What part of statutory rape doesn't Dershowitz understand?
I challenge my readers to distinguish the cases, as a matter of constitutional law. I did not suggest that it is moral to have sex with a 16 year old, but rather that the issue presents a constitutional conundrum worthy of discussion. 2/
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) July 29, 2019
He is seriously wondering this?
What you are arguing for is a constitutional right for ADULTS to have sex with 16 year olds, not the other way around.
— Pé Resists (@4everNeverTrump) July 29, 2019
Dershowitz is a lawyer who teaches at Harvard and was part of Epstein's defense council that got him the sweetest deal ever. A woman has also accused him of raping her during the time he was palling around with Epstein and Trump. Maybe he is worried about something coming down the pike?
He attacked her, challenged her to bring a lawsuit. Called the victim a prostitute, liar. But then he called her a "bad mother"-and she said bring it on. She's going to take him down.
— dawn harden (@dawnharden1) July 30, 2019
Wait there's more...
Epstein case: judge agrees to keep documents on 2008 plea deal secret
A judge in New York has granted a request from prosecutors to keep secret documents relating to Jeffrey Epstein’s controversial 2008 sexual abuse plea deal, on the grounds that the materials could hamper their investigation of others in the financier’s milieu.
The documents, which will be shared with Epstein’s attorneys, are believed to concern not only the deal itself, which allowed Epstein to plead guilty to low-level state solicitation charges, but also a clause that granted immunity to any and all potential co-conspirators and named four women suspected of facilitating or participating in alleged crimes against minors.
The documents may also shed light on the 2008 deal, which was kept secret from accusers for nearly a year in what some claim was a violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Controversy over the deal forced the resignation earlier this month of the US labor secretary, Alex Acosta, who was US attorney in Miami at the time.
In a court filing, prosecutors with the southern district of New York argued that the materials could “affect the privacy and confidentiality of individuals … [and that] would impede, if prematurely disclosed, the government’s ongoing investigation of uncharged individuals”.
The order is only one of several signals that prosecutors plan to widen their investigation into what they allege was a (decades) years-long scheme to recruit and sexually abuse dozens of girls.
Here is some more information about Dershowitz and his op ed and allegations against him for rape.
Dershowitz suggested that the age of consent should be 15 years old.
In a 1997 op-ed, Dershowitz argued against statutory-rape laws, writing that “there must be criminal sanctions against sex with very young children, but it is doubtful whether such sanctions should apply to teenagers above the age of puberty, since voluntary sex is so common in their age group.” He suggested that 15 “was a reasonable age of consent, no matter how old the partner was,” according to Bruck.
Dershowitz has a history of smearing victims …
Bruck unearths some of Dershowitz’s writing that clearly engages in victim blaming, long before he was disparaging the credibility of his and Epstein’s accusers. Of the 18-year-old who accused Mike Tyson of rape in 1992, Dershowitz, Tyson’s defending counsel, wrote that she “was hardly the naive virgin she pretended to be,” calling her “a sexually active young woman who hung out in nightclubs.”
When he began helping attorneys hired by Jeffrey Epstein, Dershowitz assailed the character of the dozens of young women who accused Epstein of abuse. Bruck reports he “presented a selection of posts from MySpace, in which the girls recounted experiences with alcohol or marijuana … as evidence that the girls were ‘not to be believed.’” He was especially focused on an accuser identified as “A.H.,” who said Epstein had promised to help her get into NYU, and included snapshots from her social media accounts. “She, herself, has chosen to go by the nickname of ‘pimp juice’ and the site goes on to detail, including photos, her apparent fascination with marijuana,” Dershowitz wrote in a letter to detectives, which he claims someone else composed.
… including his own accusers.
Dershowitz used the same tactics to attempt to discredit his own accusers once they came forward. There are currently two women who say that, at the direction of Epstein, they were required to have sex with Dershowitz at Epstein’s properties in Florida, New York, and elsewhere.
Virginia Roberts Giuffre says that Epstein had trafficked her to powerful friends including Dershowitz, whom she claims she had sex with at least six times. After her allegations went public in 2011, Dershowitz leveled a slew of insults against Giuffre, who was 17 when she met Epstein, including that she is a “serial liar,” a “prostitute,” and a “bad mother.” Giuffre has sued Dershowitz for defamation.
One more..
Two women claimed they were forced by Epstein to have sex with Dershowitz while on the wealthy financier's private island in the Caribbean and at his New Mexico ranch, which Dershowitz denies, accusing the pair of lying.
One of the women, Victoria Roberts Giuffre, is suing Dershowitz for defamation, assisted by her lawyer, David Boies. She alleges that she was underage when coerced into having sex with Dershowitz, who in turn says she is lying for money and that he has exculpatory evidence.
