UPDATE: Colorado has what’s called a “Romeo and Juliet” exception to statutory rape. This type of law creates exemptions for consensual sex between someone 14 years or younger who has sex with someone three or fewer years older. Why this matters – Hick, tonight, was talking about someone who is 17 years old who is charged with statutory rape for having sex with a minor. He (or she) would only be charged is if this 17-year old was having sex with a 13-year old. We think we can agree that a 17-year old having sex with a 13-year old is not ok. Surely, Hick wasn’t complaining about charges stemming from a 17-year old having sex with a 13-year old…right?
Tonight’s debate didn’t go all that well for Gov. Hickenlooper. At one point, he appeared to defend teenage sex offenders, who were labeled sex offenders due to statutory rape. Is a 17-year old able to make a decision about sex as an adult? What about a 15-year old? A 13-year old? In other words, was Hick saying statutory rape is not rape? Is this Governor Hickenlooper’s Todd Akin moment?
Watch the clip:
From the debate:
Beauprez: On your official website, there’s something called the Colorado Violations Decision Making Process Users Guide. In fact, I downloaded and printed a copy here. Did you even know, according to your own standards, which were adopted in March of 2011, a sex offender could volunteer in child-related locations. That’s directly from the language of the document. And not have their parole revoked?
Hickenlooper: Again, I don’t have the document in front of me and I haven’t read it so….
Beauprez: But you approved it? This was approved on your watch? In March of 2011?
Hickenlooper: I have to see what the details of it are, in what context. You know there’s a number of issues around sexual offenders, you know a 17 year old is dating a young woman who is underage and somebody files a case against that, he becomes a sex offender. Now, I’m not sure if that’s fair or not fair, but that’s what sometimes happens. I don’t know if that’s what that is referring to or not. Maybe that person in certain situations is allowed, actually, I know by law they’re not, but maybe there’s some way in that that they’re allowed to do that.
Beauprez: Shaun, this is why public safety is an important campaign issue.
Here’s why this reminds us of that idiot running for Senate in Missouri, Todd Akin, in 2012. Akin used a phrase “legitimate rape” – as if there were some kind of “illegitimate rape”. According to Hickenlooper’s logic, is statutory rape not legitimate rape because it may or may not have been violent, may or may not have been consensual, may or may not have been between two people who were old enough to consent? What if just one person was old enough to consent? At what point does Governor Hickenlooper think rape is rape? And, by extension, when is a sex offender a “legitimate” sex offender?
Perhaps we should just leave you with President Obama’s words on the subject of rape from 2012, as reported on ProgressNow:
“Well, let me first of all say the views expressed were offensive. Rape is rape. And the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of rape we’re talking about doesn’t make sense to the American people, and certainly doesn’t make sense to me.”
Now, with apologies for the bluntness, I just don't have time for idiots. Go ahead and spew the signal-jamming noise you arbitrarily accept as wisdom. Nothing any rational person ever says will ever cut through that noise and reach your well-insulated mind. I won't respond to you again.
As irrelevant as it is, please list the grammatical errors in my comments. There could be one or two –these are not intended as perfected works of literature– but I'd be willing to bet that my rate of grammatical error is far below average.
As for my inference, well, I'd say the odds are well in favor of its accuracy. I'm really not interested in getting drawn into a game with you that you will never really understand but will be sure you have won despite that fact. There's a difference between inferences and assumptions, and there's a difference between basing them on relevant evidence and basing them on irrelevant categorical characteristics. But I'm sure you will find some way to pretend that that self-evident truth just doesn't cut the mustard, because you clearly are highly motivated to score meaningless points rather than to be affected by fact and reason.
Steve Harvey – what is my "ideological camp?" Do you know something about me from my 2 sentence post? Hmm? Or are you making an assumption based on my skin color or alma mater? Because that would mean you are a bigot – and I'm SURE that's not true.
Teachers should learn grammar. That's my ideology.
Kevin, it's such silly rhetorical ploys that help make your ideological camp appear to be the bastion of ignorance that it, in fact, is. Who on earth would have anyone proofread a spur-of-the-moment post on blog? And who really believes that finding typos is proof of having made a superior argument? How absurd do you really want to be?
I'd think a student advisor would have no end of people to proofread his diatribe before he posted it. I see I thought wrongly.
You cited my job; I referred to my "private life" as the counterpart to that, which includes in participating on public forums in my off time. As for your concern with my isolated use of the word "assholes" I have to admit that I almost never read anything on this blog, but I'm willing to bet you're being highly selective in where to direct your outrage. I also doubt that you've been empowered as moderator of the blog, or that if you were you would be doing so in anything resembling an impartial way. So why not get over the assault to your virgin ears, and respond to the substance of my point instead, or, even better, don't respond at all, since you clearly have nothing of substance to say.
Mr. Harvey, This appears to be public forum, not your private life. If you can't make your arguments without vulgarities, you would do well to keep them to yourself.
Gary, as it happens the debate isn't over whether "student dvisors" (sic) should ever swear in their private lives or not, but rather over the obvious lack of intellectual and moral integrity demonstrated on an almost constant basis by the far right in America today. And, ironically, your confusion about that is just one more drop of evidence in the surging ocean you and your fellow travelers present us with daily.
"Are the assholes doing it assholes? Yes. End of story."
Nice talk, Mr. Harvey, student dvisor.
Why should he be given a break? He obviously has no clue about the bill he signed. He should at least have some general knowledge about it to speak intelligently. He definitely could not speak intelligently about a bill he supposedly read and did indeed sign.
This is COPeakPolitics as its disingenuous, ideologically brainless best. The point was that sex offender status is assigned to broadly, that we have to be careful to ensure that it is assigned appropriately, and that one example of how it is sometimes assigned too broadly is that a young adult dating a minor a couple of years his junior can be labeled a sex offender. Did Hickenlooper have in mind the exact ages specified in current Colorado law? Probably not. Is it a reasonable expectation that he have every detail of every Colorado law perfectly memorized? No. Is this a case of exploiting fabricated outrage for partisan purposes on the basis of intentionally misleading interpretations and attributions? Obviously. Are the assholes doing it assholes? Yes. End of story.
This is COPeakPolitics as its disingenuous, ideologically brainless best. The point was that sex offender status is assigned to broadly, that we have to be careful to ensure that it is assigned appropriately, and that one example of how it is sometimes assigned too broadly is that a young adult dating a minor a couple of years his junior can be labeled a sex offender. Did Hickenlooper have in mind the exact ages specified in current Colorado law? Probably not. Is it a reasonable expectation that he have every detail of every Colorado law perfectly memorized? No. Is this a case of exploiting fabricated outrag for partisan purposes on the basis of intentionally misleading interpretations and attributions? Obviously. Are the assholes doing it assholes? Yes. End of story.
Can you say "back pedal?"
Give Hick a break he is doing ok. I don't he meant that rape is ok. Ithibk he was questioning the ages specfied in satutory rape