Florida strikes again- on teen sex- selective prosecution?

[pappyjohn99]

We'll never know. I don't have a daughter. I have stated that while raising my son I explained that "15 will get you 20". While educating my son and explaining the ways of the world he would sometimes say " That's jacked up Dad." My reply was the same as my father gave me at least a million times. "Yep, but no-one ever promised that life would be fair."

Few people are arguing the facts, not even the perpetrator. What they are crying about are the consequences. 

I don't see how this child molester has a leg to stand on. She has admitted to everything she is charged with. Under the law that CME kindly posted, she can petition the court to remove the requirement to register as a sex offender. That's the angle she's playing up. IMO, she has a pretty good chance of success.

EDIT- Having read the plea deal more closely, it would appear that she didn't have to register as a sex offender. I think this little darling may be taking some bad advice. We'll see if it comes back to bite her.

[Deleted]

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

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?

Yep....it's obviously just the norm in Florida:

www.ageofconsent.com/california.htm

PENAL CODE
SECTION 261-269
261.5. (a) Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexualintercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of theperpetrator, if the person is a minor.

For the purposes of this section, a "minor" is a person under the age of 18 years and an "adult" is a person who is at least 18 years of age.

(c) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexualintercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger thanthe perpetrator is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, andshall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding oneyear, or by imprisonment in the state prison.

So it seems that a "liberal" state has a similar law to a "conservative" state.....but again...in your eyes it's just Florida that has these types of "stupid" laws.

[zibazinski]

I happen to like Florida and its laws. Don't want to obey them? Don't live there.

[Deleted]

May 28, 2013 10:30:33 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

I happen to like Florida and its laws. Don't want to obey them? Don't live there.

For the record....I have no issues with Florida laws...or California or New York laws for that matter. Ignorance of the law isn't a valid excuse.

[EVT1]

May 28, 2013 9:25:08 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

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

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?

Yep....it's obviously just the norm in Florida:

www.ageofconsent.com/california.htm

PENAL CODE
SECTION 261-269
261.5. (a) Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexualintercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of theperpetrator, if the person is a minor.

For the purposes of this section, a "minor" is a person under the age of 18 years and an "adult" is a person who is at least 18 years of age.

(c) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexualintercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger thanthe perpetrator is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, andshall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding oneyear, or by imprisonment in the state prison.

So it seems that a "liberal" state has a similar law to a "conservative" state.....but again...in your eyes it's just Florida that has these types of "stupid" laws.

And that's a load of crap and you know it-it is not a similar law.  In CA it would be able to and likely would be charged as a misdemeanor.

I would also add you quoted the incorrect law for this case- this case did not involve intercourse- the correct charge in CA is sexual battery as well.

The only thing similar is that a minor in those states cannot consent- and that isn't the same either.

I said nothing about it being a conservative state, nothing about political affiliations, that's on you.  I said the felony charge was bullshit.  And it is.

And to be the 'norm' we need to know how similar cases are treated- not what laws are.   If a standard DUI offer is 48 hours in jail and the last 999/1000 cases included such an offer and the next person is offered 6 months because it was on the news- that would be a problem- that is what I want to know.

[Deleted]

our attorneys on here can verify, but judges have "discretion" on a number of things

they can adjudicate 75 cases in a row one way, and then that one case comes along that is different, and they treat it differently

and different judges sitting in the same county can rule differently on the same exact types of cases

i dont care what the "norm" is.....

in this case, the minor was NOT of legal consent age

If they decide to "go easy" on this one, what do you do with the 30 year old? 45 year old? 60 year old?

Same exact law....adult versus minor

would you see it differently if the minor were 13? 12? 

just where does YOUR line in the sand get drawn.....or does it?

for me...it is easy.....age of consent.....whatever the state the minor resides in says that is.....

other than that...cut and dry.....it is very problematic for the perp (male or female, straight or gay)

[zibazinski]

I also dated seniors when I was a freshman. Some of them may have been 18 even. But sex we did not have. 