"[Boies] has nothing 'cause I have him on tape admitting his client was wrong, simply wrong, and that she couldn't have been in the places she claimed to have sex with me," Dershowitz claimed to Fox News host Laura Ingraham during her show on Thursday night.
"Each of the two accusers had said I didn't do it, and then they met David Boies and he changed their minds. So they committed perjury after meeting David Boies. There's no coincidence about that. Look, Boies has about the worst record of ethical charges and ethical alleged violations of any prominent lawyer in American history."
Dershowitz said he has a theory that Boies is projecting. "David Boies has a terrible reputation for sexual activities and I've issued a challenge to him. And, look, I've had sex with one woman since the day I met Jeffrey Epstein. I challenge David Boies to say under oath that he has only had sex with one woman during that period of time," Dershowitz told Ingraham.
"He couldn't do it. So he has an enormous amount of chutzpah to challenge me, and to challenge my perfect, perfect sex life during the relevant period of time. He's doing it for money. He claims he's doing this pro bono, he's already earned enormous amounts in fees from the same people, and I'm sure he intends to earn more fees."
Dershowitz concluded: "So, I'm going to beat him and I'm going to beat him bad."
Comments
Translation: the FBI is covering it up
"Intelligence" aka you scratch my back...
Lost in translation?
No that isn't what the point of this essay is. It's that Dershowitz is arguing that he thinks that since girls can get an abortion at age 16 then they should be able to consent to having sex with an adult. I read that 37 states require girls under the age of 17 to get parent's consent if they want an abortion.
Not sure how you came to this conclusion from what I wrote.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
He's nuts.
Not only that, but this shows that he's a crappy lawyer.
The right to abortion, as held by SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade, is based on the implied Constitutional right to privacy pursuant to Griswold v. Connecticut.
The age of consent is a completely different legal concept. It's based on the premise that minors lack the capacity to meaningfully consent to sexual activity, especially with adults (hence the "Romeo and Juliet" exceptions for sex between teenagers). I don't know of any lawsuits or court decisions that have challenged "age of consent" laws on Constitutional grounds. I wonder, what part of the Constitution does Dershowitz think guarantees children the right to sexual activity?
Young girls can become capable of pregnancy at age 10 or earlier. The logical inference from what Dershowitz is saying is this: since a 10-year-old is Constitutionally guaranteed the right to get an abortion, an adult cannot be put in jail for having sex with said 10-year-old.
Personally, I say let these creepy privileged sociopaths continue to show the world who they really are. The masks are falling off. (And there's nothing but a rotten mess underneath.)
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
I'm glad to hear there is a "Romeo and Juliet" exception
because the last time I looked at statutory rape, it was being used primarily by irate parents to punish 18-year-olds who were having sex with 16- and 17-year-olds.
Good to know that that has been addressed.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
It's a state by state thing
Each state has its own laws. Some may not have "Romeo and Juliet" exceptions.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Excellent comment
You explained this very well. Thanks
,
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Well, I'll give you a real life example of injustice.
One of my co-workers' adopted son started a sexual relationship with a 14 year old girl when he was 16. They got caught by the police three years later. He is now 19 and she is 17. He was charged with statutory rape. I hope they can plea down to a misdemeanor lewd conduct or some such. (They were caught having oral sex).
The law is unrealistic to claim that people are helpless brainless children then magically become responsible rational adults the moment they become 18. Maturation is a continuous process that occurs at different rates for different people.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Half your age Plus Six. Minimum.
Rule of thumb I've been working with for years. And the last thing I or my daughter needs is to be accosted by fifty year old men who feel fine about it because "They ruled it's legal now!"
Honestly, I'm appalled but not surprised. This particular slippery slope has been being greased for a long time by TPTB. Looks like they had to push a little sooner than they expected.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9r_j4Fp9KU]
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Force is never legal.
Half my age plus six is 43. So it's statutory rape if I had a 42 year old lover?
There is something to be said that menarch is the dividing line. No, most girls aren't emotionally mature at that time. Some wont be when they are 20. Some never will be. Same for bys, maybe more so. At least it would be better than an arbitrary age.
IIRC, Henry VII's mother was a wife at twelve and a widow at 14, giving birth to Henry posthumously.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
That is the Islamic standard... might as well.
I'm certain that my dislike of the practice of child marriage to secure property is based solely off my western imperialist hypocrisy.
Maybe I should move to Utah, I understand they do something similar in the FLDS church. Might as well get ahead of the curve. After all, people raised in a cult are making their OWN decisions, and anybody who disagrees with that is of course just hypocritical and intolerant of other ways of life.
/snark
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XrVzTCr_PY]
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
About Margaret Beaufort
Worse - at 13. She was not physically ready to have children yet, so Henry was the only child she ever had, despite a grand total of four husbands. (She was a nasty piece of work herself, but she didn't deserve what Edmund Tudor did to her.)
