|
It's too bad, too, because a simple "bleep" works so much better.
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
On the Michigan "sodomy law" http://www.snopes.com/michigan-senate-crime-against-nature/ "The Michigan Penal Code still contains language stating that a person who commits "crimes against nature with mankind" is guilty of a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison. While this language is outdated and in direct opposition of the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas ruling, it still requires the efforts of lawmakers to be removed. When the Michigan Senate passed SB219, the senators opted for reasons of practicality to focus on implementing stronger animal cruelty laws and ignore language referring to a unenforceable, decades-old sodomy law." "Although several states (including Michigan) still have laws on the books criminalizing sodomy, these laws cannot be enforced." The law isn't enforceable because it's already been overruled by the Supreme Court years ago, but no lawmaker feels like being the one to remove the old language, since there's nothing to gain. The new law is really about animal abuse and uses prior laws as its base that were created before sodomy laws were struck down by the Supreme Court. It's just old leftovers from 80+ years ago. There are tons of archaic laws still lying around that aren't worth the headache and cost to remove. Furthermore, some senators like the idea of leaving it in as illegal because, if nothing else, it can be used to protect minors who are sexually abused.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
AlphaKretin posted:Presumably it would be another charge to slap on a child molester and anyone trying to strike it down would look really bad on account of "trying to reduce that pedophile's sentence! More or less. I don't know how the Supreme Court's decision is exactly worded, but it likely refers to consensual adults. Children can't consent, so perhaps the law could still be enforceable. More likely, lawmakers don't want to remove anything that might lessen the possible offenses against children.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2016 14:43
|
|
". Jurisprudence! 