Thursday, September 23, 2004
The Stupidest Idea for a Law... Ever
No really, this is the stupidest idea for a law I've heard (or read as the case may be).
As a libertarian who strongly believes in the efficacy of public shaming1, I encourage you to go leave a comment. (h/t Instapundit)
Footnote
1. My public shaming libertarian position can be neatly summarized as "I'll support your right to do anything you want to do as long as it only affects you, no matter how stupid, but in the process I'm probably going to call you a dumbass and tell you why in no uncertain terms why you're a dumbass."
Call it the Red approach to good libertarian public citizenry.
|
A new crime of “reckless sexual conduct” should target unprotected first encounters. To convict, prosecutors would need to show beyond a reasonable doubt (i) a first-time sexual encounter between the defendant and the victim; and (ii) no use of a condom. The defendant would then have the opportunity to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the victim consented to the unprotected sex.Here's the actual statute from their paper on the subject.
Reckless Sexual ConductSeveral commentors on that site have already noted immediate problems with the proposed statute: unconstitutional violation of privacy in light of Lawerence v Texas, apparent reversal of innocent until proven guilty principle, creation of a horrible he said/she said dilemma...
(1). A person is guilty of reckless sexual conduct when the person intentionally engages in unprotected sexual activity with another person who is not his or her spouse and these two people had not on an occasion previous to the occasion of the crime engaged in sexual activity.
(2). Affirmative Defense: Notwithstanding Subsection (1), it shall be an affirmative defense to any action brought under this article that the person, with whom the defendant had unprotected sex, expressly asked to engage in unprotected sexual activity or otherwise gave unequivocal indications of affirmatively consenting to engage in sexual activity that is specifically unprotected.
(3). Definitions:
(a) “Sexual activity” means vaginal or anal penetration accomplished with a male or female.
(b) “Unprotected sexual activity” means sexual activity without the use of a condom.
(c) “Occasion of the crime” includes the 12 hour period after the two people engage in sexual activity for the first time.
(4) Sanctions:
(a) Sentence: The crime of reckless sexual conduct is punishable by imprisonment
in the state prison for three months, or a fine.
(b) Sexual Offender Status: The court shall not register a person as a sexual
offender because the person was found guilty of reckless sexual conduct.
As a libertarian who strongly believes in the efficacy of public shaming1, I encourage you to go leave a comment. (h/t Instapundit)
Footnote
1. My public shaming libertarian position can be neatly summarized as "I'll support your right to do anything you want to do as long as it only affects you, no matter how stupid, but in the process I'm probably going to call you a dumbass and tell you why in no uncertain terms why you're a dumbass."
Call it the Red approach to good libertarian public citizenry.
|
