Go to jail for 10 years for getting head?

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I can't believe no one has said this yet! I'm dissapointed in you people.

"That sucks."

 

[GinandTonic]

I can't believe no one has said this yet! I'm dissapointed in you people.

"That sucks."

Doh

45678910

 

[JonnyB]

I can't believe no one has said this yet! I'm dissapointed in you people.

"That sucks."

on page 2...

This really sucks.

How is he ever supposed to get ahead in life now?

I even took it a step further.

 

[GenMarshall]

Ok, I see no one has made a comment that I changed my stance after reviewing this and decided to accept and agree with the 2+/- year consideration law that many of you have placed here.

 

[GinandTonic]

Ok, I see no one has made a comment that I changed my stance after reviewing this and decided to accept and agree with the 2+/- year consideration law that many of you have placed here.

Good for you.

 

[Warman17]

from 1st post:

but said the court was bound the by limits set by the Legislature.p

This is why I side with the so called "tyranny of the courts."

 

[Sidhe]

Ok, I see no one has made a comment that I changed my stance after reviewing this and decided to accept and agree with the 2+/- year consideration law that many of you have placed here.

Good whilst I have no problem with being wrong, in this case I was kind of hoping I wasn't. Kudos for your decision.

Oh and we noticed, but it's a mark of your humility that you reiterated the point and kudos for that also. I never actually mentioned it because often when you do people tend to get a little antsy, it's kind of like rubbing it in, you know what I mean, where would humility be if you actually started saying in your face sucker

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

on page 2...


I even took it a step further.

Ah, I see. But did you realize it at the time?

 

[Narz]

Ok, I see no one has made a comment that I changed my stance after reviewing this and decided to accept and agree with the 2+/- year consideration law that many of you have placed here.

I'm very proud of you General.

 

[JonnyB]

Ah, I see. But did you realize it at the time?

Of course, that's why the double entendres were in italics. That was actually my second post in this thread. My first was much less funny..

17 and 15 is a crime punishable by 10 years in prison?

If Georgia is anything like where I grew up, then he's going to have a lot of friends in jail to keep him company.

Then I made the "This sucks" post because I expected this thread to become a spamfest, before it turned into a shouting match by confused virgins.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Of course, that's why the double entendres were in italics. That was actually my second post in this thread. My first was much less funny..

Of course *palm to forehead*

Then I made the "This sucks" post because I expected this thread to become a spamfest, before it turned into a shouting match by confused virgins.

Ah, so that's why this thread went from three to ten pages overnight.

 

[Adamb0mb]

from 1st post:

but said the court was bound the by limits set by the Legislature.p

This is why I side with the so called "tyranny of the courts."

I agree. Its not the fault of the judge, its the fault of the legislature.

It is likely that in order to avoid being seen as "setting free a bunch of convicted rapists" they restricted the change in the law to new rulings only. Letting people rot in jail to avoid bad press seems cowardly to me.

 

[fishjie]

Ok, I see no one has made a comment that I changed my stance after reviewing this and decided to accept and agree with the 2+/- year consideration law that many of you have placed here.

what did you really want to continue our pointless conversation? Okay, notice how i used the words majority and minority. Anyway, the main thing is, I think what they are doing to this kid is wrong and immoral, and you seem to have changed your mind somewhat about that, so I dont really care to post anymore.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Ok, I see no one has made a comment that I changed my stance after reviewing this and decided to accept and agree with the 2+/- year consideration law that many of you have placed here.

And for that you are a much bigger man than most people on this forum.

 

[MobBoss]

Both of them knew what they were doing, and nobody would have been prosecuted in the US outside of Georgia.

False statement as your own link that you provided, this one: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-R-0376.htm indicates that the guy could have been charged in several other states as well.

Also Georgia is not the only state without age limits on the matter, as you well know.

But your ignoring that the boy was a minor also.

Ah...no...he was not a minor in Geogia. The age of consent there is 16. Get your facts straight.

Damn you always ignore things because if you answered everything you would lose the debate.

Damn you always jump to conclusions without any basis of fact. Thats why you lose debates.

how is it name calling? more like im calling you out. your statements reflect your naive world view. you and the others who are agreeing with this sentence show that you are simply incapable of accepting the fact that people have sex, starting at young ages.

Kiddo, I am willing to bet I have seen far more of the world than you have. Apparently, you are incapable of accepting the fact that regardless of whether they have sex or not, its against the law in a lot of places. Why is it against the law? Think about it. Teen promiscuity is a bad thing. It leads to ruined lives. Thats why.

only christians support this kind of law, just like christians support abstinence only sex-ed.