[Tennesseer]

"If they decide to "go easy" on this one, what do you do with the 30 year old? 45 year old? 60 year old?"

The 30, 45 or 60 year old would not be attending high school (as a student) at the same time as the 14 year old. (S)he would not be a student peer of the 14 year old.

[Deleted]

May 28, 2013 11:18:02 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

And that's a load of crap and you know it-it is not a similar law.  In CA it would be able to and likely would be charged as a misdemeanor.

I would also add you quoted the incorrect law for this case- this case did not involve intercourse- the correct charge in CA is sexual battery as well.

The only thing similar is that a minor in those states cannot consent- and that isn't the same either.

I said nothing about it being a conservative state, nothing about political affiliations, that's on you.  I said the felony charge was bullshit.  And it is.

And to be the 'norm' we need to know how similar cases are treated- not what laws are.   If a standard DUI offer is 48 hours in jail and the last 999/1000 cases included such an offer and the next person is offered 6 months because it was on the news- that would be a problem- that is what I want to know.

I'm sorry...I was just going off your history of making it about political affiliation. My bad!

It MIGHT be charged as a misdemeanor in California...but it also COULD BE charged as a felony. That's the risk you take when you knowingly break the law. Again...whether you or I agree completely with the law....it's law for a reason. That's not to say that all laws are great because clearly they aren't.

Have you researched enough about similar cases in Florida to know whether they are treated similarly?

Also..as the "intercourse" verbiage....does "intercourse" in legal terms ONLY mean when a penis is involved? If that's the case...wouldn't any law dealing with "intercourse" be a discriminatory law as only a man could be charged with that crime?

[pappyjohn99]

Tex - I had a conversasion with Swamp about this. Check page 2. Hence-this pedophile is a molester rather than a rapist.

[Deleted]

May 28, 2013 11:55:56 GMT -5 pappyjohn99 said:

Tex - I had a conversasion with Swamp about this. Check page 2. Hence-this pedophile is a molester rather than a rapist.

I saw it. I just don't understand how we can have laws on the books that are completely discriminatory toward one gender....regardless of which gender it is.

[EVT1]

May 28, 2013 11:55:56 GMT -5 pappyjohn99 said:

Tex - I had a conversasion with Swamp about this. Check page 2. Hence-this pedophile is a molester rather than a rapist.

Enough man- unless you freely admit you have no idea what a child molester, pedophile or a rapist is.  It isn't funny or cute.

There are evil people out there that these laws were intended for. 

[Deleted]

May 28, 2013 11:50:24 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

"If they decide to "go easy" on this one, what do you do with the 30 year old? 45 year old? 60 year old?"

The 30, 45 or 60 year old would not be attending high school (as a student) at the same time as the 14 year old. (S)he would not be a student peer of the 14 year old.

ok


so if both are students, then it is okay with you then?


so what about kids that skip grades.....is it ok for them?


now we are talking 12 or 13 year olds.....just where is your line in the sand?

[EVT1]

May 28, 2013 12:00:02 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

May 28, 2013 11:55:56 GMT -5 pappyjohn99 said:

Tex - I had a conversasion with Swamp about this. Check page 2. Hence-this pedophile is a molester rather than a rapist.

I saw it. I just don't understand how we can have laws on the books that are completely discriminatory toward one gender....regardless of which gender it is.

A male can be convicted of sexual battery as well- how is it discriminatory?  This stuff is all over the place- in one state rape requires a penis, in others it does not.  Women get convicted of raping men as well BTW- don't ask me how that works

Or is it your issue that lesbians can never be charged with rape in some states?  Gay men can be- so who is being discriminated against in your estimation?  The men or the women?  It is amazing that citizens are supposed to know the law yet the law changes every day and is different place to place- not to mention the sheer size and scope. 

Lesson to HS kids- if you are doing it- STFU, don't get caught, and NEVER say anything to the police without a lawyer.  Don't post stupid shit on the internet about it, don't send stupid texts or pictures, nothing- or some asshole prosecutor might decide to make you a special project.

[Tennesseer]

May 28, 2013 12:14:26 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

May 28, 2013 11:50:24 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

"If they decide to "go easy" on this one, what do you do with the 30 year old? 45 year old? 60 year old?"

The 30, 45 or 60 year old would not be attending high school (as a student) at the same time as the 14 year old. (S)he would not be a student peer of the 14 year old.

ok


so if both are students, then it is okay with you then?


so what about kids that skip grades.....is it ok for them?


now we are talking 12 or 13 year olds.....just where is your line in the sand?

Let's deal with the case we have here. 'What ifs' aren't germaine to the case here.

This is your typical senior-freshman relationship except it went past third base to home plate. Consensual sex between these two different class grades probably happens dozens and dozens of times a day except the parties are more discreet. Is it okay? No. But does it rise to a felony conviction and a lifelong label of registered sex offender? No to that too.

[pappyjohn99]

Who's being funny? Those are ugly words for ugly acts. We've gone round and round for 5 pages now and you demand that I accept your idea of what rape, molestation, and pedophilia are. I don't. They are defined, but you don't care for the definition.

You know what the law says, but keep insisting that that is not what it means.

You think that this girl didn't know better, I figure she did.

You say that 18 year olds are doing this to 14 year olds all over, so it must be ok. I dsagree, it's one of the reasons that our society is sinking.

This silly twit thought rules didn't apply to her and people like you enable that perspective. It remains to be seen weather she will be taught this lesson now, and how harsh the grade will be.

[zdaddy]

May 27, 2013 15:13:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It's unfortunate, but even if it so happens that the 14-year-old and the 18-year-old have exactly the same maturity, I'd hope for a conviction simply to establish a precedent that if a girl's parents say "Stay the heck away from our daughter," you stay the heck away from their daughter.

Time was, if Joe 18 went after Jane 14 expressly against her parents' wishes, Joe 'd be lucky to make it through the week without an axe in his back and the community lining up to shake Dad's hand for doing it.

Maybe this is going to come off as harsh, but that kind of attitude was used to justify many of the lynchings that happened in the South. Way too many young African American Joes got strung up because they happened to be the wrong skin color to be secretly dating a young white girl.

And I'm betting that the fact this was a lesbian couple is why the 18-year-old is getting slammed to the wall, rather than the court impartially upholding the law no matter who breaks it. Then again, I haven't seen any numbers showing whether this county or Florida in general is super aggressive in going after high school seniors dating freshmen/sophomores. If boys are sentenced just as harshly, I can disagree with the law but at least will concede that LGBT youth aren't being unfairly singled out. Somehow I doubt that's the case.

[Deleted]

This is your typical senior-freshman relationship except it went past third base to home plate. Consensual sex between these two different class grades probably happens dozens and dozens of times a day except the parties are more discreet. Is it okay? No. But does it rise to a felony conviction and a lifelong label of registered sex offender? No to that too.


What did the prosecutor offer as a plea?

They completely blew it off...saying basically, "i have done nothing wrong"

Well....sorry

But you broke the law....maybe it is archaic to some of you...but for some of us, 14 is just too young for an 18 year old

And a slap on the wrist just isnt going to cut it.....

This sends a good message for every senior out there.....beware of freshman.....jail bait was the term i grew up with

It is still applicable......

[zdaddy]

May 28, 2013 12:51:22 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

This is your typical senior-freshman relationship except it went past third base to home plate. Consensual sex between these two different class grades probably happens dozens and dozens of times a day except the parties are more discreet. Is it okay? No. But does it rise to a felony conviction and a lifelong label of registered sex offender? No to that too.


What did the prosecutor offer as a plea?

