Florida strikes again- on teen sex- selective prosecution?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 6, 2013 9:04:20 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

That would be swell- that way two 17yo's could be arrested and charged for raping each other.  Maybe we should make them felons and put them on the sex offender registry and send a message to those darn kids that sex will not be tolerated.  Better- sentence them to church services.


BTW the consent age in most states is 16-17, less for those close to the same age.  Consent is anything but black and white- in fact there are 50 different version of it in the US.  As was pointed out many times- what this girl did was not a crime at all in numerous states- and the ones that it is were mainly misdemeanors- FL is an outlier- which is IMO an abuse of prosecution to not plead her to misdemeanor.  She is being hit with the same law intended to get the 50yo creep in a van patrolling the HS picking up young girls for sex.  Felony 2- as I also pointed out- the same charge level the kid got that attempted to bomb a school.  FL sucks.

These laws are meant to protect minors from adults on the prowl.  Should it matter if the adult is 18 or 50?  Look, the victim is 14 years old- and call me a prude, and yes, I know 14 year olds have sex-- but 14 is way too young for sex, and 18 is old enough to know better.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 5, 2013 10:37:55 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 5, 2013 9:53:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the answer is that it is somewhat arbitrary.  however, that doesn't mean that there should be no line.  there should.

clearly there is a difference between adult and child.  when that difference takes place varies from person to person.

some people never grow up.

When a person has been on the planet for 18 years is as good a place to draw the line as any. It gets a little tricky in our modern society with the fact that some high school students reach that mark prior to graduation which is a subjective point of entry into adulthood (which can't be used legally since not all people graduate). I think that a prosecutor and judge having discretion as far as felony/misdemeanor - jail/probation in a case like this is important for allowing for individual variance in maturity. Sometimes that could be a reason for a lesser consequence or it might been an opportunity a "slap" someone who needs that to help them grow up.

Yeah, all this reasonableness sounds great until it's YOUR 14 year old and an 18 year old.

[billisonboard]

Jun 6, 2013 18:46:27 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

...These laws are meant to protect minors from adults on the prowl.  Should it matter if the adult is 18 or 50?  Look, the victim is 14 years old- and call me a prude, and yes, I know 14 year olds have sex-- but 14 is way too young for sex, and 18 is old enough to know better.

Yes, it is designed for exactly that. I can not imagine a circumstance that a 50 year old who has sex with a 14 year old was not "on the prowl". I can imagine a circumstance that an 18 year old was not "on the prowl".

[billisonboard]

Jun 6, 2013 19:07:53 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

... Yeah, all this reasonableness sounds great until it's YOUR 14 year old and an 18 year old.

If you have not set your 14 year old up to make good decisions, a relationship with an 18 year old is the least of your problems.

[EVT1]

I can see PBP's point that an 18yo should know better- but they are not adults other than on paper.  As another poster pointed out- she is very immature.  The 14yo on the other hand might be mature for her age- it was mentioned that that girl was taller- and somehow was on the varsity team.  She did not go trolling for young girls, she was on the same team that the school put together.  I am not saying it was right or wrong- all I am saying is that it does not rise to a freaking felony.

[EVT1]

Now for a new take on this- I read- and I forget where- that her attorney said she planned on challenging the law.  That means that a guilty verdict might be exactly what she wants.  This would not be the first time some lawyer convinced their client to ride it out.  Again I know shit about FL criminal practice or procedure- but I can't see why she could not get an appeal bond if even necessary.

A perfect example of a flawed law happened in GA recently:

Wiki because it it explains it quite well:

Wilson was convicted of aggravated child molestation in 2005, after, at the age of 17, he had engaged in oral sex with a 15-year-old at a New Year's Eve party, an offense carrying a mandatory penalty of 10 years' imprisonment

On October 26, 2007, the Georgia State Supreme Court ruled 4–3 that Wilson's sentence was cruel and unusual, and ordered him released.The majority opinion said that the new law (which made oral sex between minors a misdemeanor instead of a felony) “represent a seismic shift in the legislature’s view of the gravity of oral sex between two willing teenage participants” and “reflect a decision by the people of this State that the severe felony punishment and sex offender registration imposed on Wilson make no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment. ... Although society has a significant interest in protecting children from premature sexual activity, we must acknowledge that Wilson’s crime does not rise to the level of culpability of adults who prey on children and that, for the law to punish Wilson as it would an adult, with the extraordinarily harsh punishment of ten years in prison without the possibility of probation or parole, appears to be grossly disproportionate to his crime."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_v._State_of_Georgia

