• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue

TheNextEra said:
Unless he exposed himself, there would be NO sexual crime.
Click to expand...

So you're saying a sexual crime cannot be committed unless there's nudity involved? I don't think that's correct....
 
Ockham said:
So you're saying a sexual crime cannot be committed unless there's nudity involved? I don't think that's correct....
Click to expand...

I'm referring to this case. Do you think the kid should be put on the sexual predator list for gesturing a statue?
 
TheNextEra said:
If there was any damage done to the statue, I would agree, however there was none. Again, I can flip off a bible all I want and it not being illegal. Blasphemy laws like this are unconsitutional and will be challenged as such. It's sad that people don't see that.
Click to expand...

Physical damage is not always the requirement for a law. Trespass is a good example. This statue was someone else's property, not his own, nor did he have permission, Desecration is a non-damage type law as much as trespass is. Since the desecration is applied equally to both religious and non-religious objects blasphemy is a non-issue.
 
maquiscat said:
Physical damage is not always the requirement for a law. Trespass is a good example. This statue was someone else's property, not his own, nor did he have permission, Desecration is a non-damage type law as much as trespass is. Since the desecration is applied equally to both religious and non-religious objects blasphemy is a non-issue.
Click to expand...

If I flip off a bible in a church there is NOTHING they can do to me legally. They can ask me to leave and if I don't THEN they can charge me with trespassing. Desecration needs to have damage.
 
Hard Truth said:
Charging someone with a crime because a photograph offended people violates the first amendment.
Click to expand...

I think hate crime laws violate the first amendment, too, but they're still in place. In my opinion, the photograph is merely evidence of the offense not the offense, itself. And I think obscenity laws are still in place and the community may consider such a photograph and such behavior to be obscene.
 
Papa bull said:
I think hate crime laws violate the first amendment, too, but they're still in place. In my opinion, the photograph is merely evidence of the offense not the offense, itself. And I think obscenity laws are still in place and the community may consider such a photograph and such behavior to be obscene.
Click to expand...

One thing is certain. The kid wouldn't have it with a statue of Mohammed.
 
TheNextEra said:
If I flip off a bible in a church there is NOTHING they can do to me legally. They can ask me to leave and if I don't THEN they can charge me with trespassing. Desecration needs to have damage.
Click to expand...

Can you show this in the laws? For damage to be the criteria then it would need to be stated. Additionally, the standard for gestures vary. For example while flipping off someone else's bible would not be grounds for desecration taking their bible and rubbing it on your crotch would, even if you did not expose your gentiles. For that matter if you did it to my xbox desecration would also apply.
 
TheNextEra said:
I'm referring to this case. Do you think the kid should be put on the sexual predator list for gesturing a statue?
Click to expand...

We're mixing things here --- what I think and what is may be two different things. I believe US law does not require nudity for a sexual crime.
 
Ockham said:
We're mixing things here --- what I think and what is may be two different things. I believe US law does not require nudity for a sexual crime.
Click to expand...

It does when it is being done to an inanimate object.
 
Ockham said:
Could you provide a citation that supports your view?
Click to expand...

You are asking to prove a negative. The proper question would be for you to show where it does apply.
 
TheNextEra said:
Not following your question, are you wanting to charge a statue with being nude?
Click to expand...

You stated that the law required nudity for the charge to be a sex crime. I am asking if the nudity has to be on the part of only the perpetrator of the sex crime, or is nudity of the victim also applicable to charge the perpetrator? Note that your statement does not apply specifically to this case. For it to specifically apply you would have had to state to the effect of, "the perpetrator would have to have some kind of nudity exposure for a sex crime to apply in this case." But you did not so I am testing your ability to recognize what law says.
 
maquiscat said:
You stated that the law required nudity for the charge to be a sex crime. I am asking if the nudity has to be on the part of only the perpetrator of the sex crime, or is nudity of the victim also applicable to charge the perpetrator? Note that your statement does not apply specifically to this case. For it to specifically apply you would have had to state to the effect of, "the perpetrator would have to have some kind of nudity exposure for a sex crime to apply in this case." But you did not so I am testing your ability to recognize what law says.
Click to expand...

