’t the doctor refuse on the grounds that it’s a needless medical procedure that has physical and psychological risks? The parents need to make it clear that they intend to sue any doc that does this.
Of course the kid might as well jump in front of a truck…his life is over. There is no possibility that he will not spend years in jail and decades in part-time employment. He can forget school, or church, or marriage. I’m glad I live in a country where this kind of idiocy is not rampant.
Compelling a minor to have an erection against his will is rape twice over in any commonsense definitions of the word. And common sense seems to be what’s entirely lacking in this case. There’s no possible good that can come out of this prosecution and loads of possible harm.
This decision is the sort of thing an AI would do on (some futuristic sex-related version of) Star Trek, so that the viewers could all think, “Glad I’m a human being with a sense of proportion and we don’t make stupid decisions like a computer would!”
And while I’m being indignant, I also think any doctor who agrees to give this injection should be struck off the medical register.
You clearly missed my point, and also decided to pull quote me hoping that other people wouldn’t read what I wrote. That’s pretty uncool.
So to clarify for you:
They’re prosecuting the boy, also a minor, who sent photos, but not prosecuting the girl — who sexted first by sending the boy photos. It was the girl who initiated the photo exchange. We just don’t know the content of her photos. As a I wrote in another comment, my best guess (based on the the verbiage of the Virginia statute) is that they’re leaving the girl alone because her photos contain no identifying marks. That’s why I mentioned them “not prosecuting the girl”.
What I meant by the girl not speaking up, is that she hasn’t spoken to anyone at all. Sure, she’s not under any obligation to do so, but her - also a minor - boyfriend, is currently being threatened with (yet some more) heavily invasive behavior on the part of the law. Since no one is prosecuting her, she could have the decency to speak out on his behalf to the public. He could use that support.
P.S. It’s a statement, not a question.
EDIT: So no one else else worries for david405: He privately apologized and explained he wasn’t trying to say anything bad. I accepted the apology, and we moved on. (I did misread his statement, and he did use my statement out of context.) I’m leaving this up so that anyone reading what he wrote doesn’t apply his question to my statement. He was asking about her speaking to the court. I was talking about her speaking to the public - a teacher, counselor, or the press. Clearly her parents and the police haven’t been a great help.
Yeah, what he should say to any doctor involved is, “This is without my consent, and if you perform this procedure, I will not only sue you, but will do my best to publicize the fact that you, by name, deliberately performed a procedure to give a teenage boy an erection against his wishes for absolutely no medical reason. How badly do you want to keep working in medicine?”
Some guys use an injection called TriMix. I’ve never used it, but apparently you literally stab a needle into your penis and inject the TriMix, then it keeps you hard for hours. Even after you cum, you just walk around with an obstinate boner all day. It’s not common, exactly, but it’s not unheard of.
The whole story has the ring of a press conference by someone who has no idea what they’re talking about. I feel like there’s a deputy sheriff in a back room somewhere smooshing up some blue pills in a mortar with a bottle of 5-Hour-Energy and hoping for the best.
Yes, this. Prosecutors will do anything to scare people into pleading guilty because they know they don’t have either the time or (most likely) the evidence to prove anything in court.
The preponderance of sadomasochistic d-bags now employed as legislators, law enforcers, prosecutors, judges, military members and other positions of “authority” is a problem that demands remedy. I have some ideas as to how to proceed, but this seems to me to be a problem demanding a cornucopia of solution-types.
But let’s target the sexual sadists first. Those demanding women subject themselves to state-order rape via invasive transvaginal ultrasound probes and these deviants discussed in the article who exploit legal terminology and their power to intimidate as means to indulge themselves in premeditated sexual violence.
I for one welcome the end of policing which will result from this paradoxical chain of events. Now stick with me on this –
Let’s say the police detain the 17 year old male, inject him with Spanish Fly, and take pictures of his erect penis. They show these to judges and lawyers and juries in order to prosecute him for yada yada yada whatever.
Besides the crimes of giving him a boner without consent, the police are also creating child pornography of an underage male, and trying to disseminate it. Anyone who willingly looks at it as evidence during the trial is guilty of possession or use of child pornography. They must be brought to justice.
So then two dozen more police and prosecutors, another judge and another jury, will be needed to prosecute everyone involved in that previous round. Unless the participants in this second round of trials take action to avoid seeing the evidence, then they are guilty of possession or use of child pornography. They must be brought to justice.
Repeat as necessary until there are no more cops or judges.
