Line of Reasoning - Due Process

In his article, "If You Change a Baby’s Diaper in Arizona, You Can Now Be Convicted of Child Molestation," Mark Joseph Stern discusses the ruling in Arizona that classifies all caregivers of infants and young children as child molesters. He states "Arizona’s child molestation laws have been weaponized into a tool for prosecutorial harassment, allowing the state to target any parent or caregiver—out of spite or malice, or simply to boost their conviction rates. This terrible decision has gutted constitutional rights and turned many of the state’s residents into unknowing criminals. Barring intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court, due process has now been suspended for Arizona’s parents and caregivers."

Stern argues that the vagueness of ARS statutes 13-1404 and 13-1410 implicate any contact with the genitalia, anus, or female breasts of anyone under 15 years of age is sexual abuse or molestation. By extension, this would imply that bathing or changing the diaper on one's child would offer sufficient evidence to put one in jail.

While Stern's argument seems to lean toward extreme, his argument is cogent through Inductive Reasoning. In the court ruling in State v. Holle, the majority declare that no changes or clarification will be added to the statute to make clear that the "touching" should be with sexual intent, and that prosecutors should exercise good judgement when approaching cases involving sexual contact with a child. Stern goes on to suggest that this approach unconstitutionally removes the right to due process through convicting innocent people even though they have not received fair notice of what is punishable by law.

What is furthermore unconstitutional is that the burden to prove lack of sexual intent in these cases falls upon the defendant, which goes against all prior court processes requiring the burden of proof to be provided by the prosecutor.

Innocent until proven guilty? Not in Arizona.