The new GA law: 

Additionally, there is a section in the statutory rape law sometimes called the “Romeo and Juliet scenario.” This applies if the victim is at least 14 but less than 16 years of age and the person convicted of statutory rape is 18 years of age or younger and is no more than four years older than the victim. Under these circumstances, the person would be guilty of a misdemeanor with no mandatory minimum sentence
Emphasis mine

True these were both minors- but I can see the same logic applied in this case- the law was not intended for this situation and a felony is way off the charts of reasonable.

Gay, straight, boy, girl, fight this bullshit.  I am not proud that the US locks up more of its citizens than the rest of the world. But I bet the private prison industry loves it

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 6, 2013 21:18:21 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I can see PBP's point that an 18yo should know better- but they are not adults other than on paper.  As another poster pointed out- she is very immature.  The 14yo on the other hand might be mature for her age- it was mentioned that that girl was taller- and somehow was on the varsity team.  She did not go trolling for young girls, she was on the same team that the school put together.  I am not saying it was right or wrong- all I am saying is that it does not rise to a freaking felony.

There are some 40 year olds that are only adults on paper.  The age of consent is 14.  It's kind of like the speed limit- people break it, most don't get caught-- especially in these situations (two high school students), but if you do- you ought to know what happens to you.  14 is too young to know that an 18 year old is taking advantage of you.  

Age is a big deal between 14 and 17 even- even between 15 and 17.  The changes from freshmen year (when I was 14 at least) and senior year are monumental.  And again- I turned 18 my senior year, and I knew.  I knew.  Because we all knew.  The phrase rolled off the tongue with ease when "checking out" a prospective gal:  16 will get you 20.  

She may be immature, but when she is convicted- the next prospective offender will be that much wiser.  And yes, I believe in the deterrent effect of punishment on crime.  I think the plea deal is reasonable under the circumstances-- which again are a significant difference in age between the victim and the offender, and an offender that frankly doesn't seem to get it.  And on that last note alone, those are ideal candidates for harsh penalties (people that don't seem to get that what they did was wrong, and there's a good reason it's illegal).

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 6, 2013 22:07:24 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Now for a new take on this- I read- and I forget where- that her attorney said she planned on challenging the law.  That means that a guilty verdict might be exactly what she wants.  This would not be the first time some lawyer convinced their client to ride it out.  Again I know shit about FL criminal practice or procedure- but I can't see why she could not get an appeal bond if even necessary.

A perfect example of a flawed law happened in GA recently:

Wiki because it it explains it quite well:

Wilson was convicted of aggravated child molestation in 2005, after, at the age of 17, he had engaged in oral sex with a 15-year-old at a New Year's Eve party, an offense carrying a mandatory penalty of 10 years' imprisonment

On October 26, 2007, the Georgia State Supreme Court ruled 4–3 that Wilson's sentence was cruel and unusual, and ordered him released.The majority opinion said that the new law (which made oral sex between minors a misdemeanor instead of a felony) “represent a seismic shift in the legislature’s view of the gravity of oral sex between two willing teenage participants” and “reflect a decision by the people of this State that the severe felony punishment and sex offender registration imposed on Wilson make no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment. ... Although society has a significant interest in protecting children from premature sexual activity, we must acknowledge that Wilson’s crime does not rise to the level of culpability of adults who prey on children and that, for the law to punish Wilson as it would an adult, with the extraordinarily harsh punishment of ten years in prison without the possibility of probation or parole, appears to be grossly disproportionate to his crime."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_v._State_of_Georgia

The new GA law: 

Additionally, there is a section in the statutory rape law sometimes called the “Romeo and Juliet scenario.” This applies if the victim is at least 14 but less than 16 years of age and the person convicted of statutory rape is 18 years of age or younger and is no more than four years older than the victim. Under these circumstances, the person would be guilty of a misdemeanor with no mandatory minimum sentence
Emphasis mine

True these were both minors- but I can see the same logic applied in this case- the law was not intended for this situation and a felony is way off the charts of reasonable.