They completely blew it off...saying basically, "i have done nothing wrong"

Well....sorry

But you broke the law....maybe it is archaic to some of you...but for some of us, 14 is just too young for an 18 year old

And a slap on the wrist just isnt going to cut it.....

This sends a good message for every senior out there.....beware of freshman.....jail bait was the term i grew up with

It is still applicable......

I agree with you that the girl should have taken the plea, but do you really think what she did in a consensual relationship is worthy of similar punishment as say what Sandusky did to 12-year-olds? And is it worth it to society to devote all these resources to cracking down on this case as opposed to say going after actual rape cases, many of which are never solved? It seems to me there are much bigger fish to fry.

I also stand by my final thought that this girl is being singled out - unless there are a bunch of similar cases where heterosexual boys have been sent away for the same crime.

[EVT1]

I posted the plea deal in #119.

And I am with zdaddy- I want to know what plea deals have been offered others in the same situation.

What it said summary:

Plea of no contest to child abuse- 2 counts, 2 years community control, 1 year probation, no contact/ 500' away from victim, warrantless searches by probabtion officers/ all access to social media/texts/etc., 150 hours community service

What it means- she pleads to a felony- and adjudication is left up to the court.  Her lawyer wanted it to be a misdemeanor plea- and I can't blame her.  Whether it was the smart move to fight this will be seen.  The law does not really matter- the question is whether they can get a conviction.  Even with a conviction a judge could keep her out of jail.  So it seems the only way to have a shot at keeping the felony off her record is to walk and hope for another deal in the meantime.

She can avoid the sex offender tag either way.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 28, 2013 12:48:28 GMT -5 zdaddy said:

May 27, 2013 15:13:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It's unfortunate, but even if it so happens that the 14-year-old and the 18-year-old have exactly the same maturity, I'd hope for a conviction simply to establish a precedent that if a girl's parents say "Stay the heck away from our daughter," you stay the heck away from their daughter.

Time was, if Joe 18 went after Jane 14 expressly against her parents' wishes, Joe 'd be lucky to make it through the week without an axe in his back and the community lining up to shake Dad's hand for doing it.

Maybe this is going to come off as harsh, but that kind of attitude was used to justify many of the lynchings that happened in the South. Way too many young African American Joes got strung up because they happened to be the wrong skin color to be secretly dating a young white girl.

And I'm betting that the fact this was a lesbian couple is why the 18-year-old is getting slammed to the wall, rather than the court impartially upholding the law no matter who breaks it. Then again, I haven't seen any numbers showing whether this county or Florida in general is super aggressive in going after high school seniors dating freshmen/sophomores. If boys are sentenced just as harshly, I can disagree with the law but at least will concede that LGBT youth aren't being unfairly singled out. Somehow I doubt that's the case.

I don't agree with murder as an appropriate response to a man defying a parents' wishes, but if the particulars were that a black man was pursuing a white woman and the parents objected to this--for whatever reason they saw as fit, including bigotry--it would be incumbent on the man to stay away from their daughter. And if miscegenation laws afforded them the ability to prosecute the man if he persisted, then that would be his risk to take.

We do not live in a society where what you and I think parents should do in the best interest of their child has any relevance. We live in a society of causal laws. Do this, the punishment is this. Do that, the punishment is that. I realize that you and EVT1 in particular resent the parents' decision, but again: clearly, fortunately, we don't live in a society where (her?) opinion overrides the parents'. They are proceeding in a way they feel is just. They are acting in what they hold to be the best interests of their child. The law is clear, and the defendant doesn't have a leg to stand on. All the foaming in the mouth and calling them 'assholes' in the world won't change that.

[Deleted]

May 28, 2013 12:24:11 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

May 28, 2013 12:00:02 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

I saw it. I just don't understand how we can have laws on the books that are completely discriminatory toward one gender....regardless of which gender it is.

