@RoosGirl @Sighlass
Could it be this case that the ad is referring to?
Yes obviously, thanks. Your article from Rawstory is exactly why I don't trust liberal sources without researching them. It is about as obvious a blatant hit piece as the Jones commercial.
......one case Moore recently heard as a state judge—when he refused to convict a child molester who abused a 4-year-old—sheds light on his backward views of sexual assault.
First off the lie that Roy refused to convict the 17 y/o kid. Roy was NOT overturning the first conviction of 1st degree sodomy, He was saying that the second conviction of "Forced" sodomy was NOT supported by law, and Roy was right. Like I pointed out earlier, even liberal fact check Politifact agrees. If Roy was "in the bag" for the kid and wanted to let him go of all charges, then Roy would of objected to the first charge also. Rawstory was just being a leftist dirt bag trying to wrongly pile on Roy by leaving out the fact that Roy did NOT overturn the first sodomy conviction. As a matter of fact, that section of the ruling was not even before the Supreme court, the state only wanted a 2nd opinion on what "forced" meant for future prosecution sake.
Reminds me of when the people rioted in LA due to the fact that the police officers did not get convicted of "attempted murder" or Rodney King... Well the facts did not support "attempted murder". If you got a person on the ground and wanted to kill him (attempt to murder him) then you finish the job. IOWs if "wanting" to murder someone, the perfect case scenario would be while they were laying on the ground helplessly before you. The prosecution just went for too big a judgement hoping to get the extra punishment time in there.
Also note this ...
An appeals court later overturned the forcible rape charge, and the case eventually reached the state Supreme Court.
Your article that you linked from Raw does not mention that the second charge (forced) was first overturned
in another court (The Court of Criminal Appeals) before reaching Roy in the Supreme court of Alabama. Roy's decision was not out of the blue wild, it was already pointed out as suspect in a previous lower court. Was the lower court also full of perverts that defend sodomy? Of course not... it was just a bad decision to try and stick the pervert kid with "forceable" sodomy when it wasn't proven to be so.
One can read the decision here... word for word.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/al-supreme-court/1707584.htmlLet us look at Moore's dissent word for word... look how he has respect for not "legislation from the bench". A factor most constitutionalist cherish. Also note Roy's stated position on how he feels about sodomy (not exactly what Jones and Raw suggested)
I dissent because I am concerned the Court is stepping into the shoes of the legislature in this case.
Sodomy is an abhorrent crime and should be strictly punished. In this case the defendant, Eric Lemont Higdon, a 17–year–old who worked as an intern at a day-care facility, was convicted under § 13A–6–63(a)(3), Ala.Code 1975, of sodomy in the first degree of a child under 12 years old and was sentenced to 23 years' imprisonment. He has not challenged that conviction on appeal.
Higdon was also charged under § 13A–6–63(a)(1), Ala.Code 1975, which states: “A person commits the crime of sodomy in the first degree if ․ [h]e engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another by forcible compulsion.†(Emphasis added.) “Forcible compulsion,†in turn, is defined as “[p]hysical force that overcomes earnest resistance or a threat, express or implied, that places another person in fear of immediate death or serious physical injury to himself or another person.†§ 13A–6–60(8), Ala.Code 1975 (emphasis added).
The “implied†threat in the definition of forcible compulsion is not the threat of sexual assault but of “immediate death or serious physical injury.†The legislature has defined serious physical injury as “[p]hysical injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.†§ 13A–1–2(14), Ala.Code 1975.
Because there was no evidence in this case of an implied threat of serious physical injury under this definition, or of an implied threat of death, Higdon cannot be convicted of sodomy in the first degree “by forcible compulsion.†This Court has previously taken the position that an implied threat under § 13A–6–60(8) may be inferred in cases “concerning the sexual assault of children by adults with whom the children are in a relationship of trust.†See Powe v. State, 597 So.2d 721, 728 (Ala.1991)(emphasis added). Today the Court extends that rule to cases involving sexual assault of children by other children, of perhaps a different age and level of maturity. Although this may be a noble cause in certain situations, policymaking is beyond the role of this Court. This Court has potentially opened the door to cases in which a 10–year–old could be convicted of “first-degree sodomy by forcible compulsion†for intercourse with an 8–year–old, or a 6–year–old with a 4–year–old, or a 16–year–old with a 14–year–old. The legislature, however, has already drawn these lines in the statute under which Higdon was convicted, stating that a person commits sodomy in the first degree if “[h]e, being 16 years old or older, engages in deviate sexual intercourse with a person who is less than 12 years old.†§ 13A–6–63(a)(3). Because the Legislature of Alabama has adopted § 13A–6–63(a)(3), which covered Higdon's conduct, for which he is being punished, this Court has no “right†or “authority†to make a “new†law to govern conduct between minors the legislature obviously chose not to address. Therefore, because I believe this Court is adding its own rule to the statute, I respectfully dissent.
_________________________________
I personally think a judge that does not bend the rules to "pile on" and and rules according to the law refreshing. Doug Jone's ad was a lie, and so was Raw's take on the ruling.
Thanks for making me look deeper at the subject. I now have even more respect for Judge Moore.