Gay, straight, boy, girl, fight this bullshit.  I am not proud that the US locks up more of its citizens than the rest of the world. But I bet the private prison industry loves it

Well, this is rather unfortunate for the offender in the Florida case because she is an adult (the first case cited), and she is in the outer limits of the precedent set by the new GA law (somewhere close to the four year age difference- if not at it).  

And FL isn't talking about throwing her in jail for 10 years.

Changing the law because of aesthetics and political optics is just too slippery a slope for me.  Far from politically motivated prosecution, I think this is the opposite.  I think this is a bandwagon rally around a victim who has been particularly good at manipulation (which doesn't frankly do much for her in my eyes), and it has been a cry for politically motivated leniency.  Who knows? It may work.  Florida officials seem especially vulnerable to political manipulation of their application of justice.  Trayvon Martin comes to mind...

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 23, 2013 18:03:41 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

     As public outrage mounts, fueled by Internet activism, 18-year-old Hunt has until Friday to decide whether she'll accept a   plea deal or go to trial for her relationship with a 14-year-old schoolmate.

     Hunt is charged with two felony counts of lewd and lascivious battery in the relationship that the young woman and her parents say was consensual. The students attended Sebastian River High School in Sebastian, Florida,

     "A kid, a child under the age of 16, cannot consent to having sexual relations with an 18-year-old, an adult under the eyes of the law," she said. "And that really is all this case comes down to when you look at it legally."

     The Indian River State Attorney's Office has offered a plea deal that would reduce the charges to third-degree child abuse. As part of the package, she would get a year of probation and two years of monitoring, meaning she would have to wear an ankle bracelet.

     It would be up to a judge to decide if she would be labeled a felon as she moves forward in life

     "This is a life sentence for behavior that is all too common, whether male, female, gay, straight," Graves said at a Wednesday news conference. "High school relationships may be fleeting, but felony convictions are forever."
   
www.cnn.com/2013/05/23/justice/florida-teen-sex-case/

So- is this really the norm in FL to charge a felony when a senior gets caught with a freshman or sophmore when the ages are off?

Legally- sure- the law is the law- but I really wonder how this is normally handled.  I wonder if the same sex angle and the degree of pissed off the parents are had an effect- or even political concerns.

Should a lot of people just count their blesssing they never got caught or does the law stink in this case?  I think many states have updated their laws over this kind of thing- but of course in FL it is going to be an issue.

From the link:

"It takes into account the seriousness of the offense. It takes into account that it's a violation of Florida law," he said. "The plea offer allows her to enter a plea that she will not go to jail and she will not be labeled as a sex offender, so there's no argument that her life is being ruined by this plea offer."

And it will be "up to a judge" to decide if she will be labeled a felon as she moves forward in life.

Again, I'd say she got a break.  A male in the same situation likely would not have been offered the same deal.

[EVT1]

I would support a male in the same situation.  As far as the law goes it is cut and dry- she is guilty.  This could be the case that changes the law.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 6, 2013 23:43:49 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I would support a male in the same situation.  As far as the law goes it is cut and dry- she is guilty.  This could be the case that changes the law.

It's extraordinarily rare that a case changes the law.  If I were her, and I got wind that this was my attorneys plan- the only thing I'd be looking to change is my representation.

[billisonboard]

Jun 6, 2013 23:15:05 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

... those are ideal candidates for harsh penalties ...

Yes, there are certainly candidates for harsher (and lesser) penalties.

[EVT1]

Jun 6, 2013 23:52:56 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jun 6, 2013 23:43:49 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I would support a male in the same situation.  As far as the law goes it is cut and dry- she is guilty.  This could be the case that changes the law.

It's extraordinarily rare that a case changes the law.  If I were her, and I got wind that this was my attorneys plan- the only thing I'd be looking to change is my representation.

If that was my client I would have advised her to take the plea.  BUT- this is a perfect case to change the law.  Want to wager on this one?

[cme1201]

Jun 6, 2013 23:43:49 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I would support a male in the same situation.  As far as the law goes it is cut and dry- she is guilty.  This could be the case that changes the law.

Terry Gorby's case didn't change the law.

www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/romeo-and-juliet-law-offers-a-way-off-floridas-sex-offender-list/1191974

Sometimes in this world the law is the law, we have people who will demand that we "protect" the children form Music or Videos or Porn on the Internet yet we scream and cry when on is found guilty of breaking a known rule (again as I have posted in this thread multiple times) the law has been on the books since 1943 (original statue) we whine and cry that it is because of this, that or the other (several have posted that the girls sexuality is the reason) unequal prosecution and all when last year there were 250 (roughly) applications for use of Florida's R&J statue and out of that number 33 were female.