Shakespeare had some rather sharp words about excessively-young motherhood, and that in "Romeo and Juliet" to boot. He seems to have been of the opinion that fourteen was "too young" (and Fr. Lawrence even expresses concerns that the pair was too immature to know what they were getting themselves into, but sees the relationship as a slender hope of forging peace between the feuding families - which it does, at a terrible cost).
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
I read a quote from Shakespeare to my teenaged grandson
It was something like: "Those between the age of fouteen and four and twenty are only fit fot stealing, getting wenches with child, and aggravating the ancientry."
He responded with: "I don't steal, Grandpa!".
I rebutted with, "How about aggravating the ancientry?". He got an evil grin and said, "That's how I get my fun!"
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
This Epstein story
is so weird. As I look on from the sidelines, I am gobsmacked by some of the names dragged into this case, and the accusations made against them.
Starting with Bill Clinton, and especially so soon after going through a year of public humiliation about his sex life wrt the Monica mess. Count me skeptical as to illegal conduct or covering up for same.
Ditto for Dershowitz. And he's no slouch as to his knowledge of the law and constitution. Half a century teaching at HLS. I would not underestimate him, as with his spirited personal defense here.
Never also underestimate the ability of the MSM (here The New Yorker) to tell only one side of the story and engage in smear tactics. Didn't we just go through 3 yrs of MSM lies and one-sided slanting of stories wrt Russiagate? The New Yorker was right in there with that McCarthyite mob. Lies and more lies.
Oh, and I see the names of Al and Tipper Gore. You have got to be effing kidding me. Al and Tipper??? The Eagle Scout and Miss Goody Twoshoes? Laughable.
But for some people, if it's a woman making accusations in the sexual misconduct area, they must be automatically believed, no questions asked, at least in the twitter and online world.
However, according to AD, it would be wise to look into the credibility of some of these accusers. And their attorney, David Boies. Dershowitz makes some strong allegations against the legal and personal conduct of Boies, making AD vulnerable to a major defamation lawsuit if there is no substance to them. I'm inclined to believe there might be some there there as AD suggests, but base this mainly on the defamation lawsuit angle. I do not see AD as the type to recklessly throw charges around, especially against another powerful lawyer who would be familiar with defamation law.
My two cents on the sideshow circus (no comment on the underlying charges against Epstein himself).
Seriously?!
This is not new.
This information has been available to the public for a long time now. I personally have read things about it for the past several years.
It's not simply a matter of what alleged victims say. There are flight manifests for the "Lolita Express", showing who was on board. There are accounts by Secret Service personnel assigned to Bill Clinton. There are first person reports by visitors to Epstein's island, describing things that went on there.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
You aren't the first person to tell wokkamile about Bill
and his many trips on Epstein's plane. Not even the second, but apparently he still believes that the evidence against Clinton is just made up because Starr didn't find anything about this when he investigated him. The flight logs were after Bill left office right? Or most of them were so I don't see how Starr could absolve him if he wasn't looking into it. Oh wait. Both Starr and Dershowitz were Epstein's lawyers and maybe Starr did find out that Bill had flown on his plane and that was why they worked so hard to give the other players immunity.
But yeah Epstein's charges are just like the bogus Russia Gate ones. Must be why the Miami Herald did that extensive investigation into Epstein and was able to back up the facts. Same as Whitney Webb with her investigation into the people involved with Epstein.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Yes, and how good
is the information available to the public for a long time? As good as all that R-gate information available to the public for a long time? How about the information available to the public for a long time re Julian Assange and the assault charges in Sweden? Oh right -- JA is a good guy, so we apply the presumption of innocence to him and are very skeptical of the charges, but not to terrible people like Izrul-loving and Clinton-backing Dershowitz, and the lousy, no-good Bill Clinton, signer of the Welfare Reform Act. Just a coincidence I suppose that the attitudes about the cases closely track the political opinions of the commenters.
Evidence: Rather than rely on the accuracy of newspaper accounts, I would like to see important evidence like the flight logs tested carefully in a judicial proceeding. How accurate are they, good to go at one point but not at time of flight, signs of alteration, etc.
And there is the plausibility of it all: how likely is it that Bill Clinton, so soon after Monica, would decide to essentially go on record with flight logs and Secret Service hanging around, not to mention probably many other witnesses, and decide to have an orgy fling or engage in a little underage activity? Ditto for the careful and savvy lawyer Dershowitz. And one accuser stretching the bounds of all credulity by alleging the presence of and meeting with Al and Tipper Gore about the same time. Thanks, but I'll keep my powder dry for now, pending further developments.
I leave you now and you now will write it. You will interpret it. That's your right. But as I leave you I want you to know- just think how much you're going to be missing.
You won't have [wokkamile] to kick around any more, because, gentlemen and ladies, this is my last post conference in this thread and it will be one in which I have welcomed the opportunity to test wits with you. I have always respected you. I have sometimes disagreed with you.
