Friday, January 7, 2011

All is well

Another one I got via Mel at some point:
...the Wisconsin Supreme Court [has] upheld an order for a 17-year-old to register as as sex offender, even though he committed no sex crime. The youth forced another 17-year-old to accompany him to collect a debt. This was enough to convict him of falsely imprisoning a minor, which the Wisconsin legislature has defined as a sex crime.
Isn't this wonderful! Wasn't I foolish to be concerned about the Supreme Court (the Big One that time) ruling that people can be held indefinitely, even after their sentences end, if they're determined to be sexually dangerous?

The Wisconsin legislature defines "falsely imprisoning a minor" as a sex crime. What else is defined that way? What else will be?


Richard said...

There are so many things wrong with this story. Jesus.

Jack Crow said...

Many DV charges come with "false imprisonment." It's already used fairly extensively there.

My lawyer handles those sorts of cases. It often, depending on the State laws in question, allows the prosecutors to deal up and down on spousal rape.

davidly said...

Well, hell, existence is a sex crime; we should all be locked up!

JM said...

There's discussion of it here:

Couldn't they make these laws regarding "sexually dangerous" people to actually apply to, you know, actual rapists, convicted pedophiles, etc?

Ethan said...

Richard, I know. I had planned to write more about it but I realized I wasn't so much writing as sputtering so I deleted it.

Jack, "deal up and down on spousal rape," though I think I know what you're saying, is a terrifying phrase.

davidly, at first that seems like a joke, and then it doesn't. Hah.

Jenny, the thing is, once they've got these tools they're going to use them. The instant you set up a class of people who need to be on this kind of "registry" is the instant people start working on expanding the definition so that more people fit into that class. In this context, your "etc." is, well, symbolic let's say, despite your obviously innocent intentions in using it.

Also, this may strike some as odd, but please be careful with your words. Pedophiles are people with certain desires. Child molesters (if we even must create these categories and tiers, but I'll give it to you for now) are people who have made certain actions. And while some people are both pedophiles and child molesters, others are just one or the other. Assign morality to it as you please, but regardless of how any of us feel about it, it's a Venn diagram situation.

The reason I'm being so careful on this point is this: the moment we start talking about "convict[ing] pedophiles," we're talking about criminalizing desire in the absence of action. We're talking about thoughtcrime.

Soj said...

I'm sorry to inform you but reading this blog is now considered a sex crime so please register yourself at your local precinct.