Okay, I get it. But there are going to be a lot of "mad dads" (and moms) out there, and I always worry about vigilantism when the law can provide no remedy. Parents don't generally respond well to the "it's his constitutional right", when dealing with pervs.
Posts: 218 | Location: The Border | Registered: April 08, 2011
OK, I fess up to being involved in the drafting of this statute. Seemed like a good idea at the time. The thought was that the "intent to gratify" element would take it into constitutional territory. I agree that a teacher sending a kid a book or discussing it could be protected speech, but if the teacher is sending certain passages of 50 Shades of Gray along with other inappropriate messages, seemed like grooming conduct which would support a constitutional prosecution. I am not sure that the suggested langauge will be that helpful -- pretty narrow. Thoughts on the language Judge Cochran suggests?
Just to clarify, as we are dealing with this issue now, 33.021(b), including subsection 1 and 2 has been struck down as unconstitutional. This would seemingly include all cases where an adult defendant sent nude pictures of himself to an underage child. Correct? Has anybody had any luck in recharging these cases under the Criminal Solicitation statute?