Re: Rumor Control and Sunil's Quibble

["Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam@hotmail.com>]

Greg,

If I missed your point it's for the following reasons:
-You claimed that the drunk frat boys (DFBs) were being prosecuted to the 
fullest extent of the law, when you knew that they could be charged with 
felonies.
-You seemed to be arguing that this zealous prosecution resulted from their 
stealing from a special group receiving extra protection.  Actually, I think 
one could make the argument that the student group received less protection 
than others might have, since misdemeanors were charged instead of felonies. 
  Would the DFBs have been charged with burglary if they had broken into a 
church and stolen bibles and hymnals with the intent of returning to the 
frat house and burning them?  I don't know, but I'm pretty sure the outrage 
would have been equal if not more.

I guess I'm going to put words in your mouth, but I'm confident you'll point 
out the wrong ones: you seem to be saying that these guys were prosecuted, 
but no one in the gay organization is being prosecuted for sodomy.  I 
suppose this could launch a discussion about crimes with and without 
victims, but I'll go there next.  I'll start by saying a group that puts 
forward a political agenda (let's say it's gay rights) is just engaging in 
protected speech.  Should they move into demonstrating techniques, then we'd 
have a prosecutable crime, assuming there were willing witnesses. We don't 
have that here. I think that's why the DFBs were the only ones prosecuted. 
And just to be clear, I don't have a problem with the misdemeanor charges, 
just as long as other young people who do similarly stupid things when 
they're drunk don't get charged with felonies.

Moving on to the issue of victims, obviously there were victims here. I'll 
go ahead and say that I'm not a believer in prosecuting 'victimless' crimes; 
that's one reason I'm no longer a deputy prosecutor.  I think prosecuting 
theft is seen as good law because its commission involves hurting others.  
Tom Hansen made a good point when he said that there are all kinds of laws 
that don't get charged.  When was the last time you defended someone charged 
with fornication or adultery? I've neither charged those nor defended them.  
I don't think that those 'crimes' go unprosecuted because they're seen as 
discriminatory; I think as a society we don't think they should be 
prosecuted.

Should every 17-year old boy who has pre-marital sex with his girlfriend be 
charged with rape?  Should the girlfriend be charged with Lewd and 
Lascivious Conduct?  There are probably people out there who say 'Yes,' and 
I'm glad they haven't been making the charging decisions. I don't think it 
would be a good use of our resources to charge all the crimes that are on 
the books.

And I don't think you look dumb...

Sunil

>From: "Gregory Dickison" <gdickison@moscow.com>
>To: "Vision 2020" <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: Rumor Control and Sunil's Quibble
>Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:18:39 -0700
>
>My thanks to Daniel and Sunil for their responses. However, they miss the 
>point. Maybe it was my use of metaphor and hyperbole (Sunil, I know the 
>frat boys could have been charged with felonies; I am not quite as dumb as 
>I may look). That's okay, though. I went to the government schools, too, 
>and even back in the good 'ol days, they were weak on that sort of thing.
>
>My point was, bluntly speaking, this: there are laws on the books 
>prohibiting homosexual sex, as well as burglary and theft. Why is it 
>acceptable to prosecute one category of crime, but not the other? Why is 
>the one seen as a good law, and the other as bad (or discriminatory, 
>old-fashioned, etc.)?
>
>Daniel comes close to an answer when he says, "we all get to decide." But, 
>and I suspect he knows this, that is not really true. In spite of the claim 
>of tolerance, there are certain points of view that are not seriously 
>considered. Instead, they are "tolerated" in the same way that a 2-year-old 
>is tolerated, labled as bigotted or homophobic, or are simply ignored 
>(witness the recent e-mails assuming that this is not part of the 
>legitimate community discussion of Moscow's future, and reminding us that 
>we all know how to use the delete key). But I do not understand that. Is 
>not my truth-claim just as valid as your truth-claim, and worthy of equal 
>discussion? And when we are discussing it, is there no ultimate standard 
>against which our truth-claims can be measured? Or do we just go on 
>fighting it out until one of us either convinces the other, quits, or 
>implements his point of view by force?
>
>By the way, Daniel, in response to your last questions: I can assume that 
>the Gay Straight Alliance advocates acceptance of homosexual sex the same 
>way that I can assume that McDonald's advocates eating Big Macs. Sometimes 
>those pesky labels actually communicate something true.
>
>Thank you for the opportunity to take part. I do appreciate it.
>
>Gregory C. Dickison
>Lawyer & Counselor at Law
>Post Office Box 8846
>312 South Main Street
>Moscow, Idaho 83843
>(208) 882-4009




_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com