A future historian might one day write the following of our time: “Despite a generally permissive culture in which sexually suggestive photographs were used to advertise products ranging from toothpaste to cars, 21st century Americans nonetheless harbored draconian and puritanical laws involving sexual misconduct. It is almost as though they were afraid of the very desire they relied upon to entertain and to titillate themselves.” Full Op-Ed Piece
CT: Norm Pattis – Courts create special rules for sexual misconduct cases
- ·September 25, 2014
- ·3 Comments
Related Posts...
LA: Court strikes Louisiana’s ‘Sex Offender’ ID requirement
October 20, 2020
My Son is No Sex Offender
October 14, 2020
Thank you, Norm Pattis. for your insightful comments about cases in which an individual has been charged with a sex offense. The mantra of “sex cases are different” explains a lot. And the new word you have created, “Sexophrenia”, is brilliant. We truly live in a society that uses sex both to titillate and to punish its citizens.
The California sex obsession, or “Sexophrenia” as Norm Pattis puts it, was born with the Hays code, nurtured with films, extorted by So Cal marketing, demonized by television crime dramas, exploited by Sacramento politicians and hopefully will expire when every person in California has a family member or friend registered for life.
Agreed, this is a great article! He left out one thing though, that in many cases, the burden of proof is more put on the defendant than the prosecution. The most damning “evidence” in my case was the report of the investigator which was mostly his relaying his opinion of me and my actions, not just stating the actions themselves.