Just jumping in here. According to uslegal.com (and not Pennsylvania law, which I don't know) the closest that the teenager would be accused of (if a sex crime were to be an accusation) would be lewd conduct.

Sex crimes refer to criminal offenses of a sexual nature.

Commonly known sex crimes include, rape, child molestation, sexual battery, lewd conduct, possession and distribution of child pornography, possession and distribution of obscene material, prostitution, solicitation of prostitution, pimping, pandering, indecent exposure, lewd act with a child, and penetration of the genital or anal region by a foreign Object.
Click to expand...

It would then be up to the prosecutor, I imagine, to somehow successfully argue that lewd conduct occurred without a victim and without actual visual exposure of the genitals. I have no law expertise myself, but I still wouldn't find that argument very compelling.
 
Last edited:
As for desecration, uslegal sez...

Desecration is the act of depriving something of its sacred character. For instance, the desecration of national flag is an offence. Desecration is the physical mistreatment which the actor knows will seriously offend one or more persons likely to observe or discover the action. The flag-desecration statute is intended to protect the physical integrity of the flag against impairments that would cause serious offense to others, and is aimed at protecting onlookers from being offended by the ideas expressed by the prohibited activity.
Click to expand...

If state laws are consistent with uslegal's definition, then they cast an absurdly wide net and could easily infringe on first amendment rights in far more innocuous examples than the one in this thread.
 
Cardinal said:
Just jumping in here. According to uslegal.com (and not Pennsylvania law, which I don't know) the closest that the teenager would be accused of (if a sex crime were to be an accusation) would be lewd conduct.



It would then be up to the prosecutor, I imagine, to somehow successfully argue that lewd conduct occurred without a victim and without actual visual exposure of the genitals. I have no law expertise myself, but I still wouldn't find that argument very convincing.
Click to expand...

Remember that I noted that he shifted to a general statement that nudity was required for any offense to be a sex crime. I'm asking him to bask that up. He can't of course, and once he tries I will slam him with an example that will undermine that particular argument so deep it will fall to China.
 
maquiscat said:
Remember that I noted that he shifted to a general statement that nudity was required for any offense to be a sex crime. I'm asking him to bask that up. He can't of course, and once he tries I will slam him with an example that will undermine that particular argument so deep it will fall to China.
Click to expand...

It was probably an unwise generalization to make...
 
TheNextEra said:
You are asking to prove a negative. The proper question would be for you to show where it does apply.
Click to expand...

I'm asking you to provide a citation of US law for your comment in which you said:

TheNextEra said:
Unless he exposed himself, there would be NO sexual crime.
Click to expand...
 
Papa bull said:
I think hate crime laws violate the first amendment, too, but they're still in place. In my opinion, the photograph is merely evidence of the offense not the offense, itself. And I think obscenity laws are still in place and the community may consider such a photograph and such behavior to be obscene.
Click to expand...

That would depend on laws concerning the distribution of obscene material, and whether the photographs constitutes obscenity.
 
Ockham said:
I'm asking you to provide a citation of US law for your comment in which you said:
Click to expand...

Yes, and you are asking to prove a negative. That's like asking me to site the law that says I can legally say "Hobby Time" without going to jail. By default I'm correct unless you can show a law that says otherwise.

Can you show where gesturing to a statue is a sexual crime?
 
Cardinal said:
If state laws are consistent with uslegal's definition, then they cast an absurdly wide net and could easily infringe on first amendment rights in far more innocuous examples than the one in this thread.
Click to expand...

Such first amendment right, with regards to property (as opposed to real estate) do require ownership of said property. This is why flag burning in and of it self is not illegal, but if one uses a flag that belongs to another person then applicable laws apply. Burning would be a destruction of property issue. Taking another person's flag and rubbing it all over your crotch would be a desecration issue.
 
maquiscat said:
Such first amendment right, with regards to property (as opposed to real estate) do require ownership of said property. This is why flag burning in and of it self is not illegal, but if one uses a flag that belongs to another person then applicable laws apply. Burning would be a destruction of property issue. Taking another person's flag and rubbing it all over your crotch would be a desecration issue.
Click to expand...

I agree with the personal property aspect of this (though I think the punishment would be minimal as hell, except for trespassing which is a bit higher up in my book). I was referring to the hugely wide brush that uslegal uses to define desecration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom