Friday, May 12, 2006
#$%!! it has nothing to do with intent!
Breaking: Clifton Bennett and Kyle Wheeler sentenced to token jail time in sexual molestations.
Outside the courthouse, Bennett's aunt, the sister of Senate President Ken Bennett, said that what happened at the camp was "misunderstood" and that "there was no sexual intent."
Let me tell you something sweet pea: nowhere in statute does it say that the offender had to have sexual intent when committing his or her crime. Trauma is trauma. A rape victim doesn't think, "well maybe he didn't mean to stick that where he stuck it." The fact that certain parts of the body - parts we're taught from a very young age to be ashamed of or keep private - are touched, penetrated or manipulated will induce serious emotional stress regardless of what the person who touched, penetrated or manipulated intended.
There seems to be a major disconnect up there in Yavapai County, which is interesting and ironic, since it's home to a great organization called Prevent Child Abuse Arizona.
So just so everyone is clear, here are the relevant sections of statute:
ARS 13-1410. Molestation of child; classification
And just so we're all on the same page, the Statutes define sexual contact in ARS 13-1401 (Definitions):
And because we apparently have to spell out what "without consent" means for these mouthbreathers, from that same definitions statute:
Anybody else notice anything about "sexual intent" in any of that? No? Me neither.
And just for good measure, let's look at those sentencing guidelines set forth in the molestation statute.
ARS 13-604.01. Dangerous crimes against children; sentences; definitions
Hmmmm...seventeen years (times eighteen, one conviction for each victim) vs. a month. Yeah, that seems fair to me.
These are the same people that whine about hate crimes laws because they believe those laws punish beliefs and are not limited to behavior. But when one of their own commits a heinous crime, they refuse to punish his behavior adequately because they claim there was no malicious belief behind it.
Fucking hypocrites.
Outside the courthouse, Bennett's aunt, the sister of Senate President Ken Bennett, said that what happened at the camp was "misunderstood" and that "there was no sexual intent."
Let me tell you something sweet pea: nowhere in statute does it say that the offender had to have sexual intent when committing his or her crime. Trauma is trauma. A rape victim doesn't think, "well maybe he didn't mean to stick that where he stuck it." The fact that certain parts of the body - parts we're taught from a very young age to be ashamed of or keep private - are touched, penetrated or manipulated will induce serious emotional stress regardless of what the person who touched, penetrated or manipulated intended.
There seems to be a major disconnect up there in Yavapai County, which is interesting and ironic, since it's home to a great organization called Prevent Child Abuse Arizona.
So just so everyone is clear, here are the relevant sections of statute:
ARS 13-1410. Molestation of child; classification
A. A person commits molestation of a child by intentionally or knowingly engaging in or causing a person to engage in sexual contact, except sexual contact with the female breast, with a child under fifteen years of age.
B. Molestation of a child is a class 2 felony that is punishable pursuant to section 13-604.01.
And just so we're all on the same page, the Statutes define sexual contact in ARS 13-1401 (Definitions):
...
2. "Sexual contact" means any direct or indirect touching, fondling or manipulating of any part of the genitals, anus or female breast by any part of the body or by any object or causing a person to engage in such contact.
...
And because we apparently have to spell out what "without consent" means for these mouthbreathers, from that same definitions statute:
5. "Without consent" includes any of the following:
(a) The victim is coerced by the immediate use or threatened use of force against a person or property.
(b) The victim is incapable of consent by reason of mental disorder, mental defect, drugs, alcohol, sleep or any other similar impairment of cognition and such condition is known or should have reasonably been known to the defendant. For purposes of this subdivision, "mental defect" means the victim is unable to comprehend the distinctively sexual nature of the conduct or is incapable of understanding or exercising the right to refuse to engage in the conduct with another.
(c) The victim is intentionally deceived as to the nature of the act.
(d) The victim is intentionally deceived to erroneously believe that the person is the victim's spouse.
Anybody else notice anything about "sexual intent" in any of that? No? Me neither.
And just for good measure, let's look at those sentencing guidelines set forth in the molestation statute.
ARS 13-604.01. Dangerous crimes against children; sentences; definitions
...
D. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person who is at least eighteen years of age or who has been tried as an adult and who stands convicted of a dangerous crime against children in the first degree involving aggravated assault, molestation of a child, commercial sexual exploitation of a minor, sexual exploitation of a minor, child abuse or kidnapping shall be sentenced to a presumptive term of imprisonment for seventeen years. If the convicted person has been previously convicted of one predicate felony the person shall be sentenced to a presumptive term of imprisonment for twenty-eight years.
...
Hmmmm...seventeen years (times eighteen, one conviction for each victim) vs. a month. Yeah, that seems fair to me.
These are the same people that whine about hate crimes laws because they believe those laws punish beliefs and are not limited to behavior. But when one of their own commits a heinous crime, they refuse to punish his behavior adequately because they claim there was no malicious belief behind it.
Fucking hypocrites.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
something seems off...
Maybe this is nothing, but it's worth mentioning.
The City of Tucson Community Development Advisory Committee recently made its Human Service Funding Recommendations to Mayor and Council.
With $8,917,834 in requests from social service organizations and $3,594,753 to give, many requests were bound to go unfulfilled. Many of the requests that were funded were not funded for the full amount. (Full disclosure: I work for an organization that received zero funding for three requests)
With so much need for this vital funding and so much competition, why on earth would the CDAC recommend that any of the organizations who submitted proposals receive more money than they requested?
This is exactly what happened with two organizations. The first only received a recommendation of $1 more than requested, which doesn't really merit any more comment than that. The other organization to receive more than it requested was Lutheran Social Services of the Southwest, which requested $48,082 for a "public housing transportation program" for older adults and people with disabilities. CDAC recommended awarding LSSS $50,000 for this program. This $1,918 difference may seem inconsequential - and it probably is - but it at the very least gives the impression that LSSS is the recipient of an unfair windfall that shouldn't have been awarded in the first place. To be fair, LSSS submitted another proposal for $53,656 that was only funded at $39,250. If CDAC wanted LSSS to receive more money, why not just add that $1,918 to the $39,250 for the other program?
Like I said, this is probably nothing consequential. However, this does raise some concerns about the accounting skills of the City staff. It also calls into question the oversight being provided by CDAC (or lack thereof). This was a fairly obvious disconnect to catch, so why didn't this Committee catch it?
I'm going to continue looking into this (I'm a regular Veronica Mars, after all), but wouldn't it be nice if some intrepid local reporter started asking some questions too? It's not the $2,000 that's necessarily cause for major concern, it's what other accounting errors might be falling through the cracks - and on a much larger scale.
The City of Tucson Community Development Advisory Committee recently made its Human Service Funding Recommendations to Mayor and Council.
With $8,917,834 in requests from social service organizations and $3,594,753 to give, many requests were bound to go unfulfilled. Many of the requests that were funded were not funded for the full amount. (Full disclosure: I work for an organization that received zero funding for three requests)
With so much need for this vital funding and so much competition, why on earth would the CDAC recommend that any of the organizations who submitted proposals receive more money than they requested?
This is exactly what happened with two organizations. The first only received a recommendation of $1 more than requested, which doesn't really merit any more comment than that. The other organization to receive more than it requested was Lutheran Social Services of the Southwest, which requested $48,082 for a "public housing transportation program" for older adults and people with disabilities. CDAC recommended awarding LSSS $50,000 for this program. This $1,918 difference may seem inconsequential - and it probably is - but it at the very least gives the impression that LSSS is the recipient of an unfair windfall that shouldn't have been awarded in the first place. To be fair, LSSS submitted another proposal for $53,656 that was only funded at $39,250. If CDAC wanted LSSS to receive more money, why not just add that $1,918 to the $39,250 for the other program?
Like I said, this is probably nothing consequential. However, this does raise some concerns about the accounting skills of the City staff. It also calls into question the oversight being provided by CDAC (or lack thereof). This was a fairly obvious disconnect to catch, so why didn't this Committee catch it?
I'm going to continue looking into this (I'm a regular Veronica Mars, after all), but wouldn't it be nice if some intrepid local reporter started asking some questions too? It's not the $2,000 that's necessarily cause for major concern, it's what other accounting errors might be falling through the cracks - and on a much larger scale.
