The Defense Perspective
What utter nonsense! How far do you think we should take this cultural sensitivity? Should we allow rural Nigerians to stone witches to death like they do in their home country? How about honor killings, that Muslims do when their women "dishonor" the family? Is that ok? How about polygamy? Any problems there? Should we allow Afghans to lock their women in the house and not allow them medical care or education? How about equal treatment under the law? That means that American 19 year olds don't get to boink 12 year old girls in this country, and neither does anyone else. I don't recall being a foreigner being a defense in the penal code. If the person is in the country legally, he took an oath to obey the laws, and if he isn't, then he needs his ass deported. Bottom line, if they come here, they need to obey our laws. No exceptions.
You sir, would be struck from my jury panel in a heartbeat. But thanks for your contribution to this discussion.
Why should there be cultural sensitivity training? Why should cultural differences be taken into account? Aren't you asking for special treatment because of race or ethnicity? ISN'T THAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL? Are you saying that a white American boy who has sex with a 12 year old should be treated differently than a brown Mexican boy, simply because of his race and country of origin? What happened to equal protection of the law?
I'm saying that cultural differences effect our world-view and our intent. The criminal law and sentencing policy are concerned with intent. That's why cultural differences are important and should be taken into account. It is quite constitutional and quite legal. In fact, it is imperative that persons from other cultures and ethnicities receive fair treatment in our justice system. The white American boy has grown-up, and has been presumably taught, that having sex with a 12 year-old girl is socially unacceptable. However, the brown-skinned boy from rural Mexico has grown-up believing such conduct is acceptable under certain cultural circumstances. That, my friend, is what equal protection of the law is all about.
I think you are exactly right on this one, Steve. (Let me note first, however, that It's hilarious that Mr Anonymous here (I'll assume it's a dude, since tough talkers usually are) is painting you of all people as a bleeding-heart liberal!) I *do* in fact agree with Mr Anonymous that, if you want to live in America, you need to obey American laws and, hence, in particular, you have to give up on the idea of marrying your 12 year old sweetheart — although the issue becomes complicated if the person was unaware of the law and had no reason to think his actions were illegal. But let's just assume that ignorance of the law is not an excuse and, hence, agree that the jury's decision to convict was correct. I suspect Mr Anonymous would agree that that was the proper outcome according to the doctrine of equal treatment under the law. But equal treatment does not mean equal punishment for every conviction under the same law, a point Mr Anonymous doesn't seem to appreciate. Alongside the doctrine of equal treatment stands the idea of mitigating circumstances — fairness often demands that the circumstances under which a crime has been committed require a reduction in the usual penalty. What I take from your point, Steve, is simply that, in this case, coming from a society in which marriageability coincides with the onset of puberty can count as a mitigating circumstance. Law and Order types like Mr Anonymous, of course, love to take a ride down the slippery slope at this point — if cultural background is a mitigating circumstance, then the next thing you know, we'll be letting off people who practice genital mutilation and mercy killing! How silly. These are practices that obviously cause egregious harm and we are fully capable of distinguishing them those that do not necessarily do so. Obviously, *some* cases of early marriage *could* be mere excuses for child molestation; but distinguishing such cases from those like (apparently) your client's case is exactly the sort of thing we try to discern in a trial. (Your client, for example, seems to have gone about it in a civil way by asking the parents, etc.) This is one of the glory of American jurisprudence — we are a nation of laws but the law is not applied with Taliban-like rigidity but with reasoned judgment. Laws are in fact (as you know) often written with *purposeful* vagueness out of an awareness of the fact that it is impossible to anticipate the circumstances of every possible violation. This allows judges and juries a certain degree of reasoned flexibility.
I do have another question, though. Why is it that people like Mr Anonymous who talk so big and tough are too chickenshit to post their real names? Are they afraid to let people know what they really think? Are they worried that they will actually have to defend themselves openly in the light of day? C'mon Mr Anonymous, man up.
Commenting by HaloScan