But, unlike some people, I've never canceled a subscription to a blog and also I never will.
/
Two words
Flight logs.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Re whether a minor
can be prohibited by the states to get an abortion absent parental consent, while I'm not a lawyer, my understanding is the Court has ruled such laws unconstitutional unless there is a legal bypass available to the minor to avoid the consent requirement. Parental involvement laws, however, which only require notification of one or more parents about the minor's abortion, are held legal.
That said, while AD might have an interesting, if very unpopular, argument to make on constitutional grounds for minor consent to sexual activity, the focus for me is on the current charges against him and other notables and how that is playing out. His highly controversial essay will have to go on the back burner for now.
Again..seriously?
First off this
The accusations against Dershowitz goes way back before the metoo crap that people like to use as an excuse to say that women just like to accuse men of sexual harassment for shits and giggles.
Unbelievable..I really can't say here what I would like to. You think that maybe we should have a constitutional amendment so adults can have sex with girls? What would the age cutoff be? 15? 10? 5?
Ugh and ick!
ETA. Are you aware that Dershowitz got Epstein that sweet deal of 18 months in a laxed prison instead of him doing serious prison time for being a serial pedophile? And the deal came with hiding the other people who took part in it?
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
I think the constitutional
I think the constitutional question is a simple one. If a sixteen year old can consent to sex with another 16 year old, why can't he/she consent to sex with a seventy year old? Pretty strong argument for age discrimination. Equal protection under the law.
Poor 70 year old!
Or is it the other way around? Poor 16 year old being legally deprived of her dream come true?
Which states allow a 16 year old to work full time/overtime? Or get an auto loan? Or enter into a rental agreement? Or quit school without somebody facing truancy charges?
Centaurea beautifully described the apple and the orange of the argument in her comment.
And age discrimination protection extends to the workplace, not the Lolita Express.
For what it is worth, I have defended one statutory rape case, one assault (offensive touching of a child for sexual pleasure), one juvenile accused of aggravated sex of a child (6 counts), and one sexual assault (both adults). I am sure there are more, but that is all I can think of at this moment. And one thing I found out is that if you attack the victim as some whore, in front of a jury, the judge will hold you in contempt and throw you in jail. The prosecution, which had no semen sample, no DNA, used the child's change in behavior toward men to tend to show the assault occurred. I asked her if she had boy friends. What kept the Texas Ranger in the courtroom from hauling me to jail is that the judge believed I meant if she still had friends who were boys, and how old were they. Very close call.
Dersch would get a taste of a county jail if he went after the women here claiming sexual assault.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
@on the cusp Those have nothing to
Those have nothing to do with the constitutional question, and you should know it, if you are a lawyer. I can't believe you would not see the constitutional issue. Doesn't mean I would like the outcome. But explain to me if a person can consent to sex with a sixteen year old, why can't that person consent to sex with a seventeen year old, or an eighteen year old, etc.
If the state says you can't give consent until you are sixteen, shouldn't that consent apply to anyone over the age of sixteen?
Let's hear your constitutional argument rather than your bullshit.
I hope to see you in court on this one day.
A person(70 year old) can choose to screw a sixteen year old child, a sixteen year old cannot choose to make their dream come true to screw that Handsome 70 Year Old Man. Your argument has been beaten down over and over.
It is CAPACITY. How much decision making about sex do you give the kids while you limit them on every other contract, protections, and mandate of behavior? Do you have no boundaries about age and sex? Capacity and consent?
And you called me out for bullshit?
And I am a licensed lawyer since 1986. And you?
Does it need saying that I find your input into this comment thread bizarre or did you realize it was bizarre when you wrote the comments, or did you know it would be received that way when you typed it ?
I practice in Texas.
Where do you practice?
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
@on the cusp I was licensed in
I was licensed in Texas in 1977 and practiced there till 96 and moved to Tennessee where I practiced till six years ago.
I guess your point is that it is constitutional to prosecute a seventy year old man for something a seventeen year old man can not be prosecuted for.
Is that your argument? Because that is where Derschowitz is likely going.
@davidgmillsatty Absolutely.
Absolutely.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
@on the cusp Now we are
Now we are getting somewhere. This is a 14th amendment issue. Let's see what you got for case support? I will tell you now why this is just blatantly obvious to me. About ten years ago I was the sole plaintiff in a case attempting to stop computerized voting. My argument was that urban counties in my state permitted it and other counties, mostly rural, still voted with paper ballots. My argument was the urban counties did not have the same voter protection as rural counties because the rural counties had a paper trail and could verify the votes and the urban counties with their paperless computer voting could not. Two disparate systems with vast voter protection ramifications.
I took the case to the TN Supreme Court who denied writ. The appellate court decided that I did not have standing to bring the case. There was never a finding that I had not made an equal protection case.
In doing this case, I read just about every equal protection case in the country that I could find. And this case just jumps out at me the same way that unequal voting systems did.
