Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: How influential is SCOTUS?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    51

    Post imported post

    I am watching TV and my friend is on the PC looking at sex-offender list in the area (don't know why) and said, "I thought sodomy was legal now". Reading about the SCOTUS decision years ago.... I ensured him it was perfectly legal. Then he showed me this link which clearly has an individual convicted of sodomy but no other crimes. Surprisingly, the conviction was in 2005 (and his photo been updated--- meaning he is a sex offender).

    Naturally, I look up the code he was convicted of:

    § 18.2-361. Crimes against nature; penalty. A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, except as provided in subsection B. B. Any person who performs or causes to be performed cunnilingus, fellatio, anilingus or anal intercourse upon or by his daughter or granddaughter, son or grandson, brother or sister, or father or mother is guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if a parent or grandparent commits any such act with his child or grandchild and such child or grandchild is at least 13 but less than 18 years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent is guilty of a Class 3 felony. C. For the purposes of this section, parent includes step-parent, grandparent includes step-grandparent, child includes step-child and grandchild includes step-grandchild. (Code 1950, § 18.1-212; 1960, c. 358; 1968, c. 427; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1977, c. 285; 1981, c. 397; 1993, c. 450; 2005, c. 185.)
    This surprises me further because doesn't the (2005) part referred to when the code was last "updated". Why would Virginia update the code when section A is clearly against SCOTUS decision. Why would ANY Virginia prosecutor even bother to fight "sodomy" when its consensual? Here is the link to his profile http://sex-offender.vsp.virginia.gov...?id=X000098215


    I honestly hope I am missing something here. But the fact that code 18.2-67.1 deals with forceful sodomy only reinforces my belief that I am sadly correct. I am a bit disturb that the Virginia Senate would update a law that is null and void by SCOTUS. I know this isn't gun related --- but any wrongs on our civil liberties is of concern on this forum, whether its the 2nd amendment or any of the others.


    I tried seeing if I could find another charge of Sodomy but in the 10 minutes I tried, nothing could come up.

  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    DDrake wrote:
    I know this isn't gun related --- but any wrongs on our civil liberties is of concern on this forum, whether its the 2nd amendment or any of the others.

    It may not be gun related but icould well involve OPEN CARRY!:shock::what:

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    Low blow!

  4. #4
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735

    Post imported post

    DDrake wrote:
    I am watching TV and my friend is on the PC looking at sex-offender list in the area (don't know why) and said, "I thought sodomy was legal now". Reading about the SCOTUS decision years ago.... I ensured him it was perfectly legal. Then he showed me this link which clearly has an individual convicted of sodomy but no other crimes. Surprisingly, the conviction was in 2005 (and his photo been updated--- meaning he is a sex offender).

    Naturally, I look up the code he was convicted of:

    § 18.2-361. Crimes against nature; penalty. A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, except as provided in subsection B. B. Any person who performs or causes to be performed cunnilingus, fellatio, anilingus or anal intercourse upon or by his daughter or granddaughter, son or grandson, brother or sister, or father or mother is guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if a parent or grandparent commits any such act with his child or grandchild and such child or grandchild is at least 13 but less than 18 years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent is guilty of a Class 3 felony. C. For the purposes of this section, parent includes step-parent, grandparent includes step-grandparent, child includes step-child and grandchild includes step-grandchild. (Code 1950, § 18.1-212; 1960, c. 358; 1968, c. 427; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1977, c. 285; 1981, c. 397; 1993, c. 450; 2005, c. 185.)
    This surprises me further because doesn't the (2005) part referred to when the code was last "updated". Why would Virginia update the code when section A is clearly against SCOTUS decision. Why would ANY Virginia prosecutor even bother to fight "sodomy" when its consensual? Here is the link to his profile http://sex-offender.vsp.virginia.gov...?id=X000098215


    I honestly hope I am missing something here. But the fact that code 18.2-67.1 deals with forceful sodomy only reinforces my belief that I am sadly correct. I am a bit disturb that the Virginia Senate would update a law that is null and void by SCOTUS. I know this isn't gun related --- but any wrongs on our civil liberties is of concern on this forum, whether its the 2nd amendment or any of the others.


    I tried seeing if I could find another charge of Sodomy but in the 10 minutes I tried, nothing could come up.
    In the few minutes I have, I cannot find the applicable case for this offender but there are a number of ways in which 18.2-361 can still be constitutionally prosecuted even after the ruling in Lawrence and the overturning of Bowers.

    Lawrence only covered private sexual conduct. If the defendant in this case were engaged in sodomy in public, then prosecution under this statute would be constitutional. Prosecution would also be constitutional if the other participant were underage or possessed one of the special status relationships laid out in the statute you quoted.

    And finally, I should point out that, like the Georgia statute in Bowers, Virginia's sodomy statute applies equally regardless of the sex of the participants and therefore does not violate equal protection or due process generally as did the Texas statute in Lawrence.


