[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Serry... wrote: [/QUOTENAME]We should ban sex from our lives and lives of our children and lives of their children. No sex - no problem. Read the books rather![/QUOTE]
lmao....
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zeni wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Everyone should be asking themselves what they would do if this happened to their child.
.
.
.
And he did nothing wrong.
[/QUOTE]
But let me point out one thing:
He helped plan a party that included younger teens, alcohol, marijuana, and videotaped sex. To say he "did nothing wrong" ignores those facts. [/QUOTE]
Yes, it does ignore those facts, and so it's a mis-statement on my part. However, it was my understanding that the cause for his arrest and incarceration was the sex and nothing more, and so I agree with Haystacks...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The young man arrested was admittedly not a saint...
That said, the punishment here does NOT fit the crime.
Should he have been in legal trouble over what happened? Absolutely. 60 days in jail perhaps? 3-5 years probation? Sure.
But, it should have had nothing to do with the sex act, and had to do with setting up the party where kids were drinking illegally, and using illegal drugs.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I agree with Haystacks as well. My only issue is that while we feel justifiably upset over the poor verdict, it should not ignore the other problems involved.
Everyone should be asking themselves what they would do if this happened to their child.
.
.
.
And he did nothing wrong.
[/QUOTE]
But let me point out one thing:
He helped plan a party that included younger teens, alcohol, marijuana, and videotaped sex. To say he "did nothing wrong" ignores those facts. [/QUOTE]
Yes, it does ignore those facts, and so it's a mis-statement on my part. However, it was my understanding that the cause for his arrest and incarceration was the sex and nothing more, and so I agree with Haystacks...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The young man arrested was admittedly not a saint...
That said, the punishment here does NOT fit the crime.
Should he have been in legal trouble over what happened? Absolutely. 60 days in jail perhaps? 3-5 years probation? Sure.
But, it should have had nothing to do with the sex act, and had to do with setting up the party where kids were drinking illegally, and using illegal drugs.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I agree with Haystacks as well. My only issue is that while we feel justifiably upset over the poor verdict, it should not ignore the other problems involved.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PieterMC wrote: [/QUOTENAME]While I agree that the verdict is stupid you are once again painting the entire United States as an awful place. That state is not the only place in the entire world that has outdated laws.
You are using this awful verdict as another opportunity to bash the United States.
Trust me, you have NO idea what it's really like here.[/QUOTE]
Did you expect anything less from him?
You are using this awful verdict as another opportunity to bash the United States.
Trust me, you have NO idea what it's really like here.[/QUOTE]
Did you expect anything less from him?
Now that's a stupid law. Two year age differences... it's like that up here in NH here too though.
fine words and wisdom from SC
A friend of mine was 17 and had sex with a 15 year old and they both said they were willing but the girls parents didn't like it and my friend almost had 30 days. Sucks for him because he didn't get it, but he can't get in any kind of trouble till he's 21, and it's on his record till then.
This isn't exactly on topic, but on a side note:
If you don't keep up to date with sex laws, then it's understandable to accidentally break them.
However, when kids who are fully versed in age of consent laws, etc. (and many, if not most, of them are) get in trouble for breaking them, I really can't have any sympathy for them.
If you don't keep up to date with sex laws, then it's understandable to accidentally break them.
However, when kids who are fully versed in age of consent laws, etc. (and many, if not most, of them are) get in trouble for breaking them, I really can't have any sympathy for them.
I agree. The sentence was harsh but at the end of the day the girl was 15 and that makes her a minor.
"However, when kids who are fully versed in age of consent laws, etc. (and many, if not most, of them are) get in trouble for breaking them, I really can't have any sympathy for them."
You don't think ten years of prison is an adequate response of the society to the "breaking of consent laws", do you? You don't think that each and every law is good and should be upheld through the centuries no matter what, do you? I don't want to bore you with laws we had under the Nazis but there are laws in democracies which have also to be revised because they do not apply to the social reality we live in. Not to have any sympathy for this boy is beyond my comprehension.
You don't think ten years of prison is an adequate response of the society to the "breaking of consent laws", do you? You don't think that each and every law is good and should be upheld through the centuries no matter what, do you? I don't want to bore you with laws we had under the Nazis but there are laws in democracies which have also to be revised because they do not apply to the social reality we live in. Not to have any sympathy for this boy is beyond my comprehension.
I wonder if he'd get ten years if he stabbed someone.
what people do on their own time is their buisness, there was no harm in it (the word consensual stands out). it was their choice to do what they did. but to pull out a law that is old and defunkt is just stupid.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I wonder if he'd get ten years if he stabbed someone.[/QUOTE]
I'm not a student of law... but... I found this here : http://www.criminaldefenseadvice.com/georgia-battery-lawyer.html
[QUOTE]Battery:
Occurs when one intentionally causes substantial physical harm or intentionally causes visible bodily harm to another. The State needs to show some proof that an injury even a relatively minor one took place. The penalty is a misdemeanor unless:
Second conviction for battery against the same victim. In such cases, the offense is a high and aggravated misdemeanor with 10 days to 12 months in prison, or $1,000.00 fine, or both.
Third conviction for battery against the same victim is a felony. This carries punishment of 1 to 5 years in prison.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]However, when kids who are fully versed in age of consent laws, etc. (and many, if not most, of them are) get in trouble for breaking them, I really can't have any sympathy for them.[/QUOTE]
In the video it said that if he had had sex with the girl (as opposed to receiving oral sex)it would have been a misdemeanor (therefore certainly not ten years).