Well, here is a shocker for your naive christian view...as a christian I dont support abstinence only sex-ed. How about that?

everyone else realizes laws such as these are ridiculous and that teenagers will and do have sex. punishing them is stupid.

Nope. Punishing them shows that it is wrong and has ramifications that extend far beyond their young lives.

Clue to you....kids dont know everything regardless of what they may think.

Mobboss don't take this wrong or as a personal hit but chances are unless your teenage daughters are really fat and really ugly (and even then they'll do it for attention) they are sexualy active.

Ah...no. I know my kids far better than you. My oldest has probably met the guy she will marry (hopefully) and they are both christian kids who have agreed to wait.

You couldnt be more wrong.

I know you'll say they aren't and how pure they are and what not but odds are they are sexualy active to a degree more then just kissing and holding hands. Most girls now a days wont have vaginal sex but will partake in oral sex.

You know something...not everyone proscribes to your worldview. Perhaps its time you realized it instead of speaking in generalizations about people you have no idea about.

Actually, as I pointed earlier, 40 states have an age-difference requirement for a sexual act to be considered statutory rape:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-R-0376.htm

So basically CG, MobBoss and RMSharpe are saying the vast majority of the US states have immoral laws.

Not at all. Not all of those laws are the same...even among the 40 states who have age-differences. Morality actually has no place in the picture. Each state has the right to dictate the laws it sees fit to have on the books. I also feel compelled to point out that even in several of the states of those 40 this 17 year old was still punishable via their laws as well as several have a two year cut-off instead of a three or four year limit.

Please address the other points in my post. And, in California, we do not have the same laws as Georgia.

Then let me educate you...if you as a 15 year old have sex with a 13 year old you are guilty of a misdemeanor in the state of California and can spent as much as a year in county jail.

Hows that grab you? Think its ok now?

What a load of crap. There are high school kids out there significantly smarter than either of us (not any of these goons here of course but it's easier possible).

Dont confuse smart with maturity.

Your stupidity as a minor (like your history of physical intimacy) should not be relivant when it comes to the law.

Stupidity and ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Not for adults nor for kids.

If kids were given more respect and responsibility they'd probably do alot more good with it. When not much is expected of them they tend to just waste time and get into trouble.

Some might...a lot wouldnt. More than a few would abuse their responsibility simply because they are kids.

 

[Don Uittone]

MobBoss, your values and rationale disgust me. I don't know you personally so you could be the kindest guy in the world but in general people like you are a major reason why the US cannot be the country it could be. And on a related note, not suprisingly you're religious. I guess some people need the strict illogical and immoral guidelines for being able to cope with the world.

 

[MobBoss]

MobBoss, your values and rationale disgust me.

/shrug.

I don't know you personally so you could be the kindest guy in the world but in general people like you are a major reason why the US cannot be the country it could be.

You would rather it be a cesspool full of pregnant teens, drug abusers, orphans, etc. etc.?

Sorry, but I dont agree with you.

And on a related note, not suprisingly you're religious. I guess some people need the strict illogical and immoral guidelines for being able to cope with the world.

Uhm...no. I happen to have very logical and moral guidelines. As in, I wouldnt encourage kids to have sex, nor would I just give up on them because I think they will do it anyway. But I suppose someone with your high morals would encourage it, regardless of the ramifications it could lead to.

 

[Fifty]

I think MobBoss may be confusing legality with justness.

 

[MobBoss]

I think MobBoss may be confusing legality with justness.

Well, lets look at this realistically shall we. Everyone is bent out of shape about this kids 10 year sentence. Guess what? I am willing to bet he will only serve a fraction of that before qualifying for parole.

I will be the first to admit the legal system is not always fair. It can hardly be fair when a simple state line dictates whether you spend 1 year or 10 years in jail. But thats the system and it is a far better system than most.

Is it justice that this kid get a 10 year sentence? Probably not, but I dont know all the details of the case and I am willing to bet most of us here dont either. What goes down in a courtroom is not always what ends up in the print media. Nor is it always portrayed neutrally.

Bottom line, this person was tried and found guilty and sentenced according to the laws of the state of Georgia. Its hard for me to get bent around the axle on it as I have an extremely dim view of people who engage in sex with minors.

 

[-0blivion-]

I will be the first to admit the legal system is not always fair. It can hardly be fair when a simple state line dictates whether you spend 1 year or 10 years in jail. But thats the system and it is a far better system than most.

Just because its a far better system than most, it does not mean it is necessary to sit back and be content with it.