| In the US States where oral sex is illegal, do tourist information staff warn out of state visitors not to do it there? |
|
In the US States where oral sex is illegal, do tourist information staff warn out of state visitors not to do it there?
Click to vote
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
Asked 3 years ago
by Asroc  United Kingdom |
|
About
Fun-loving, patriotic, Englishman with a warped sense of humour.
It professional of many years.
Hobbies include games, sci-fi and fantasy, military history, live music.
|
| 6 Points |
Come on only in Oklahoma and Arkansas is it illegal to have oral sex. Besides, how will the cops find out?
I think visitors should be warned about Indiana, where A man over the age of 18 may be arrested for statutory rape if the passenger in his car is not wearing her socks and shoes, and is under the age of 17.
It has been stated (and unchallenged) on here that it is illegal in 6 US States.
Even 1 is too many though.
How will they find out?
Simple, the nosy neighbour with a grudge.
Since it is a fact most couples do it, someone making a complaint would have a good chance of being right. If the law is on the books, the police would have to invstigate.
Are you serious about Indiana?
How on earth did that become law.
That would make it so easy for a girl to set a guy up!
I have no idea, those laws do make for a good laugh if they were true under "only in America" http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/america.htm
It is illegal to have a bathtub in a house where I live. There are a lot of old stupid laws still technically on the books that where just over turned at some point, found to be unenforceable, or are just ignored and have never officially been taken off the books.
The difference is these are NEW laws!
The oral sex laws actually exist in far more than six states. Six states have introduced RECENT laws to ban and crack down on sodomy. It was tied into the new 'morality' laws that banned sex toys as well as sodomy, and these laws were introduced hand in hand with the "pro marriage" laws that were placed on the books to discourage gay marriage. A lot of people do not realize all of the laws that were enacted. There were many small details that were left out of the press.
A lot of people think sodomy only refers to anal sex - and that's not true. ANY sexual contact that is NOT penis-vagina contact is sodomy. Oral sex, masturbation, mutual masturbation - all are sodomy.
There are sodomy laws on the books in nearly every state. These laws are considered 'outdated' and are not prosecuted ALTHOUGH they are still laws since they have not been repealed.
The sex toys are the NEW part of the laws.
Here's what I could find with a quick Google. If any one wants to prove me wrong about the oral sex laws - feel free to do so. I WILL apologize, but I make it a point to know these things - people always ask me, and I like to have answers for their questions.
Incidentally, the US Supreme Court refused to hear the arguments against the bans.
Texas:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=at3r24qB4.Ug&refer=us
Mississippi (Mississippi Supreme Court ruling):
http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/OPINIONS/CO15526.PDF
Alabama:
http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2007/10/02/news/doc47015c17d7fbd342607718.txt
The other states that have banned them:
Louisiana, Georgia and South Carolina.
All I can think of to say is WTF. How have people acquiesced to this heinous intrusion into their private lives? And how could the Supreme Court rule in favour? Is the highest court in the land biased in favour of a bunch of insane, Bible thumping moralists? I'm going to remember this nonsense next time someone bleats to me about how much freedom they have in the US.
That's the problems with the 'Puritan' type of thinking - they want freedom, but they think 'freedom' shouldn't include what they don't want you to do. They cannot draw the lines between what does and does not affect them personally. They feel they should have the right to interject their moral beliefs into law.
This has always been the case. TRUE freedom is a constant battle. Ultimately I hope we succeed against this latest attack on our freedom. The problem is those who seek to take away our personal privacy and individual liberties have tied themselves under the banner of 'protecting' our freedom. And many are either too slow (or not smart enough) to see through what they are doing.
I once hear a definition of a puritan as "someone who has a sneaking suspicion that someone else, somewhere in the world is having fun, and wants to stop it!"
Heheheh, excellent!
Agree completely. I'll keep on hoping the sensible population will win out. If only so you can trade in all 50 states =0)
Those laws are outdated and not enforceable. On the oral sex thing how would they prove it? Pictures?
Who CARES how they're going to 'prove' it - it shouldn't be illegal in the first place. What happens between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home should be their own business. The government has no RIGHT to tell them what they can and can NOT do. It's tantamount to telling you which sex position is legal and which is not.
Even if they are unable to 'prove it' beyond a reasonable doubt, how much is 'fair' to pay in legal defense fees once accused of a 'sex crime'?
You learn something new every day, I've never heard of oral sex being illegal anywhere.
Neither had I until recently.
Tragic :(
Here's one link for you:
http://nobodysbusiness.typepad.com/nobodys_business/2005/04/consensual_blow.html
Here's the one that really brought it together in my mind. The boy 17, the girl 15, she gave him a blow job. The boy was sentenced to 10 years. If, however, he'd had consensual SEX with her (the blow job was also consensual), he would have only gotten 2 - 3 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genarlow_Wilson
that's outrageous, but I can partially understand because they were underage but , if you're above the age of 18 I just find it very hard to believe you could get punished for oral sex... thank god I never get pulled over on long trips. :P
No, no. You misunderstand. Yes, he was penalized because he was above the age of consent and she was below the age of consent.
He was given 10 years because it was sodomy (a blow job). If it had been regular sex with an underage girl, he would have only got 1 - 3 years.
Okay - here's the research to back what I say.