The news is staying on the Gay angle (as it has since this has been going on Yea for being local to the event). Rallies are making it about gay, when in fact as has been stated multiple times by the prosecution, it is in fact about Law.

[Virgil Showlion]

The news is staying on the Gay angle (as it has since this has been going on Yea for being local to the event). Rallies are making it about gay, when in fact as has been stated multiple times by the prosecution, it is in fact about Law.

They're just making fools of themselves.

The facts aren't in dispute and the law is crystal clear, which makes me wonder if Ms. Hunt's supporters realize a dismissal or not guilty verdict sends a message to the world that lesbian sex offenders are above the law.

You couldn't find a better way than that to eviscerate their "equality" mantra.

[EVT1]

Jun 7, 2013 6:45:46 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

Jun 6, 2013 23:43:49 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I would support a male in the same situation.  As far as the law goes it is cut and dry- she is guilty.  This could be the case that changes the law.

Terry Gorby's case didn't change the law.

www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/romeo-and-juliet-law-offers-a-way-off-floridas-sex-offender-list/1191974

Sometimes in this world the law is the law, we have people who will demand that we "protect" the children form Music or Videos or Porn on the Internet yet we scream and cry when on is found guilty of breaking a known rule (again as I have posted in this thread multiple times) the law has been on the books since 1943 (original statue) we whine and cry that it is because of this, that or the other (several have posted that the girls sexuality is the reason) unequal prosecution and all when last year there were 250 (roughly) applications for use of Florida's R&J statue and out of that number 33 were female.

The news is staying on the Gay angle (as it has since this has been going on Yea for being local to the event). Rallies are making it about gay, when in fact as has been stated multiple times by the prosecution, it is in fact about Law.

Did they try? I see nothing about any appeals challenging the law.

Also- I wonder what plea this guy was offered- it might have been just as shitty as the one Kaitlyn got. It is pretty much the exact same case.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 7, 2013 13:13:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The news is staying on the Gay angle (as it has since this has been going on Yea for being local to the event). Rallies are making it about gay, when in fact as has been stated multiple times by the prosecution, it is in fact about Law.

They're just making fools of themselves.

The facts aren't in dispute and the law is crystal clear, which makes me wonder if Ms. Hunt's supporters realize a dismissal or not guilty verdict sends a message to the world that lesbian sex offenders are above the law.

You couldn't find a better way than that to eviscerate their "equality" mantra.

Oh, I don't think her supporters are confused about this at all.  I think that we've been progressing for a long time away from courts of law, and towards courts of "equity" where certain defendants are treated differently according to their race, sex, gender, sexual orientation as a means of righting past wrongs- real, or imagined- against the "victim group" in question.  

I think the OJ verdict was a crystal clear example of jury nullification based on this flawed idea of "equity" rather than "law".

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 7, 2013 17:21:17 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jun 7, 2013 13:13:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

They're just making fools of themselves.

The facts aren't in dispute and the law is crystal clear, which makes me wonder if Ms. Hunt's supporters realize a dismissal or not guilty verdict sends a message to the world that lesbian sex offenders are above the law.

You couldn't find a better way than that to eviscerate their "equality" mantra.

Oh, I don't think her supporters are confused about this at all.  I think that we've been progressing for a long time away from courts of law, and towards courts of "equity" where certain defendants are treated differently according to their race, sex, gender, sexual orientation as a means of righting past wrongs- real, or imagined- against the "victim group" in question.  

I think the OJ verdict was a crystal clear example of jury nullification based on this flawed idea of "equity" rather than "law".

I don't particularly care why they're doing it. I find it ironic that a group outspoken against the stigma of homosexuals as rapists and pedophiles would so readily demonstrate their disregard for sexual offense laws.

Having said that, for all I know, 99% of homosexual individuals in the US agree that Ms. Hunt is facing legitimate charges. The media--being the media--is focusing on the 1% making hay. As we well know, distorting reality is entrenched in their modus operandi.