  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    51

    Post imported post

    jpierce wrote:
    And finally, I should point out that, like the Georgia statute in Bowers, Virginia's sodomy statute applies equally regardless of the sex of the participants and therefore does not violate equal protection or due process generally as did the Texas statute in Lawrence.
    If this is true --- some people need to be voted out of office. The entire concept that law enforcement would be charging individuals base on absurd, seventeenth century, morality laws is disturbing and reminiscent to backwards cultures.

    Does anyone have more information about which senators support this? If I find out some republicans are supporting evangelical-radical thought... I am voting for the democrat.



  6. #6
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735

    Post imported post

    DDrake wrote:
    jpierce wrote:
    And finally, I should point out that, like the Georgia statute in Bowers, Virginia's sodomy statute applies equally regardless of the sex of the participants and therefore does not violate equal protection or due process generally as did the Texas statute in Lawrence.
    If this is true --- some people need to be voted out of office. The entire concept that law enforcement would be charging individuals base on absurd, seventeenth century, morality laws is disturbing and reminiscent to backwards cultures.

    Does anyone have more information about which senators support this? If I find out some republicans are supporting evangelical-radical thought... I am voting for the democrat.
    I was not supporting the statute but rather was answering your initial question as to how a 2005 conviction was possible under this statute.

    As to your second point, please re-read my response. This statute CANNOT be used to prosecute for private sexual behavior. However, public sodomy or sodomy that involves minors or special status relations to the alleged offender ARE still constitutionally proscribed.

    As to which senators support this ... this is an old statute. The courts simply have new binding precedent as to how to interpret it. This really has no relevance to our current batch of legislators, Republican or Democrat.



  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Richmond Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    636

    Post imported post

    Perhaps this individuals crime did not involve a person, therefore you have a conviction.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Louisa County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    821

    Post imported post

    kenny wrote:
    Perhaps this individuals crime did not involve a person, therefore you have a conviction.


    Busted!!!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    DDrake wrote:
    I am watching TV and my friend is on the PC looking at sex-offender list in the area (don't know why) and said, "I thought sodomy was legal now". Reading about the SCOTUS decision years ago.... I ensured him it was perfectly legal. Then he showed me this link which clearly has an individual convicted of sodomy but no other crimes. Surprisingly, the conviction was in 2005 (and his photo been updated--- meaning he is a sex offender).

    Naturally, I look up the code he was convicted of:

    § 18.2-361. Crimes against nature; penalty. A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, except as provided in subsection B. B. Any person who performs or causes to be performed cunnilingus, fellatio, anilingus or anal intercourse upon or by his daughter or granddaughter, son or grandson, brother or sister, or father or mother is guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if a parent or grandparent commits any such act with his child or grandchild and such child or grandchild is at least 13 but less than 18 years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent is guilty of a Class 3 felony. C. For the purposes of this section, parent includes step-parent, grandparent includes step-grandparent, child includes step-child and grandchild includes step-grandchild. (Code 1950, § 18.1-212; 1960, c. 358; 1968, c. 427; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1977, c. 285; 1981, c. 397; 1993, c. 450; 2005, c. 185.)
    This surprises me further because doesn't the (2005) part referred to when the code was last "updated". Why would Virginia update the code when section A is clearly against SCOTUS decision. Why would ANY Virginia prosecutor even bother to fight "sodomy" when its consensual? Here is the link to his profile http://sex-offender.vsp.virginia.gov...?id=X000098215


    I honestly hope I am missing something here. But the fact that code 18.2-67.1 deals with forceful sodomy only reinforces my belief that I am sadly correct. I am a bit disturb that the Virginia Senate would update a law that is null and void by SCOTUS. I know this isn't gun related --- but any wrongs on our civil liberties is of concern on this forum, whether its the 2nd amendment or any of the others.


    I tried seeing if I could find another charge of Sodomy but in the 10 minutes I tried, nothing could come up.
    A lot of times the police will charge this in regards to the "park hags". Males who meet other males in public park bathrooms for ******** and handjobs. We had a problem with that in a couple of Northern Va counties. Little kids would report to their parents that two guys were kissing each others privates in the bathroom, not good.:what:

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    nitrovic wrote:
    A lot of times the police will charge this in regards to the "park hags". Males who meet other males in public park bathrooms for ******** and handjobs. We had a problem with that in a couple of Northern Va counties. Little kids would report to their parents that two guys were kissing each others privates in the bathroom, not good.:what:
    An odd appearance

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    nitrovic wrote:
    A lot of times the police will charge this in regards to the "park hags". Males who meet other males in public park bathrooms for ******** and handjobs. We had a problem with that in a couple of Northern Va counties. Little kids would report to their parents that two guys were kissing each others privates in the bathroom, not good.:what:
    An odd appearance
    He ran out of material to post on the police board or just slumming.

  12. #12
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735

    Post imported post

    Ok. I answered the initial question because of the constitutional law aspect of it but I do not want this topic degrading into something unproductive so I am going to close it now.


    John


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •