Go to jail for 10 years for getting head?

[Bill3000]

MobBoss still hasn't justified his claim that having sex with a minor by definition is a pedophile.

 

[Sidhe]

If I may interject again has anyone thought that should this decision be deemed unethical or an abuse of the law, and the law is changed then MB and CG would have no other choice but to condem the new system as being immoral, where as of course 90% of right thinking people would breathe a sigh of relief that common sense had prevailed over faccist rule judges. I may be guessing about 90% but hey why not put up a pole? If nothing else it would be interesting to see where opinion really lies?

MobBoss still hasn't justified his claim that having sex with a minor by definition is a pedophile.

Nope and no ones answered the question of 65--> 15 should get the same punishment as 17--->15 as they are or aren't morally equivalent, and thus legally valid/invalid either, but then I think everyones kind of got away from reason in the last couple of pages and resorted to Religion or morality tales.

 

[Quinzy]

Are you the one that is prescribed to make judgements about what people feel or what they intend to do?

as i've said, it was probably inatuation/spur of the moment/alcohol induced or some combo of those. i know from experience that some people let drink get to their head very easily...

 

[amadeus]

Stop IGNORING THE FACTS.

He was a minor also.

And regardless of the law she consented from her own mouth. Obviously though because of people like you, they say she isnt responsible for sucking a ****.

You already know what my reply is, and I'm not going to bother repeating it as you didn't seem to read it the first two times that I posted.

 

[-0blivion-]

Why yes I do thanks, unless you have in fact been the victim of statutory rape then I imagine I know them just as well as you. Studied extensively for a practice court case last year, law is one of my side interests

The laws I imagine you can find in that handy link Masquerouge posted - its quite illuminating.

I would of course argue that this is not statutory rape at all - it is by the law, as the young vixen in question was underage. But, as i understand it, eyewitness reports and more important the (infallible) video camera show that the madam was consenting - of course, she couldn't consent if she was 15 years 364 days but she could consent if she were 16 years 0 days - by the law.

This is where courts need to show some good common sense and go via the spirit of the law in accordance with the letter of the law - and more importantly, its where lawmakers need to show some good common sense and show the value of a grey area as in most US states rather than a hard cutoff that defines one day as being able to define whether a man or woman can consent to sex or not.

 

[Masquerouge]

If I may interject again has anyone thought that should this decision be deemed unethical or an abuse of the law, and the law is changed then MB and CG would have no other choice but to condem the new system as being immoral, where as of course 90% of right thinking people would breathe a sigh of relief that common sense had prevailed over faccist rule judges. I may be guessing about 90% but hey why not put up a pole? If nothing else it would be interesting to see where opinion really lies?

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.

 

[TheLoneMan]

It doesn't mean you lose it just means you weaken the use of Nazzi's/Hitler in any argument in future. And it's Godwyn's law. I must say though it's kind of amusing to see a reference to nazism in a thread about over zealous judges, hmm perhaps it's not as silly as I first thought

Over at Slashdot you'll have a crowd of pirhanas jump all over you screaming Godwyn (I know that now... why did I think Stetson?). It actually successfully weeds out the people who don't know much what they're talking about and make easy references to obvious and sketchily-related material (that wasn't an attack on you, Xanikk999, just next time do something a little more creative ).

Well hate to break the news to you but Stentsons "law" is not a law because it does not apply for it.

Apply for it?

 

[amadeus]

No, but im not making the laws am I?

I would not for the record criminalize it if the girl was above 12. However i would view it as wrong for a man that age to do that with her.

I still haven't seen anyone give me a reason (at least, a good one) why the age of consent should be lowered.

 

[skadistic]

MobBoss still hasn't justified his claim that having sex with a minor by definition is a pedophile.

You would only be a pedophile if the victim still sees a pediatrician. Then you move up to adlophile in the age range after that its just sex.

 

[GenMarshall]

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.

Its name calling and labeling because you are ignorant about my views. I am capable of accepting the fact that people have sex at a young age. Calling me sheltered and naive is untrue BS. I do know that these young people do have sex at a young age, but I am agreeing with what the law says period.

How is calling you 'sheltered' name-calling or worthy of a report?