So here is the pertinent analogy as I see it. Your seventy year old dad and your seventeen year old son are having what appears to be consensual sex with a sixteen year old female. Your dad goes to jail and your son isn't even questioned much less prosecuted. The only argument I see you making is based on the fact that you think your son's act is normal behavior and your dad's act is an act of sexual deviancy.
Here is the problem for the Supreme Court. Does it conclude that the state has a right to prevent acts of "sexual deviancy" between consenting adults or does it conclude that the state does not. If it does, well then sodomy laws, and other similar laws which much of the public considers to be deviant behavior, become clearly constitutional. And it could very well be a 5-4 decision like Bush v. Gore with unexpected members of the court voting for or against equal protection arguments.
Well, 16 is not an adult.
Your argument is obviously valid if the female human is 21.
The other side of the argument is if the 16 year old is a child without the capacity to give consent, she can't give consent to the 17 year old either. Making him a rapist and heading for juvenile court just as if he tore her clothes off and forced her while she was screaming.
The real problem is that most laws and in this area in particular have no common sense.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
@The Voice In the Wilderness Consent is
Consent is always a huge issue in all kinds of cases. Lawyers grapple with the problem of consent in ways the public never gets to see. It is a ubiquitous problem. As soon as you make a statutory bright line then immediately there are a myriad of exceptions that will pop up and make the bright line look ridiculous. But it is damn near impossible for consent to be on a case by case basis because that gives no notice to the public. Statutes don't provide much notice because most non-lawyers don't read them. Non-lawyers almost never read cases.
@The Voice In the Wilderness What if a
What if a 21 year old female is non-compos mentis? A mentally incompetent person can never give consent as a matter of law. So how do you know when a person is mentally incompetent?
That's why fixed rules can't work.
A jury has to interpret the facts. There has to be wiggle room in the rules.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
@davidgmillsatty Let me flip it. You
Let me flip it. You go first with your case, sir.
I have nothing to defend until you do.
Go for it!
Give us all some cites to support your position, and see how that works.
I can't wait, sir!
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
@on the cusp You want a list of
You want a list of equal protection cases? You can't google? You are the social justice warrior in this case, not me. But if you give me a few days, I am sure I can come up with a list of equal protection cases for you to read.
@on the cusp Do you want me to
Do you want me to give you a link to the fourteenth amendment as well?
@on the cusp One other thing.
One other thing. You could make my job much easier if you would just go back and read Bush v. Gore. I am sure you remember. The case that supposedly has no precedential value but every one cites anyway. The case where all the justices who hated equal protection somehow learned to love it and where all the justices who had always loved it somehow learned to hate overnight. Do you remember that case? The one where Gore decided he would cherry pick a few counties for a recount rather than ask for a recount of the entire state? I haven't read it in awhile, but if I recall correctly there were beaucoup citations regarding the equal protection clause.
And of course, our boy Dershowitz wrote a prominent article about the equal protection analysis being a total abomination in that case. You can google it, I am sure.
I'm sure that you would be just fine with your daughter
having sex with a 70 year old man right? The reason why the law is in affect..oh never mind. If people need this explained to them then I'm at a loss for words.
BTW. It's called statutory rape.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
@snoopydawg Whether I like or
Whether I like or dislike a law has nothing to do with its constitutionality. I am a retired attorney. I don't need your condescending attitude about statutory rape. I get it.
You may hate the idea of a 70 year old person having sex with a sixteen year old. Personally, I don't like the idea at all; in fact it disgusts me. But that is our sense of morality, and morality and law are not the same things, and for good reason.
You are a lawyer and don't know why
It's wrong for a 70 year old or anyone over whatever the age of consent is to have sex with someone under it? This is where the statutory rape law comes into play. And I'm not a lawyer. No morality and law are not the same. You can be charged for when you break the law. I'm not arguing about the constitutionality of the law, Dershowitz is. I don't agree with him.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
I wouldn't want her to have unmarried sex with anyone.
Should that make it illegal? My right as pater familias?
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
So does that mean that
16 year olds should now be allowed to enter into contracts as adults? What about that whole legal thing that makes distinctions for rational adults to make legal decisions then? My own mother was deemed legally not competent due to the morphine she was on while in hospice, should that be legal now as well? I'm doing a poor job here but I'm sorry, I do not think most 16 year olds can truly "consent to have sex with adults, be they boys or girls. But hey, let's use the constitution to argue for that right....
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
@lizzyh7 Then change the age of
Then change the age of consent to 20 or 25 whatever you think is the age that people should be old enough to consent to have sex with anyone.
Of course you will say that is not practical. But my response would be that it is clearly constitutional.
Again you are ignoring capacity
Right now the law has drawn a firm line on what age young adults become adults with the legal rights to enter into legal contracts. A person over the age of consent who has sex with a person under it can be changed with statutory rape. Why is this hard to understand? I have no idea what you are arguing here.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Pretty piss-poor argument
for age discrimination.