[EVT1]

You are correct.  There is no backing from gay people on this.     I will stand up for the bullshit arguments the good old right likes to float- as in homosexuals are likely to be pedophiles.  Takes a real scumbag to make that claim.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 8, 2013 22:38:58 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

You are correct.  There is no backing from gay people on this.     I will stand up for the bullshit arguments the good old right likes to float- as in homosexuals are likely to be pedophiles.  Takes a real scumbag to make that claim.

That's because it's easy for the gay community to tell pollsters they "disagree" with this while they sit by and quietly let the system run amok.  But disagreement is different from outrage, and from outspokenness. The politically active gay community leadership are not unlike muslim clerical leadership in this respect.  There's no real outcry, just passive "disagreement" with the obviously offensive.  They don't need to actively support this evil, just sit quietly by and let it go on.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 24, 2013 10:15:11 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I'm with billis on this one.  I just don't know enough to say, one way or the other, what seems right here.  Fortunately, it's not my job.  It will be the court's job.

Well, I don't see the problem stating your opinion about what's right or wrong.  I've stated my opinion.  I do think that with respect to the law, it is pretty clear.  



My personal opinion is that the law is correct, and could be strengthened.  One of the very few legitimate functions of government is to protect the natural rights of those who cannot protect themselves.  I agree that life gets complicated at and after puberty for minors- where all their sexual drive and function is up and running, but their mental and emotional development hasn't kept up.  

My personal opinion about the right and wrong of this is that I don't think it right for us to turn a blind eye to the manipulation of emotionally and mentally immature minors by adults for the sexual gratification of the adults.  It's a vulnerable time, and a time when minors are apt to explore and experiment their newly developed bodies, however I think that it's also a critical time for the parents of said minors to help them develop the mental and emotional maturity and help them avoid mistakes.  

The offender in this case, is, in my opinion a creep- and a predator who found a vulnerable minor to "coach" and to manipulate and the plea deal she's been offered is a gift no male offender in the same position would ever get.  She ought to be grateful, not outraged and offended- but the fact that she is the latter shows just how ripe she is for the maximum possible punishment.

EDIT: point being- if you have a different opinion, I'd love to read a post articulating it.

[billisonboard]

Jun 11, 2013 8:43:32 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 24, 2013 10:15:11 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I'm with billis on this one.  I just don't know enough to say, one way or the other, what seems right here.  Fortunately, it's not my job.  It will be the court's job.

Well, I don't see the problem stating your opinion about what's right or wrong.  I've stated my opinion. ....

I don't see a problem with stating an opinion of what is right or wrong either. I just stated that IM(not so)HO it is right for those directly involved in the case to make the determination of the appropriate consequence for actions in cases like this. I don't think I have previously stated it directly but it is also my opinion that passing judgement of another human being based on the media information we have access to is wrong. But that is just my opinion, Others certainly feel that it is the right thing to do to exonerate or condemn others based on that information.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 11, 2013 8:23:21 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jun 8, 2013 22:38:58 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

You are correct.  There is no backing from gay people on this.     I will stand up for the bullshit arguments the good old right likes to float- as in homosexuals are likely to be pedophiles.  Takes a real scumbag to make that claim.

That's because it's easy for the gay community to tell pollsters they "disagree" with this while they sit by and quietly let the system run amok.  But disagreement is different from outrage, and from outspokenness. The politically active gay community leadership are not unlike muslim clerical leadership in this respect.  There's no real outcry, just passive "disagreement" with the obviously offensive.  They don't need to actively support this evil, just sit quietly by and let it go on.

If a group openly admits "We don't agree with our leadership," for isolated cases like this, that's good enough for me. I don't expect reasonable people to be mobilized into a "counter-mob" every time their lunatic fringe rises up in support of a pariah.

If some damnable Christian minister or Canadian human rights group decided to champion Ms. Hunt's innocence, a simple "I don't agree" from Christians or Canadians would certainly suffice. We have better things to do than wage war every time one of our own does something stupid.

[mmhmm]

Well, I don't see the problem stating your opinion about what's right or wrong.  I've stated my opinion.  I do think that with respect to the law, it is pretty clear.

Neither do I.  I just don't feel I have enough information to draw an informed and reasoned opinion.
 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 11, 2013 9:41:00 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Well, I don't see the problem stating your opinion about what's right or wrong.  I've stated my opinion.  I do think that with respect to the law, it is pretty clear.

Neither do I.  I just don't feel I have enough information to draw an informed and reasoned opinion.
 

