[Vision2020] Dear Tim, are you sure you want full enforcement of the law?

[Donovan Arnold]

Anyway, supposing Bill Thompson wanted to prosecute
gay men, he'd have 
to
trump up some kind of reason to get the already
overworked local police 
and
sheriff's officers out there breaking into the homes
and apartments of 
gay
men across Moscow in the rather dim hope of catching
*somebody* in what 
the
statute quaintly calls the "infamous crime against
nature." --Melynda Huskey

No he would not. All he would do is find a gay couple
that both had AIDS. Any bigoted jury could conclude
they committed sodomy. Pretty simple.

Melynda obviously never heard of the "Twinkie
Defense".

-DJA

--- "melyndahuskey at earthlink.net"
<melyndahuskey at earthlink.net> wrote:

> 
> Phil notes that a number of sex crime statutes still
> on the books are not
> enforced, and asks if anyone would like the police
> to get busy on that:  
> > So all the folks who are screaming for uniform
> enforcement, are you ready
> to 
> > see any of the three things above that are on the
> books as Sex Crimes 
> > enforced here in Moscow?
> 
> I hesitate to scream, but I think the key phrase
> here is "uniform
> enforcement."  Not too long ago, a keen Southern
> Idaho prosecutor (Sunil or
> Bruce may remember this guy) began charging single
> mothers who applied for
> AFDC under the fornication statute.  Single mothers
> who didn't seek
> benefits went uncharged.  The cases were, I believe,
> ultimately thrown out,
> since they represented blatantly unequal treatment
> under the law.
> 
> Similarly, if some businesses are required to abide
> by zoning regulations,
> obtain the legally required paperwork (occupancy
> certificates and zoning
> certificates, for example), and are even denied the
> opportunity to open a
> business in a location because of current law, as
> Potting Shed Creations
> was, shouldn't everyone be held to the same
> standard?  Is "You didn't stop
> us before we got started, so now you have to let us
> do it" really a
> defense?  Will it apply to everyone?  
> 
> Anyway, supposing Bill Thompson wanted to prosecute
> gay men, he'd have to
> trump up some kind of reason to get the already
> overworked local police and
> sheriff's officers out there breaking into the homes
> and apartments of gay
> men across Moscow in the rather dim hope of catching
> *somebody* in what the
> statute quaintly calls the "infamous crime against
> nature."  I suspect
> they'd be less than eager to undertake that unsavory
> duty.  And even if
> they did hit the jackpot and get an eyeful of the
> love that dares not speak
> its name, Lawrence et al. v Texas makes the hope of
> a successful
> prosecution unlikely, particularly since Idaho
> exempts married
> (heterosexual) couples from the criminalization of
> sodomy.
> 
> What I really want to know is, when will the police
> start uphold the no
> spitting statute?  Spitting on the sidewalks is a
> public health risk, it's
> absolutely repulsive, it's against the law, and I
> think there ought to be a
> mandatory minimum of 6 months for each and every
> offense.  Fiat justitia,
> ruat coelum, say I. 
> 
> Melynda Huskey
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step
> Internet, 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
>  
>                http://www.fsr.net                   
>    
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> 


	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com