But hey, feel free to take it before SCOTUS. Maybe you can find a young teen who wants to have sex with old coots to be your plaintiff. (More likely, it would be the old coot who would seek your representation, because he's the one who would be arrested, not the teenager.)
Speaking of age discrimination, what about 12-year-olds? Where are their rights? Or heck, if age shouldn't matter, infants?
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
That infant smiled and cooed, amirite?
How can equal protection apply to persons with capacity, and persons without capacity?
I don't think 18 years of age is arbitrary.
Most statutes of this nature are based upon committees, getting doctor's testimony, psychologists/psychiatrists, and educators.
I think the 18 year mark has been studied, tested, studied again, and that there is consensus.
If the equal protection laws were successful in removing the sexual bar, it would also remove the protection against child labor. Not a legal argument I would take to the Supremes.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
@on the cusp You are not
You are not Derschowitz. It seems like the age of consent is based on the argument that most people think it is immoral for an old person to have sex with a person under the age of sixteen. Sodomy laws were based on morality as well. They are pretty much gone and probably would not stand up to constitutional scrutiny because of the morality basis for their existence.
And morality is the point Derschowitz was making.
And neither are you.
You might aspire to be just like him, but you have a long way to go.
And morality was specifically not his argument.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
@on the cusp I don't like the
don't like the guy. Birds of a feather with Woody Allen, another guy I don't like. But for a lawyer, you sure don't mind making ad hominem attacks. Do you do that in court? What he was saying is that he is being targeted on grounds of morality not legality.
This story wouldn't be a story if this was about a thirty year old man and a sixteen year old female. It is a story because Derschowitz is seventy or thereabouts.
That is incorrect.
As has been stated numerous times in this thread, "age of consent" laws are based on the premise that minors lack the capacity required to consent.
There is a big difference between an adult engaging in sexual activity with a minor, and two adults engaging in mutually consensual sexual activity, including sodomy.
That difference is consent. Sex between an adult and a child is not mutually consensual. The reason is because a child is not capable - cognitively or emotionally - of giving consent.
Do you seriously believe the Supreme Court of the US is likely to declare otherwise?
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Do you really beleive that?
Do you really think a sixteen year old doesn't have the capacity to to know what's going on? Did you think that when you were sixteen?
Some are. Some aren't. Some still aren't at 60 to judge from yahoo.com comments and speeches from Republican Senators.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
@Centaurea Dershowitz' point
Dershowitz' point was that we are totally inconsistent with the concept of consent. You can give consent for an abortion but not for sex? I remember a similar problem during the Vietnam era. A man at 18 could enlist in the army and die for his country but could not vote till he was 21. Now they are trying to make enlistment age even lower.
These are not new problems by any means.
Statutory ages for consent are fraught with problems because people do not mature equally. But if you make consent a case by case thing, then no one knows when the age of consent actually is.
And Dershowitz' other point is that this really is not about consent at all. This is about an old guy having sex with a teenage female who knows what the fuck she is doing. And he is being targeted when the same thing would not be happening to a young man a few years older than the female.
Do you know who the woman is?
She was preyed upon by Epstein when she was younger then raped by him and allegedly Dershowitz. Some of the girls were as young as 14.
No he isn't. If there were younger men than Dershowitz at the parties they too would be accused of statutory rape.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Nothing sacred about 18
In Italy it is 15. IIRC in France it is 16. And I'll bet some places don't even have the concept of "age of consent". In primitive societies it was age of menarch and when can that boy kill an antelope all by himself.
Why is it disgusting for 70 year old to have sex with a 14 year old but not with a 24 year old? Age difference? How about the 24 year old and an 80 year old?
Don't tell me about 10 year-olds and infants. They are not sexually mature and neither are all 14 year-olds or even all 17 year-olds (although that is pretty rare).
EDIT:
One of my wife's friends had a Down's syndrome child. I think he passed away around age 33.
He was a good boy, but still a young child when he died. I would not agree that he was mature enough to agree with anything ever in his life.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Excellent observation
We should be aware that emotional maturity and intellectual maturity often improve in tandem but this is certainly not the usual case. Especially in males, emotional maturity comes after intellectual maturity. There is therefore a mixture of biology and morality, a very difficult set of objects to reconcile.
I don't consider
my remarks above as terribly controversial. Again, I offer no opinion on AD's self-described "controversial" essay referenced above -- I glanced at it briefly, then had to abandon it as it's too hot here to do much deep constitutional thinking. I merely said "interesting" -- as an intentionally vague descriptive which could also be taken in the "we live in interesting times" way. Hard to say more until I've read it more thoroughly. And my views deliberately said nothing about the central Epstein character.