27 states have repealed their sodomy laws. But here's how the federal/state crime system works in the US:
If you are accused of breaking a state law, even IF that state law has been 'invalidated' by a Supreme Court ruling, you can still be tried and convicted of breaking the law in the state courts. You can be fined and/or sentenced to state prison and immediately whisked away to start serving your time. A state law has to be REPEALED following a Supreme Court ruling to officially end the states' ability to prosecute.
What happens is AFTER you are convicted, it is up to you to retain an attorney who will then file an appeal in Federal court and have a FEDERAL judge overturn your conviction. If it is a high profile case, often times the ACLU will get involved (which is what makes a lot of conservatives hate the ACLU). The ACLU usually sticks to high profile cases because Federal appeals are NOT inexpensive and their involvement brings national attention. If they manage to get a conviction overturned it will discourage ALL state prosecutors from prosecuting similar cases. If they lose - the states consider it open season on related cases.
Poor people usually have to begin writing campaigns to get the attention of law school students or other interested parties - namely liberal - who will work for free to defend them. And liberals are SO out of fashion these days. (lol) They are also very selective about the cases they accept. Again, it takes hundreds (and sometimes thousands) of man hours and a LOT of money to defend someone through the Federal Court system.
Rich people either aren't accused OR convicted in the first place - or retain top-notch attorneys who automatically file within the state courts for a change of venue to a Federal Court. The Federal court, on first hearing, will toss out the state's case citing the Supreme Court ruling. The prosecutors don't go after the rich NOT because they're rich (although that can have something to do with it), but KNOW that they will not be able to secure a conviction because the rich person will be able to afford a proper defense. Convictions are easier to get against poor people. Boosts their conviction rate before the next election campaign.
Many times if the appeals process will take longer than the prison sentence you've been given - no one will help you. You'll sit in state prison for the 1 - 3 years. Many prisoners have learned the law by reading and trying to defend themselves. Conservatives have gone out of their way to remove law libraries from prisons, or limit prisoner access to them.
So here's the link to current sodomy laws in the US. Scroll down towards the bottom - they'll show you which states can still prosecute sodomy, and the sentences you can receive for giving (and receiving) a blow job. Look for the red states. Although their laws are listed as 'invalidated' - you can still be prosecuted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States
That's scary. Do you have a legal aid system there, to help poor people pay for representation?
And OMG it's a felony punishable with life in some states??? *faint*
Yes - there is a legal aid system. If you can prove that you cannot afford an attorney one is provided by the state. Ever watched the TV show Cops? When people are arrested, that's one of the 'rights' that they're read. A lot of conservatives think cops shouldn't be expected to tell someone what their rights are when they're arrested. Claim they shouldn't be given that kind of information. (lol)
Court appointed attorneys are notoriously bad. Don't get me wrong - some are excellent. But they're generally the ones who graduated towards the bottom of the law class and can't get a job in private practice. Couple it with being overworked and underpaid (naturally - the state pays prosecutors more than they reimburse court appointed attorneys). Very few attorneys WISH to be court appointed attorneys. Some have been found to be cahoots with the prosecution, handing up defendant after defendant without even trying to really help. Granted, a lot of the accused ARE guilty, but often times the innocent are lost because of a jaded and cynical Public Defender. A lot of poor defendants have very ineffectual counsel. Attorneys who join the prosecutor's office are usually those with political ambitions. And more often than not the appeals process begins with a court filed complaint about substandard legal counsel.
Does UK have the "jury of your peers" like we have in the US?
Yep we do, people will get a letter in the post calling them for jury service. Usually it lasts for two weeks, but it can be longer if you are assigned to a case that overuns that period. We only have a jury in Crown Court cases. Lesser crimes can have trials conducted in a magistrates court which has no jury, but you can ask for the trial to be referred to Crown court if you want.
Our legal aid system is slightly different in that you are not necessarily appointed a specific "public defender" but they now come from approved firms. Literally everyone is entitled to legal aid for criminal cases in Crown Court but wealthier people will be expected to pay back all or some of that. There is also a separate system for legal aid in some civil cases. This is means tested so only poorer people are entitled to it.
Because in Crown Court cases must be presented by a barrister, the highest level of accreditation for a lawyer, even if you are on legal aid you will get good representation.
Well - look at that. Mother Country learned from our example and did it one better. (lol)
While rambling through my indictment of our legal system - I did leave out the jury of your peers notion. Any one facing any type of legal action can request a trial by jury. That's why you hear so much about plea bargains in this country. The prosecutor tries to get out of taking your case before a jury - it's expensive.
If you are accused of crime you can ask for the jury. The prosecution then has to convince 12 people that you should be jailed for giving or receiving a blow job. THAT part is what slows down the conviction rate. Jury nullification of the laws by refusing to convict. But often times the judge will tell a jury they MUST convict someone if they found them to be in violation of the law, no matter if they agree with the law or not. This is another form of 'disinformation' that is popular amongst conservatives. A jury can refuse to convict someone without any explanation at all. I do love Thomas Jefferson for that reason ...
I do rather like that idea. I'd imagine it would be difficult to convince 12 people that a blow job is worthy of a prison sentence unless they were 12 lunatic puritans.
... or are lied to about the law. A lot of times they will vote to convict not realizing that they are there NOT as a tool of the state, but as a means to stand between the state and their fellow citizens. Yet another method of the twisting of American justice.