You think a dog peeing on your lawn is cute? 
Sex Offenders everywhere!
- Thread starter brianluce
- Start date
- Status
You think a dog peeing on your lawn is cute?
I don't but most people don't seem to mind. Pee against a dumpster at 2am and your life gets ruined. No equity in the law.
Me and some friends were once out doing some things we weren't suppose to.
I was drunk as a skunk and had to pee really bad.
They liked to drive through these narrow alleyways by a technical school.
I told them to pull over I had to pee. I peed on a dumpster, then tagged a door with my band's initials FFMH.
Suddenly, lights come on. It's a school patrol car.
I run to the car and my friends had locked me out.
We didn't get arrested. But, had they checked the backseat, we had all the tools needs for a B&E.
It's a much longer story.
Peeing and sex offense is ridiculous. Unless you're doing it where kids or women can easily view you.
I was drunk as a skunk and had to pee really bad.
They liked to drive through these narrow alleyways by a technical school.
I told them to pull over I had to pee. I peed on a dumpster, then tagged a door with my band's initials FFMH.
Suddenly, lights come on. It's a school patrol car.
I run to the car and my friends had locked me out.
We didn't get arrested. But, had they checked the backseat, we had all the tools needs for a B&E.
It's a much longer story.
Peeing and sex offense is ridiculous. Unless you're doing it where kids or women can easily view you.
It's funny how economics plays into the "politics" of "sexual offenses". For example, the laws of the state of Michigan requires authorities to keep tack of all "sexual offenders" which includes those convicted of public urination and the 17 year old convicted of statutory rape for having sex with his 15 year old girl friend.
It's an example of "the cure is worse than the disease" and the law of unintended consequences. There were quite a few instances of flashers getting off with the "I was only relieving myself" defense. So the legislators in the various states adjusted the laws to include those convicted of public urination on the sexual offenders list.
So back to the economics aspect - Michigan has found that keeping track of over 12,000 sexual offenders is very expensive, and, of course, need a way to shrink their expenses. So the will eventually get around to the idea of classifying sexual offenses so they can focus on the most deplorable offenders rather than painting everyone with the one-size-fits-all brush. If they do this they will only have to keep track of about 3,000 offenders.
Not to get off on a tangent, but it's a case of our legislators and our legal system relying solely on the letter of the law, and not allowing juries to use their own common sense and good judgement.
It's an example of "the cure is worse than the disease" and the law of unintended consequences. There were quite a few instances of flashers getting off with the "I was only relieving myself" defense. So the legislators in the various states adjusted the laws to include those convicted of public urination on the sexual offenders list.
So back to the economics aspect - Michigan has found that keeping track of over 12,000 sexual offenders is very expensive, and, of course, need a way to shrink their expenses. So the will eventually get around to the idea of classifying sexual offenses so they can focus on the most deplorable offenders rather than painting everyone with the one-size-fits-all brush. If they do this they will only have to keep track of about 3,000 offenders.
Not to get off on a tangent, but it's a case of our legislators and our legal system relying solely on the letter of the law, and not allowing juries to use their own common sense and good judgement.
Last edited:
I don't see what urination has to do with sex, unless you mix the two. Apparently some judges and prosecutors are too dumb to see that.
I see it.
Here's how it goes:
- The 'law' is supposed to be applied equally to everyone. (I know, I know. To the best of our abilities and in some semblance of consistency. Blah, blah, blah... )
- Intoxicated @sshole staggers to the parking lot, pulls out Mister Winky, and p!sses on your car. Rude as h3ll, but no big whup.
- He sez: "Aw, osiffer. I wazz juss drainin' the lisserd".
- Peter Beater GirlSprout Eater "happens to be in the parking lot", pulls on his Mister Winky because he knows darn good and well some kid can see him (his brain. Not yours) and he likes that! A lot! A whollllle lot!
- he sez: "Aw, osiffer. I wazz juss drainin' the lisserd".
Either case, it's a grown man with his Willie hanging out.
Same excuse.
Fine.
Same recourse.
Fine.
People want consistency?
Here you go.
If people can learn to not p!ss in their pants then they can learn to not p!ss in the parking lot, which means the only bastards out there with their wieners hanging out are perverts.
Dumb@sses.
If you're smart enough to earn money to buy a drink, get to the drinking place, and buy the drink - then you can stop p!ssin' where the cops'll find you.
Dumb@sses.
Jail 'em.
Prosecute them.
File 'em.
The economy needs all the economic activity it can get these days.
This is very true. It especially applies to people who use anecdotes to "prove" their claims.
I can think of times where you could be a long way from a bathroom. Like on a road trip in the middle of no where. Why not just pull off the road and take a piss by your door. I don't see a problem with it. Just do it discrete. Second reason is if you are in the woods and no one is near by and a long way form a out house or something. Eaither way if you get caught it should not be a sex crime you are just taking a piss. It should just be a small ticket or fine not something you need to register as a sex offender for.
If a guy is drunk and takes a piss in a parking lot near a bar. Maybe give him a ticket for being drunk in public but don't site him for a sex crime.
If a guy is drunk and takes a piss in a parking lot near a bar. Maybe give him a ticket for being drunk in public but don't site him for a sex crime.
Last edited:
People also get the anecdotes they deserve.This is very true. It especially applies to people who use anecdotes to "prove" their claims.
I see it.
Here's how it goes:
- The 'law' is supposed to be applied equally to everyone. (I know, I know. To the best of our abilities and in some semblance of consistency. Blah, blah, blah... )
- Intoxicated @sshole staggers to the parking lot, pulls out Mister Winky, and p!sses on your car. Rude as h3ll, but no big whup.
- He sez: "Aw, osiffer. I wazz juss drainin' the lisserd".
- Peter Beater GirlSprout Eater "happens to be in the parking lot", pulls on his Mister Winky because he knows darn good and well some kid can see him (his brain. Not yours) and he likes that! A lot! A whollllle lot!
- he sez: "Aw, osiffer. I wazz juss drainin' the lisserd".
Either case, it's a grown man with his Willie hanging out.
Same excuse.
Fine.
Same recourse.
Fine.
People want consistency?
Here you go.
If people can learn to not p!ss in their pants then they can learn to not p!ss in the parking lot, which means the only bastards out there with their wieners hanging out are perverts.
Dumb@sses.
If you're smart enough to earn money to buy a drink, get to the drinking place, and buy the drink - then you can stop p!ssin' where the cops'll find you.
Dumb@sses.
Jail 'em.
Prosecute them.
File 'em.
The economy needs all the economic activity it can get these days.
This isn't how our legal system is supposed to work. Intent is always a huge factor. That's why the guy with the new car that experiences a factory defect that causes his brakes to fail which in turn results in a fatality is not charged and the guy who runs over his wife for insurance money can get the death penalty. It's not just about the end result.
And filling up prisons with convicts is a huge burden on an economy, it's one of the reasons for the trillion dollar deficits. We're 2% of the planet and yet have 25% of the inmates. With these stupid laws written by pandering politicians, it's easy to see why.
Last edited:
This is very true. It especially applies to people who use anecdotes to "prove" their claims.
No one is trying to prove anything here. This isn't Debate 101.
A woman I at my day job, came up to me and grabbed my ass one time. I complained and the boss didn't take it as seriously. If I called the cops and asked them to charge her with sexual assault, they probably wouldn't take it as seriously either, if the bosses won't. But this guy becomes a 'sex offender', just because he takes a piss with no one around? What counts as more of a 'sex offense', really? I have no faith in the justice system anymore.
If I run a red light (misdemeanor) at 2am outside the bar I get the same ticket as if I run a red light (misdemeanor) at 2pm outside the YMCA.
If I steal a stop sign (felony) from the intersection of Hither and Yon streets I get arrested just the same as if I stole one (felony) from just outside the kiddie park.
If my wiener's hanging out (felony) at 3am outside the bar I get arrested just the same as if I had it hanging out (felony) at 3pm outside the school.
Intent may be as huge as my "item" of offense, but it doesn't inherently exclude all culpability for some decisions.
Accountability comes into play.
You're right, the end result isn't the be-al-end-all, either.
However, the court system is very much onto the lame reasons given for the same behaviors that end up with the same outcomes.
What our court system doesn't want street officers to do is become street judges.
"Aw, you're peeing in the parking lot at 3am. That's a verbal warning".
"Aw, you're 'peeing' in the parking lot at 3pm. That's a verbal warning, too".
Re. huge burden on the economy.
No.
This is part of the economic activity that keeps our entire economy rolling by, in good times or bad.