I try to be consistent about these crime allegation stories splashed all over the media, and try not to prejudge and tip the scales because of political bias or personal preference. I want to see evidence that holds up, is considered alongside the denials and counter-evidence. Constantly repeated charges in the MSM, even so-called investigative pieces in the Miami Herald, which I have not read, are not the end of the story nor perhaps even close to the entire story.
Take the widely, repeatedly reported sexual allegations against Julian Assange -- received with near unanimous skepticism in left quarters, including me. Dubious, sketchy and contradictory evidence reported in the MSM -- this is not entirely unlike what I've seen in the circus surrounding big names in the Epstein affair.
I need to see more and better evidence, including a testing of the so-called evidence surrounding the flight logs and Bill's presence on the plane at key times going to specific destinations. Iirc, Dershowitz said the Secret Service has denied Clinton was on certain controversial trips.
I think AD also might be on to something in his charges against accuser atty Boies. I would bet on his side anyway, given how strong and specific they are, and potentially libelous if baseless. Highly doubtful such a high-powered atty would be so reckless. That's my hunch and a bit of reasoning.
As to AD's previous representing of Epstein, it's the ethical duty of a lawyer to make his best effort -- zealously represent his client before the court, not just phone it in because he suspects his client is a bad guy. And it wasn't AD's decision ultimately to hand out to Epstein the kind of light sentence he got. Dershowitz was under no obligation to argue for a tougher sentence that would meet the demands of some in the public, even if a majority -- that's what happens with defense lawyers in totalitarian states. He shouldn't be criticized for adhering to state bar-driven ethical standards.
So, Holocaust Denial standards of Evidence, Got it.
After all, don't those supporting Nazis have the duty to defend their client to the best of their ability?
Shouldn't we remember that they were acting legally, in accordance with precedents?
After all, aren't those making the accusations clearly motivated by their desire to smear the alleged perpetrators?
Let's keep in mind that American Business profited heavily from the relationship with the accused, and bringing that up is in quite poor taste.
/snark
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
@detroitmechworks So comparing evidence
So comparing evidence or lack thereof to holocaust denial is the way you argue? Can't come up with anything more intelligent to say about the evidence or lack thereof?
Which questions am I not allowed to ask then?
Which ones am I allowed to ask? If You want to claim nothing happened, and that Epstein never shuttled those girls around then the argument that the Age of consent is unconstitutional is bullshit. If on the other hand you're claiming that the crime needs to be constitutionally nullified because the age of consent is unconstitutional...
So of course, all of the accused can't be tried until that's decided... so that will be a long process while they all sit around and file motions and charge by the hour.
Please detail how the court room needs to be set up in order for the accused to be fairly tried. I'm certain that it will mean a long stay for him in jail since there are SO many motions, which of course would be unfair to keep him in there, since he hasn't actually been PROVEN to have done anything wrong, so of course he'll be let out to continue his very important work on behalf of young actresses. And of course he should go home on the weekends.
Maybe get a massage or two from a girl who you have no business asking the age of because the fact that it's a private matter between two consenting adults. At least that's the argument he's making in court, so you better not object when he does it...
/snark
In other words, this is bullshit, the lawyers know it's bullshit, but they're getting paid to pretend it's all good. Fuck those assholes. They think it'll never be their fucking kids being bought and sold so they don't even bother with the protections. I mean, those child labor laws are so stupid, aren't they? What if a child WANTS to contribute to their family?
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
@detroitmechworks I have never even
I have never even mentioned Epstein in my comments to this post. So far I have only been referring to Derschowitz's tweets or communications.
My complaint is specifically about your use of "holocaust denial" as a term of insult to anyone who challenges the facts as you have stated them. It is nothing more than an ad hominem. It is the equivalent of calling someone a fucking idiot for challenging your recitation of the facts. It does not help your argument one itoa. It is just a form of bullying.
Keep calling me polite names, and I'll keep throwing rude ones.
And we're all just going to pretend this isn't about who it's about? It's all just a theoretical question?
Bullshit. There's only one pedophile on trial right now and we all know who it is. Pretending that this is a question of equal protection under the law is just a convenient dodge of responsibility.
Since we're on the subject of legalizing child prostitution, how are we with legalizing other forms of child labor? Are you good with child soldiers? The US government is, because they are quite happy throwing a 17 year old into a war zone. Clearly a girl should be able to sell her body, same as a male.
Oh, and you're not getting an apology, so quit fishing. I in fact invite you to complain about me loudly and cruelly. Please tell everyone how I'm a bully. I frankly give less than a fuck. However, I will say that your argument and Dershowitz's are quite disgusting on a moral level, but I freely understand that human life is cheap these days. Might as well let the kids get top dollar for their assets, eh? That's the good old fashioned American way. Sure some of em might not be mature enough, but that's not the law's business. If they're dumb enough to sign the contract, they owe the cash!
