If you change a baby’s diaper in Arizona, you can be convicted of child molestation:

[xbb]

http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=I...n+be+convicted+of+child+molestation&FORM=EWRE

 

[phrodeau]

Figures. There are lots of Jews in Arizona.

 

[MichaelinChina]

http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=I...n+be+convicted+of+child+molestation&FORM=EWRE

Idiot! This is not an issue.

Who, other than the mother or the father, would bother to change a baby's nappy?


Easily proven, not only in court, but to the arresting officer.
And do parents change baby diapers in public there?
Can they be charged even in the privacy of their own home?

Move on!

 

[xbb]

Idiot! This is not an issue.

Who, other than the mother or the father, would bother to change a baby's nappy?


Easily proven, not only in court, but to the arresting officer.
And do parents change baby diapers in public there?
Can they be charged even in the privacy of their own home?

Move on!

teachers

friends

caregivers

siblings

you DIDNT even read the shit

ASSHOLE

 

[MichaelinChina]

teachers

friends

caregivers

siblings

you DIDNT even read the shit

ASSHOLE

OK you open a topic...but don't give YOUR opinion. FUCKWIT!

 

[Colonel Hogan]

teachers

friends

caregivers

siblings

you DIDNT even read the shit

ASSHOLE

You didn't either!

The majority declined to “rewrite the statutes to require the state to prove sexual motivation, when the statutes clearly contain no such requirement.” Moreover, the court held that the laws posed no due process problem, because those prosecuted under the statute could still assert “lack of sexual motivation” as an “affirmative defense” at trial—one the defendant himself must prove to the jury “by a preponderance of the evidence.”

Now I will grant you that is an ass-backwards and almost certainly unconstitutional burden on a defendant to prove his or her innocence, but it is equally clear that it is NOT the intent of the law to criminalize the INNOCENT touching of a child's genitals, but rather to IMPOSE THE BURDEN of proving that the touching was, indeed, innocent.

As I say, I don't think that is ultimately going to hold up against wiser judicial scrutiny, but the law was not intended to do what you think it was.

But then most laws that cause you to soil your panties never have such intent.

 

[xbb]

Hogan bleats

We know knot why

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Hogan bleats

We know knot why

Most people do. In my (in your case) vain attempt to correct ignorance.

Admittedly, it is a thankless job.