|
Can it be a crime to masturbate with a (child?) sex doll alone in your room? The majority avoids this issue, but Judge Johnson spots the glaring constitutional problem and faces it head on. Why would CAAF want ACCA to first weigh in on a pure issue of constitutional law? This remand is a waste of everyone's time. The sooner CAAF can clean up the poorly-reasoned Marcum test, the better. And if they won't, maybe the Supreme Court will.
Scott
5/8/2024 22:44:12
Although it was briefed extensively, thr constitutional issue wasn't really included in the scope of the certification.
Tami a/k/a Princess Leia
6/19/2024 15:24:16
Scott, similar questions were raised in Armendariz, 82 M.J. 712 (NMCCA 2022).
Tami a/k/a Princess Leia
5/9/2024 11:58:36
I was very disappointed in the majority opinion. That being said, the AFCCA (not ACCA) did not address whether the conduct was constitutionally protected (I agree with Judge Johnson that it is) or whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient (it wasn't, especially the "service-discrediting" element).
Brenner M. Fissell
5/9/2024 12:01:08
Yes Scott they should've specified. Anyway, I guess we will stay tuned on this one.
Scott
5/9/2024 17:34:16
Should every constitutional or important issue just skip the CCA and go straight to CAAF?
Unconstitutional?
5/9/2024 15:43:28
How can something be constitutionally protected when at least 6 states now have laws proscribing the possession of the dolls? Are all those laws unconstitutional?
Tami a/k/a Princess Leia
5/9/2024 16:16:44
Unconstitutional, the charge against Rocha wasn't about possession of the doll, which no jurisdiction outlawed at the time. The issue is that he was charged with having sex with it, a piece of silicone, in the privacy of his bedroom. And if you look closely at the jurisdictions that have criminalized the possession, sale, transport etc. of "childlike sex dolls," you will see that NONE of them criminalized having sex with those dolls.
Unconstitutional?
5/9/2024 16:38:37
So it is constitutionally protected to masturbate to CSAM? So if a CSAM case was charged as “masturbating to CSAM” then that would proscribe constitutionally-protected conduct? After all, it is just masturbating using an inanimate object - a computer. Is bestiality constitutionally protected? Defiling a corpse?
Tami a/k/a Princess Leia
5/9/2024 17:10:15
The doll isn't CSAM, no matter what it's size or how offensive some people might think. There are quite a few people who prefer to have "relationships" with, including sex, inanimate objects, including dolls. At the end of the day, this doll is nothing more than a TOY. It doesn't matter if it represents an adult, a child, an infant, an animal, a corpse, an alien, an elf, or some other fantasy creature. There are no circumstances that justify persecuting this kid for "indecent acts."
Trial Counsel
5/10/2024 00:30:29
The "toy" was so lifelike that it startled the MA arriving at the scene to think it was a real child. That's all sorts of messed up.
Tami a/k/a Princess Leia
5/10/2024 11:44:26
Trial counsel, "messed up" isn't synonymous with criminal. Sexual conduct with an inanimate object that occurs in private isn't actionable. Comments are closed.
|
Disclaimer: Posts are the authors' personal opinions and do not reflect the position of any organization or government agency.
Co-editors:
Phil Cave Brenner Fissell Links
SCOTUS CAAF -Daily Journal -2024 Ops ACCA AFCCA CGCCA NMCCA JRAP JRTP UCMJ Amendments to UCMJ Since 1950 (2024 ed.) Amendments to RCM Since 1984 (2024 ed.) Amendments to MRE Since 1984 (2024 ed.) MCM 2024 MCM 2023 MCM 2019 MCM 2016 MCM 2012 MCM 1995 UMCJ History Global Reform Army Lawyer JAG Reporter Army Crim. L. Deskbook J. App. Prac. & Pro. CAAFlog 1.0 CAAFlog 2.0 Archives
October 2024
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed