In AZ, It Is Now Possible To Be Charged W/ Sexual Abuse For Changing A Diaper

Fishking said:

Two things really stand out (aside from all the other obvious stuff):

1. The burden of proof is on the defendant? Since when has that ever been how our courts work?

2. The quote from the judge literally has him admitting that changing a diaper is a crime but is basically saying not to worry because it won't be prosecuted. That's not how laws are supposed to work. You don't make a law just to not enforce it.

Click to expand...

Geoist said:

This stems from the case State v. Holle.

State legislature had a law passed which forbid: “intentionally or knowingly … touching … any part of the genitals, anus or female breast” of a child “under fifteen years of age.”

^Interestingly enough, the statute does not require the touching to be of a sexual nature.

Arizona's Supreme Court refused to fix this loophole in State v. Holle. They declared that while a defendant could still claim no "sexual motivation" in the contact, the burden of proof lies with the defendant, not the prosecution. The judges shrugged off the potential for parents being prosecuted for changing/bathing their children stating:

"We cannot and will not assume that the state will improperly prosecute persons who, though perhaps technically violating the terms of broad statutes [], clearly engaged in reasonable, acceptable, and commonly permitted activities involving children."


Yeah, because there is no such thing as an overzealous prosecutor...

Arizona child sexual abuse law guts due process for parents and caregivers.

Click to expand...

faithful_servant said:

No. It was a badly written law. That doesn't give the judicial the right to change it, but if it violates the Constitution, they have the right to strike it down.

Click to expand...

radcen said:

As written, couldn't this apply to doctors, as well?

Click to expand...

Lutherf said:

So your thought process is that a 6 month old who just had his poopy diaper changed by mommy is going to hop on the phone and call Goldberg and Osborne to represent him in a sexual assault on a minor case?

The courts are supposed to interpret statutory law, not rewrite it. That's what happened here.

Click to expand...

Geoist said:

So you strike down the law... and suddenly sexual assault of children is legal. Do you see the problem here?

Click to expand...

Lutherf said:

The Slate article is absurd. Here's your affirmative defense - "The baby had a diaper full of poop and since I'm not an abusive parent I changed it" or "The mother told me the baby hadn't had a bowel movement in 6 days so I, as a medical professional, administered an enema".

Click to expand...

Geoist said:

So you strike down the law... and suddenly sexual assault of children is legal. Do you see the problem here?

Click to expand...

Glowpun said:

Where is common sense when it is truly needed? So if the law reads that changing a baby's diaper is considered sexual abuse...parents, doctors, and other health care providers can all be prosecuted? What nonsense. Now one has to look at the psychological profile of the people who wrote this idiotic law.

Click to expand...

Fishking said:

Two things really stand out (aside from all the other obvious stuff):

1. The burden of proof is on the defendant? Since when has that ever been how our courts work?

2. The quote from the judge literally has him admitting that changing a diaper is a crime but is basically saying not to worry because it won't be prosecuted. That's not how laws are supposed to work. You don't make a law just to not enforce it.

Click to expand...

chuckiechan said:

The rape kit and examination provides the proof for the defendant. Absent that, you need forensic evidence or a witness. Or a confession.

Click to expand...

notquiteright said:

Sorry Charlie but AZ seems intent on being a right wing loony state. Your defense maybe affirmative but it won't be successful as the law is written now. I can't imagine Arizonians, who claim to be very state/individual rights dominant allowing a law with such vague standards... :doh

Judges don't write the laws- according to the constant rant from the rabid right- so the Judge's claims are meaningless. No Judge HAS to apply what 'you' think is common sense- quite often the rabid right trills over Judges doing just that!

Your rather ignorant claim that closing a loophole would allow 11 year olds to be raped is just beyond the pale. You don't change an 11 year old's diaper, well ok maybe in AZ but not around here...

No the law should have been better written, this isn't about Grandpa, it is the law coming to light and the crappy way it was written... eace

Click to expand...

Fishking said:

Two things really stand out (aside from all the other obvious stuff):

1. The burden of proof is on the defendant? Since when has that ever been how our courts work?

2. The quote from the judge literally has him admitting that changing a diaper is a crime but is basically saying not to worry because it won't be prosecuted. That's not how laws are supposed to work. You don't make a law just to not enforce it.

Click to expand...

Grand Mal said:

Awhile ago here in Canada the government introduced a big, sloppy law about child pornography and online surveillance of private internet access. The Justice Minister, Vic Toews, said he'd 'rather err on the side of caution' and that 'you either stand with us or with the child pornographers'. The law was eventually rewritten but I don't know the details.

Click to expand...

Fishking said:

I've heard of those types of laws catching up parents who simply took normal naked pictures of their babies and toddlers.

Click to expand...

cuban smokes said:

the very few folks I have met that were from Arizona were either meth heads, gun nuts, or sexual perverts; stay the f*** out of Arizona .......... full of stupid ...........

Click to expand...