Yes, it would have still been illegal - but the disparity between the past punishment for intercourse and oral sex is absurd.
Also, I don't think most people my age know about the age of consent - I'm not sure that adults would even know (most people go "whoopie, I'm legal !" when they're 18, even if they could have been legally having sex with people of certain ages already). And it can be different from state to state, gender to gender, and if you're having homosexual intercourse (and even differences if you're two girls or two boys).
True, "ignorance is no excuse" - but the law he was sentenced by is on a level with it being illegal for a woman to cut her hair without consent of her husband. It seems silly that oral sex has a HIGHER punishment than intercourse - especially since some people don't even consider oral sex to be "sex".
--
I was found the video (the link wouldn't play), but I didn't get to an article, so I don't know what went on with drugs or anything. Certainly, that should be punished.
And him getting oral sex from an under-age girl should be, too. Though he was under 18 and she was willing (and not that much younger) - so I don't see it being a huge punishment.
But to send him to jail for ten years for partaking in a sex act that I, personally, see as a lesser offence than actually having penetrative sex (there's the risk of STDs, but they would have to be doing something really... interesting... for there to be a risk of pregnancy) - that's just stupid.
If there's no evidence that he forced her to do it, FAIR (and, in my opinion for this case, minimal) punishment should be given, and she should have to live with the fact that she willingly allowed herself to be videotaped giving oral sex.
I'm not a student of law... but... I found this here : http://www.criminaldefenseadvice.com/georgia-battery-lawyer.html
[QUOTE]Battery:
Occurs when one intentionally causes substantial physical harm or intentionally causes visible bodily harm to another. The State needs to show some proof that an injury even a relatively minor one took place. The penalty is a misdemeanor unless:
Second conviction for battery against the same victim. In such cases, the offense is a high and aggravated misdemeanor with 10 days to 12 months in prison, or $1,000.00 fine, or both.
Third conviction for battery against the same victim is a felony. This carries punishment of 1 to 5 years in prison.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]However, when kids who are fully versed in age of consent laws, etc. (and many, if not most, of them are) get in trouble for breaking them, I really can't have any sympathy for them.[/QUOTE]
In the video it said that if he had had sex with the girl (as opposed to receiving oral sex)it would have been a misdemeanor (therefore certainly not ten years).
Yes, it would have still been illegal - but the disparity between the past punishment for intercourse and oral sex is absurd.
Also, I don't think most people my age know about the age of consent - I'm not sure that adults would even know (most people go "whoopie, I'm legal !" when they're 18, even if they could have been legally having sex with people of certain ages already). And it can be different from state to state, gender to gender, and if you're having homosexual intercourse (and even differences if you're two girls or two boys).
True, "ignorance is no excuse" - but the law he was sentenced by is on a level with it being illegal for a woman to cut her hair without consent of her husband. It seems silly that oral sex has a HIGHER punishment than intercourse - especially since some people don't even consider oral sex to be "sex".
--
I was found the video (the link wouldn't play), but I didn't get to an article, so I don't know what went on with drugs or anything. Certainly, that should be punished.
And him getting oral sex from an under-age girl should be, too. Though he was under 18 and she was willing (and not that much younger) - so I don't see it being a huge punishment.
But to send him to jail for ten years for partaking in a sex act that I, personally, see as a lesser offence than actually having penetrative sex (there's the risk of STDs, but they would have to be doing something really... interesting... for there to be a risk of pregnancy) - that's just stupid.
If there's no evidence that he forced her to do it, FAIR (and, in my opinion for this case, minimal) punishment should be given, and she should have to live with the fact that she willingly allowed herself to be videotaped giving oral sex.
A) I was in no way supporting or approving of that law.
B) I doubt he was aware that he could serve up to ten years in prison for that offense. Hence, he would belong in the former category I listed.
C) I stand by my assertion that if one knowingly breaks a law and is fully aware of its consequences, regardless of how illogical a law is, then he hardly deserves my sympathy. The only exception I can think of is if a law SIGNIFICANTLY infringes upon one's natural rights. Preventing teenagers from performing sexual activities, while an infringement of somebody's rights, is hardly significant.
B) I doubt he was aware that he could serve up to ten years in prison for that offense. Hence, he would belong in the former category I listed.
C) I stand by my assertion that if one knowingly breaks a law and is fully aware of its consequences, regardless of how illogical a law is, then he hardly deserves my sympathy. The only exception I can think of is if a law SIGNIFICANTLY infringes upon one's natural rights. Preventing teenagers from performing sexual activities, while an infringement of somebody's rights, is hardly significant.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
If there's no evidence that he forced her to do it, FAIR (and, in my opinion for this case, minimal) punishment should be given, [/QUOTE]
If he forced her (which there is no claim that he did), then that is rape. "Minimal" should never enter the equation if it is rape.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
and she should have to live with the fact that she willingly allowed herself to be videotaped giving oral sex.[/QUOTE]
Odds on she was drunk and/or high when she was videotaped.
If there's no evidence that he forced her to do it, FAIR (and, in my opinion for this case, minimal) punishment should be given, [/QUOTE]
If he forced her (which there is no claim that he did), then that is rape. "Minimal" should never enter the equation if it is rape.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
and she should have to live with the fact that she willingly allowed herself to be videotaped giving oral sex.[/QUOTE]
Odds on she was drunk and/or high when she was videotaped.