Our current persecution/prosecution/incarceration system is big business and a huge service industry with well paying jobs and cash flows that stretch across multiple industries and jurisdictions, from uniforms to courthouse janitor contracts to prison food service.
Big big big business.
The public debt burden that pays for this service industry is foisted upon those that benefit from it.
Taxation is simply a wealth redistribution program itself.
People that drink and drive know what's at stake when they conduct that behavior.
Society tolerates that plenty enough.
People that drink and pee in public also know what's at stake.
Society tolerates that plenty enough, as well.
People that engage in public indecency aren't fooling anyone, either.
They also know society finds that behavior most intolerable.
How important is it to the person to make these decisions and how important
is it for the people in these jurisdictions to first allow the law the pass - then - overturn or amend it?
The examples you give are exactly wrong because intent is the same. Public urination and exposing yourself to a girlscout troop aren't even the same activity let alone intent.
And the criminal justice system is a huge drain. Goods and services are exchanged sure, but the funding to build prisons, supply uniforms, pay prosecutors and cops is doled out by the government -- It's no different than welfare or food stamps, and those programs don't do much for the economy either. it's your tax dollar at work. The only things produced by prisons are monsters-- as recidivism rates are over 50%. The criminal justice system is a giant hole in the ground that society pours money into.
But their pathetic defense in court is the same.
The burden of responsibility is on the individual, not on the court system.
Don't wanna goto jail? Fine. Quit tinkling in public. It isn't difficult.
1 - Nah, welfare and such are also great for the economy.
There are three things people can spend money on:
- Appreciating assets
- Depreciating assets
- Consumables
At poverty/near poverty levels the only thing these people can spend our tax money/their government dole on are consumables and some very crummy depreciating assets.
Well... where does that money go after it passes right through their hands? (... because they sure ain't saving it).
It goes to grocers, utilities & gasoline, healthcare, some clothes, odds and ends furniture and electronics, just... cr@p. The cr@p of life.
And then those businesses can pay their employees, and utilities, and interest payments, and insurance, and, and, and...
If we withdrew that money, or even significantly reduce it, there would be measurable adverse effect on the local/regional money velocity.
Not good.
Probably have even higher unemployment.
Also not good.
2 - Yep.
You kinda gotta look at it from the POV of "how much do I wanna pay to keep these 'disadvantaged people' away from me?"
And it's really the top 5 or 10% of taxpaying wealthy that pay for 80 to 90% of income tax that funds these things. And of course there's the corporate tax that some of the welfare money just created that gets recycled immediately right back into the system.
Crazy, eh?!
3 - Persecution/prosecution/incarceration produce a lot of jobs.
Again, all those paychecks get distributed right back into local & regional economies.
More paychecks = more money changing hands = employment + more tax revenues = better schools, utility infrastructure, and social services like hospitals and emergency services.
Cut down on the P/P/I and that's more jobs lost by otherwise gainfully employed people.
Quality of life drops for everyone.
And who's footing the bill for the majority of this?
The people that earn skadoodles more than they ever need to buy consumables and depreciating assets.
Taxes are a redistribution of legitimately earned wealth. I can't argue that it isn't.
4 - Nope, although I understand that POV. The criminal justice system is one of many federal and state jobs programs which are actually a single part of an economics program which is a national security objective.
It's simple, but it's not.
It's complicated, but it's not.
Certainly unpalatable until you get a handle on the whole beast.
Last edited:
That's a reductionist, simplistic view of the law that lacks the nuance necessary for justice. We're supposed to be an advanced civilization, not 5th Century feudal Armenia.
As to the rest of your post, that's essentially a defense of socialism. Government spending on things like food stamps and prison might in fact be good for a socialist society, unfortunately we live in the land of capitalism and it's a policy of diminishing returns and inefficiency. It's not even an efficient model for a safe society as the majority of incarcerated people are non violent drug offenders.
Clearly! You made a claim and have yet to prove it!
------------
Debate 101, Lesson 1: The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim, not the one questioning the claim!.
------------
H-44 said:
We don't know that. The OP didn't furnish proof. There might have been a station wagon full of girl scouts in the alley.
brian said:
While you're knocking "socialism", care to explain the absence of "advanced civilization" within capitalists? You know, the Palins, the Perrys, the Bachmanns . . . -- all of whom give Neanderthal man a bad name.
Last edited:
- Status