He was simply stating that you apparently did not have enough knowledge of what you were talking about to present a coherent and well-rounded argument.

Calling me sheltered is quite untrue. As I stated in my reply to fishjie. I do have enough knowledge of what I am talking about as I stated that I do know that these young people do have sex at a young age. The bottom line is that I agree with what the law says.

only christians support this kind of law, just like christians support abstinence only sex-ed. everyone else realizes laws such as these are ridiculous and that teenagers will and do have sex. punishing them is stupid.

Take your bigotry on Christians somewhere else. Christians are not the only who supports these things. Ever stopped to think that people of other faiths or non faiths also support laws like these?

 

[warpus]

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. 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.

If a guy has relations with your daughters and they give consent are you telling me your daughters don't know what they're doing?

I suppose his daughters will have to be fined and thrown in jail, in that case.

 

[Xanikk999]

Apply for it?

Its not a law in scientific terms because it does not meet the requirements of what a law actually is.

 

[Masquerouge]

Nope and no ones answered the question of 65--> 15 should get the same punishment as 17--->15 as they are or aren't morally equivalent, and thus legally valid/invalid either, but then I think everyones kind of got away from reason in the last couple of pages and resorted to Religion or morality tales.

You don't know how hard I tried to make people look at my links with the different US state laws.

The laws I imagine you can find in that handy link Masqueroge posted - its quite illuminating.

Thanks. Thanks for just noticing it among the flood of posts

 

[amadeus]

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

Can I top off that Flavor Aid?

The law is the law and this kid (yes, a kid) broke it.

 

[Masquerouge]

I still haven't seen anyone give me a reason (at least, a good one) why the age of consent should be lowered.

I for one do not think the age of consent should be lowered, I think that the age difference, just like in the vast majority of other US states, should be taken into consideration in Georgia.

 

[Quinzy]

I still haven't seen anyone give me a reason (at least, a good one) why the age of consent should be lowered.

i'd say the age of concent should be left at 15, mostly because it will just stop all this pissballing around with dumb court cases. most people will do it anyways, legal or not, so putting the age to a sensible level will, if anything, save hastle. its not gonna make people do it easrlier, cos they'll do it regardless.

 

[TheLoneMan]

If I may interject again has anyone thought that should this decision be deemed unethical or an abuse of the law, and the law is changed then MB and CG would have no other choice but to condem the new system as being immoral, where as of course 90% of right thinking people would breathe a sigh of relief that common sense had prevailed over faccist rule judges.

How does reading the law and acting accordingly label you as a fascist judge?

Not that I agree with the law, but it's not the judge's fault. If anything, all he could do was give the minimum sentence, which I don't know if he did or not.

 

[fishjie]

Take your bigotry on Christians somewhere else. Christians are not the only who supports these things. Ever stopped to think that people of other faiths or non faiths also support laws like these?

but that's the thing. THEY DONT. that's why i say you're sheltered. take a poll, on any forum, and i will put money up that the vast majority of non christians (90%+) will say this case is bogus and stupid, while the vast majority of christians (99% +) will say these laws are justified.

its just like the gay marriage. anyone whose not a christian doesnt care. they dont see what the big deal and have NO problem with gays getting married. only christians care.

ok, actually, i should say all those who believe in the judeo-christian God. basically: jews, christians, muslims will support this kind of fanatical view of sex.

 

[TheLoneMan]

Its not a law in scientific terms because it does not meet the requirements of what a law actually is.

It's a joke. That said, it's a rather handy and useful joke.

 

[warpus]

If I may interject again has anyone thought that should this decision be deemed unethical or an abuse of the law, and the law is changed then MB and CG would have no other choice but to condem the new system as being immoral, where as of course 90% of right thinking people would breathe a sigh of relief that common sense had prevailed over faccist rule judges. I may be guessing about 90% but hey why not put up a pole? If nothing else it would be interesting to see where opinion really lies?

I'm not so sure about that, seeing as the main argument from both gentlemen seems to be "but it's the law!", nevermind that the other side is arguing that it is a law.. yes.. but a bad one.

So if the law was changed, they would likely blindly follow the new law, and would support it in a debate such as this one.