[Puffer Fish]

The sexual exploitation of vulnerable persons by a public officer is an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder, a common law offence derived from custom and judicial precedent.

Common law = unstated law
Law that is not actually written down in the law books but still applied

How many additional things are "illegal" beyond just all the tens of thousands of laws that are actually written down?

[MadMonk]

Common law = unstated law
Law that is not actually written down in the law books but still applied

How many additional things are "illegal" beyond just all the tens of thousands of laws that are actually written down?

If not illegal, can you agree with immoral?

Abusing your position, whether you are a police officer, a judge, a teacher or a movie studio mogul, even the slightest possibility of sexual coercion should be avoided. Unless that person is a creep that is.

Life is more complicated than that and there is always nuance, but it serves as a rule of thumb, right?

A rule of thumb is a guideline, idea, or principle that helps you make decisions.

[Pants-of-dog]

Common law = unstated law
Law that is not actually written down in the law books but still applied

How many additional things are "illegal" beyond just all the tens of thousands of laws that are actually written down?

No, this is not what common law means.

[late]

@Puffer Fish

12 different people came.to the same conclusion after looking at all the evidence.

Also, this happened in a society where cops routinely get away with almost anything.

And it happened in a society where hardly any rapes lead to convictions.

All of this makes me believe that the evidence presented at the trial was very compelling.

Why should anyone ignore that?

[ckaihatsu]

It's not a crime any more than it would be a crime to do anything bad if a law were passed making it illegal to "do anything bad".

That depends on your definition of "right" and "wrong".

Of course it's predictable the Left would have more trouble seeing what's wrong here, since your morality rests less on established ethical principles and more on outcome.

---

The emotional abuse of a vulnerable person is clearly within the mandate involved with a breach of public trust if the abuser was put in that position by a public institution like the police.

viewtopic.php?p=15259073#p15259073

---


PF, can't you see that there's a *power relation* involved here -- ?

You *can't* indict the Left for 'poor-procedural-processing' of morally- and/or ethically-charged cases, mostly because the legally-binding court judgment *exists* as an official benchmark. You can't relativize *legal procedure* itself here, because if you insist / follow-through with it, you'll find yourself *marginalized* to one side or the other of the political spectrum, based on your own idiosyncratic version of 'the moral universe', and it *won't* be the left-side, for *you*.


Means and Ends CHART

Spoiler: show

Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

Spoiler: show

[ckaihatsu]

Vaguely worded and open-ended laws can be subject to all sorts of interpretation.

Since the 'Left' is effectively handing-off *authority* to the *state* in this instance, let's take a quick look at what the state and/or civil society *is*:

[M]arx rejected the positive role of state put forth by Hegel. Marx argued that the state cannot be a neutral problem solver.

Rather than posing it as a problem, as in earlier Marxist conceptions, Gramsci viewed civil society as the site for problem-solving.

The Washington Consensus of the 1990s, which involved conditioned loans by the World Bank and IMF to debt-laden developing states, also created pressures for states in poorer countries to shrink.[17] This in turn led to practical changes for civil society that went on to influence the theoretical debate. Initially the new conditionality led to an even greater emphasis on "civil society" as a panacea, replacing the state's service provision and social care,[17]

By the end of the 1990s civil society was seen less as a panacea amid the growth of the anti-globalization movement and the transition of many countries to democracy; instead, civil society was increasingly called on to justify its legitimacy and democratic credentials.

---

You seem to say you don't care about that, because if he was convicted, that's good enough for you.
But we know there can be all sorts of situations were a person ends up wrongfully convicted, due to a multitude of different reasons, so that alone is not really good enough, is it?

wrongfully convicted

For the sake of *illustration* here, please give your best, archetypal example of a 'wrongful conviction'.


---


Generalizations-Characterizations

Spoiler: show

[Unthinking Majority]

Common law = unstated law
Law that is not actually written down in the law books but still applied

How many additional things are "illegal" beyond just all the tens of thousands of laws that are actually written down?

Did you ever get a blowjob from your family doctor while they were checking your private parts for diseases? Do you think this would be professional conduct?

[Puffer Fish]

Did you ever get a blowjob from your family doctor while they were checking your private parts for diseases? Do you think this would be professional conduct?

That would obviously be non-consensual and very inappropriate, much more simple and obviously inappropriate than what happened in this story.

What you seem to be making is called an argument from extremes.

How about if I give you an analogy, maybe one that will be easier for a Progressive like you to understand.
It would be like if there was no specific law saying that abortion was illegal, but they arrested a woman on the charge of "child endangerment" because she got an abortion. Then told her what she did was "clearly" illegal.

[Unthinking Majority]

That would obviously be non-consensual and very inappropriate, much more simple and obviously inappropriate than what happened in this story.

What you seem to be making is called an argument from extremes.

How about if I give you an analogy, maybe one that will be easier for a Progressive like you to understand.
It would be like if there was no specific law saying that abortion was illegal, but they arrested a woman on the charge of "child endangerment" because she got an abortion. Then told her what she did was "clearly" illegal.

Even if it's consensual it's inappropriate

[Rancid]

@Puffer Fish, do you think rape should be legal?