Fair enough.  I think she's said enough publicly that I can offer an opinion on her (the offender).  She isn't denying it.  She doesn't seem to understand why what she did is illegal, or wrong- and she seems to believe that the prosecutor has singled her out because of her sexual orientation-- and/or she is pretending to believe this as a defense.  No matter.  In my opinion, an offender that either doesn't get it, and/or is so manipulative in their own defense- deserved the hammer dropped on them. I have a strong dislike for offenders that make themselves out to be the victim.  Just my opinion.

[EVT1]

You could admit that she is an immature 'adult'- not even an 'adult' for more than a few months when this happened.  Manipulative and predatory- that's reading an awful lot into it that you do not know.  For all you know the younger girl pursued her- wouldn't be the first time some freshman girl chased a senior.

Maximum punishment is 15 years- some people do less for killing someone.  You sticking by that as appropriate here?

Would you agree that these kids need to be educated about these laws in their respective states?  As said- one state over it would not be a crime.  Kind of hard to reconcile geography determining such a disparity- no crime to 2nd degree felony- that is one hell of a disparity, no?

[justme]

With respect to education about it, unless she recently moved to this state I find that hard to believe. I was born and raised in FL and was well aware of the law in Florida once I was in high school. Granted there was no class that told me, but I still found out about it. I even know about the rule that if they're 16 or 17 you can have more years difference than if they were under 16. I even smacked a good friend upside the head when he was dating a 16 year old but was just out of the cusp of the age difference. They got married when she turned 18 so everything turned out fine, but he know that if he pissed her or her parents off he could go down.

So given my experience (as a person who made it out of high school without having sex, which was probably a feat given the county I grew up in) I really doubt neither of them, especially the older, had NO idea this law existed. Maybe there should be a class to spell it out, but everyone I knew knew about it.

Of course, all that is separate of whether it should be a law or not.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 11, 2013 19:54:15 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

You could admit that she is an immature 'adult'- not even an 'adult' for more than a few months when this happened.  Manipulative and predatory- that's reading an awful lot into it that you do not know.  For all you know the younger girl pursued her- wouldn't be the first time some freshman girl chased a senior.

Maximum punishment is 15 years- some people do less for killing someone.  You sticking by that as appropriate here?

Would you agree that these kids need to be educated about these laws in their respective states?  As said- one state over it would not be a crime.  Kind of hard to reconcile geography determining such a disparity- no crime to 2nd degree felony- that is one hell of a disparity, no?

I didn't see the speed limit sign.  So, what?  Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 11, 2013 20:35:17 GMT -5 justme said:

With respect to education about it, unless she recently moved to this state I find that hard to believe. I was born and raised in FL and was well aware of the law in Florida once I was in high school. Granted there was no class that told me, but I still found out about it. I even know about the rule that if they're 16 or 17 you can have more years difference than if they were under 16. I even smacked a good friend upside the head when he was dating a 16 year old but was just out of the cusp of the age difference. They got married when she turned 18 so everything turned out fine, but he know that if he pissed her or her parents off he could go down.

So given my experience (as a person who made it out of high school without having sex, which was probably a feat given the county I grew up in) I really doubt neither of them, especially the older, had NO idea this law existed. Maybe there should be a class to spell it out, but everyone I knew knew about it.

Of course, all that is separate of whether it should be a law or not.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

With respect to the maximum sentence of 15 years- no, I wouldn't say it would be appropriate in every case like this, that's why it's the MAX.  I do think, however, in this case we are dealing with someone who has broken the law, and doesn't seem to "get it".  That is precisely what maximum sentences are for.  To get the message across to people who need the extra time to think about it.  Plea deals are for first time offenders, with extenuating circumstances, who show no propensity to recidivate.  In this case, you've got an offender that not only won't own her actions, but who is using social media and a PR team to sway public opinion and accuse the prosecution of a political motive based upon her sexual orientation- which seems to be Pedophile (no doubt her defenders would like to see the day when they can legitimately check that box).  The victim is 14, she's 18.  I'd say, in answer to the question of whether or not 15 years would be appropriate in this case, that if I were on the bench- I'd like to see some indication this defendant is remorseful before I'd approve a plea deal.  She's getting a gift, I would want to know she deserved it-- and be assured she "gets it" and if released, she would not re-offend.  I'm not getting a warm fuzzy about that in this case.