• 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

Wait...higher than normal value? Like...vandalism and some sort of extra charge based on the value to society?

The answers are no and no. I thought my post was clear.
 
Well, somebody took the picture so I'm pretty sure someone else was there. I don't know if there were more "somebody's" but it looks like it was in broad daylight and in a public place.

Doesn't matter. The people offended here were not present, otherwise, he wouldn't be being charged because of the picture, but because someone who was there actually complained.
 
No. That is not correct. If he violated private property, that is an offense all its own. That has nothing to do with what he was charged with. He can be prosecuted for violating private property...but he was not.

I never said the kids 1st amendment rights were violated...I said the law trying to prosecute him are unconstitutional. Passing a law because someone's sensibilities are violated is not constitutional.

There is no right to shoot a person on private property without justification. If a kid walks on your lawn gives you no right to shot him. Private property is not a licence to shoot/kill.

Actually, unless he was told to leave or they have some sort of signs up (in accordance with the ordinance for the areas), then he couldn't be charged for trespassing based on a picture of him on someone else's property (at least not in most states).

As for the other part, you are absolutely right. It would definitely be murder had someone shot the kid for doing that, no matter how much they were offended by the act.
 
Sorry...that simply doesnt work. You are tryign to have it both ways. Either property is venerable or it is not. It is either afforded special protections or it is not. You want it to be...just so long as it fits what you want it to fit. If an actual act of vandalism is committed then the crime is vandalism with no special laws or qualifiers or categories. The law this kid is charged with should be eliminated, along with all hate crime laws and any other laws that are in place because some people get their feelings hurt.

In my view, the value of the items destroyed can and should impact the seriousness of the vandalism charge. By value, I mean cash value, not whether someone considers an object holy. I don't support charging the kid for the symbolic quality of his act. Hate crimes should be called terrorism. If the intent of an act is to scare or harass a group of people then I support enhanced charges.
 
If the people of Wilkes-Barre wanted a law to fine people who perform simulated sex acts with statues, that's their community and they have a right to enforce whatever standards they want within constitutional limits. I can't imagine the outrage if he had done that to a statue of Martin Luther King jr.
 
If the people of Wilkes-Barre wanted a law to fine people who perform simulated sex acts with statues, that's their community and they have a right to enforce whatever standards they want within constitutional limits. I can't imagine the outrage if he had done that to a statue of Martin Luther King jr.

Charging someone with a crime because a photograph offended people violates the first amendment.
 
So he's all knowing, all seeing, all wise and all powerful but he creates a tree to specifically tempt mankind into sin and did nothing to stop it.

The tree is part of his creation as is sin.

Fini

Damn, he was baiting us!!!!!
 
Charging someone with a crime because a photograph offended people violates the first amendment.

The picture isn't the violation. The picture is the evidence of a violation in progress. Would you claim an arrest based upon a video of a rape to be a violation of the first amendment?
 
I would love it if the photograph turned out to have been shopped. Would it still count as an actual 'desecration'?
 
I would love it if the photograph turned out to have been shopped. Would it still count as an actual 'desecration'?

I wonder if it would be desecration if he owned the statue?
 
I wonder if it would be desecration if he owned the statue?

By the technical definition of the word, yes. However, by law, if it is his property or if he had permission there is nothing legal that could have been done. Sort of along the same lines as there has always been SSM in reality, but not legally.
 
I find the actions offensive, but if he didn't damage the statue, I don't see how it's a crime.

It violated a criminal law.
 
It violated a criminal law.

And that criminal law is unconstitutional. People can make laws all they want, it doesn't mean they are without challenge or they are constitutional. A town can make a law that says eating hamburgers on Thursday is illegal. Doesn't mean it is constitutional, just ask Bloomburg on that one.
 
And that criminal law is unconstitutional. People can make laws all they want, it doesn't mean they are without challenge or they are constitutional. A town can make a law that says eating hamburgers on Thursday is illegal. Doesn't mean it is constitutional, just ask Bloomburg on that one.

However until that law is challenged in a court, then the arrest and charge still has to be made by those who enforce and try violations of the law. So the point of the law being unconstitutional is moot until it is challenged. Additionally it is not necessarily unconstitutional. What is your basis for saying so?
 
However until that law is challenged in a court, then the arrest and charge still has to be made by those who enforce and try violations of the law. So the point of the law being unconstitutional is moot until it is challenged. Additionally it is not necessarily unconstitutional. What is your basis for saying so?

Religious freedom. You are forcing the boy to conform to a strictly religious law, blasphemy which would be going against freedom of religion and is unconstitutional. It would be similiar to creating a law saying you cannot burn a bible.
 
Religious freedom. You are forcing the boy to conform to a strictly religious law, blasphemy which would be going against freedom of religion and is unconstitutional. It would be similiar to creating a law saying you cannot burn a bible.

Sorry, but no go. Desecration applies to both religious and non religious objects, so it is not an issue of religious freedom. Nor is this an issues of freedom of speech. As noted had the boy permission, or owned the statue, then a charge could be said to apply unconstitutionally by either of those reasons. But the law in and of itself really has no basis to be called unconstitutional.
 
Sorry, but no go. Desecration applies to both religious and non religious objects, so it is not an issue of religious freedom. Nor is this an issues of freedom of speech. As noted had the boy permission, or owned the statue, then a charge could be said to apply unconstitutionally by either of those reasons. But the law in and of itself really has no basis to be called unconstitutional.

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.
 
Religious freedom. You are forcing the boy to conform to a strictly religious law, blasphemy which would be going against freedom of religion and is unconstitutional. It would be similiar to creating a law saying you cannot burn a bible.

There are probably some sexual crimes he could be charged with if that would be preferable, but as long as ignorance is being encouraged in schools then this sort of behavior will continue.
 
There are probably some sexual crimes he could be charged with if that would be preferable, but as long as ignorance is being encouraged in schools then this sort of behavior will continue.

Exposing himself or if damage was done to the statue maybe. But gestures and the like are not illegal. And sexual crimes? Gimme a break. Sexual crimes are rape, assault, etc. Not doing a gesture on a statue. That's about as ridiculous as putting someone on the sexual predator list for peeing on a tire when drunk.
 
Exposing himself or if damage was done to the statue maybe. But gestures and the like are not illegal. And sexual crimes? Gimme a break. Sexual crimes are rape, assault, etc. Not doing a gesture on a statue. That's about as ridiculous as putting someone on the sexual predator list for peeing on a tire when drunk.
I said he could be charged with sexual crimes, not that he would be found guilty.
 
I said he could be charged with sexual crimes, not that he would be found guilty.

Unless he exposed himself, there would be NO sexual crime.
 
Back
Top Bottom