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
I have not defended Epstein at all on this thread
I have not even mentioned him. I only have discussed Derschowitz. The two men are being accused of entirely different things. I have only discussed the constitutional issues I think Derschowitz is raising in his case(s).
It does not logically follow that my comments about Derschowitz apply at all to Epstein's case, because Epstein is accused of entirely different claims or crimes.
Your comments are classic guilt by association logical fallacies.
As for me calling you names, you must be thinking of someone else unless you think my comment that you were using that tactics of a bully when you denigrate someone then I guess so. But that appears to be your tactic.
You can stop playing victim any fucking time, sweetheart.
I shall never bother you or your threads again. We are officially done. Please show me the same courtesy from this point on.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Since you said that you haven't read the Miami Herald's
articles I don't think you can accurately state this.
The first series written a few years ago showed that Epstein's lawyers did run the show. They were able to pressure the government lawyers who wanted to protect some of the others involved with Epstein. And the charges against Dershowitz were made at the same time girls were accusing Epstein so he not only got the best deal for his client, but for himself. How much do you know about Epstein's sentence? Just curious.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
I didn't represent the various and sundry predators
because they were constitutionally guaranteed the right to do what they were accused of doing.
I represented them because they had that constitutional right to put the government to the test of proving their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (Clear and convincing proof standard in the case of the juvenile accused of serial aggravated sexual assault.)
Dersh had way more motive to cut the sweet deal, bury the case from expanding, that I did.
He did an excellent job for Epstein. Amazing. Good for him.
Now, he is under fire, and is searching for his own constitutional defense.
FUCK HIM.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Did you forget
to consider that the prosecution side may have had a motive to reduce charges and play ball -- such as, for instance, the typical one: knowing the weakness of their case? This is AD's view. He said he regretted not getting a better deal for his client.
But in any case, the Dershowitz haters, fueled by their hatred and suspicions, have him running the show and dictating settlement terms to the prosecution and court. Quite a remarkable feat for a defense attorney, even one from Harvard.
please stop with this
calling people haters of someone is a way to shut down the conversation. I don't see where I or anyone said that hate Dershowitz. That he is saying that it should be okay for a 70 year old man to have sex with a 16 year old girl because she can decide if she wants an abortion is what this is about.
You are working with half the facts if you haven't read the details of the plea deal and how Epstein's lawyers were in charge of deciding what the terms of the deal was and not the prosecutors. This was a travesty of justice in most people's views because 40 girls accused Epstein of rape, but he was only charged with one count of prostitution and sentenced to 18 months in prison. He was then allowed to leave for 12 hours every day 6 days a week to go to work and when he was in prison he wasn't behind a locked door. He also was allowed to have a massage whenever he wanted. This was not justice in any sense of the word.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
@snoopydawg A defense attorney
A defense attorney's job is to get his client the best deal possible. If the prosecution did a lousy job of prosecuting the case, that is not Derschowitz' fault or Epstein's fault.
There are people who suspect that Epstein got a sweetheart deal because he either was an informant or an intelligence agent for the US or Massad or a perhaps even a dual agent, (lots of people caught in Epstein's honey pot with huge potential for blackmail) in which case the prosecution would have been under immense pressure to be lenient.
That seems to be the most plausible explanation for the leniency of his sentence.
Philip Giraldi, who is ex-CIA says Epstein was a Massad agent. Of course you must consider the source and the real possibility he was an agent for both. I am not sure I buy Giraldi's argument that the CIA would not need his services. But here is the original article which is also reprinted on the Unz Review and at Information Clearing House.
https://ahtribune.com/us/3296-did-pedophile-jeffrey-epstein-work-for-mos...
http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/did-pedophile-jeffrey-epstein-work-for-mossad/
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51906.htm
I know that
I have written about Epstein's here numerous times going back to the first time the Miami Herald disclosed what happened a year ago. Did you read that article or any of my essays here on him?
If you haven't read the Herald's articles then you too are dealing in half facts.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
@snoopydawg
Did you not read my post in its entirety? If you had, I don't think that would have been your response. Tell me why you think I should care what the Miami Herald thinks when I think the most likely reason for his lenient sentence was that he was a double agent for the US and Israel. The Miami Herald would not be my go to source for that. Maybe you didn't read my link.
I did read your links
And others that discuss Epstein's being tied to the intelligence agencies because I've written about it. But again if you don't read the Herald articles you are missing a lot of information. She was the one that exposed the rotten deal. Same with the articles I've based my essays on. The ones by Whitney Webb have been excellent and she exposes how far back this goes.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
For me a rotten deal (for the state) is not even debatable.
So who exposed the rotten deal is pretty much irrelevant. It is a given.
The question is why Epstein got the sweetheart deal, not the fact that he got one. And the most probable scenario is that Epstein was the entrapment king, likely set up by Israel or the US or both. And the prosecutor had orders to offer him a very light sentence.