A male can be convicted of sexual battery as well- how is it discriminatory?  This stuff is all over the place- in one state rape requires a penis, in others it does not.  Women get convicted of raping men as well BTW- don't ask me how that works

Or is it your issue that lesbians can never be charged with rape in some states?  Gay men can be- so who is being discriminated against in your estimation?  The men or the women?  It is amazing that citizens are supposed to know the law yet the law changes every day and is different place to place- not to mention the sheer size and scope. 

Lesson to HS kids- if you are doing it- STFU, don't get caught, and NEVER say anything to the police without a lawyer.  Don't post stupid shit on the internet about it, don't send stupid texts or pictures, nothing- or some asshole prosecutor might decide to make you a special project.

Rape to me...not necessarily in the eyes of the law depending on what they define it as....is any sexual act perpetrated on an unwilling participant. Basically, forcing yourself in a sexual manner on someone else...regardless of whether penetration is achieved.

Edit: As to whether someone is gay...whether man or woman....or straight means nothing to me. I don't care what anyone's sexual preference is. I just find it humorous when "intercourse" is defined as penis penetration in some places when there are all kinds of different ways and things that can be used for penetration.

Oh and I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph....with the exception of "unless it was not wanted" which I'm pretty certain you agree with also.

[zdaddy]

May 28, 2013 15:07:45 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 28, 2013 12:48:28 GMT -5 zdaddy said:

Maybe this is going to come off as harsh, but that kind of attitude was used to justify many of the lynchings that happened in the South. Way too many young African American Joes got strung up because they happened to be the wrong skin color to be secretly dating a young white girl.

And I'm betting that the fact this was a lesbian couple is why the 18-year-old is getting slammed to the wall, rather than the court impartially upholding the law no matter who breaks it. Then again, I haven't seen any numbers showing whether this county or Florida in general is super aggressive in going after high school seniors dating freshmen/sophomores. If boys are sentenced just as harshly, I can disagree with the law but at least will concede that LGBT youth aren't being unfairly singled out. Somehow I doubt that's the case.

I don't agree with murder as an appropriate response to a man defying a parents' wishes, but if the particulars were that a black man was pursuing a white woman and the parents objected to this--for whatever reason they saw as fit, including bigotry--it would be incumbent on the man to stay away from their daughter. And if miscegenation laws afforded them the ability to prosecute the man if he persisted, then that would be his risk to take.

We do not live in a society where what you and I think parents should do in the best interest of their child has any relevance. We live in a society of causal laws. Do this, the punishment is this. Do that, the punishment is that. I realize that you and EVT1 in particular resent the parents' decision, but again: clearly, fortunately, we don't live in a society where (her?) opinion overrides the parents'. They are proceeding in a way they feel is just. They are acting in what they hold to be the best interests of their child. The law is clear, and the defendant doesn't have a leg to stand on. All the foaming in the mouth and calling them 'assholes' in the world won't change that.

Just because a law is on the books doesn't make it ethical or moral. Not that long ago we had laws making it a crime to drink from the wrong water fountain or sit at the front of the bus. A hundred-odd years ago, you would be looking at serious hard time for helping a slave escape but would get a cash reward for murdering Native Americans and bringing in their scalps.

Now, before I'm accused of being all high-and-mighty, I do get where the 14-year-old's parents are coming from. It's probably much easier to convince yourself that your daughter was seduced than to accept she's probably a lesbian or bi. I might not even have that much a problem with the prosecutors if they treat hetero cases the exact same way. This doesn't change the fact in my mind that this is a gross injustice and waste of government resources.  The girl in this situation is looking at 15 years in prison - 5 more than the Steubenville kids got for gang-raping an unconscious girl. As a parent, I'd much rather see the government going after those kind of animals than going after someone my kid wants to date. I can handle that situation in-house.

[EVT1]

I understand the parents too- I think they should have tried talking with the other girl's parents first before involving the law- but it is out of their hands now.

And it is any parent out there- looking at you dads- that finds out their daughter is sexually active.  Much easier to look to blame someone for it.

If there is any positive this case will illustrate the fact that some of our laws need work in this area.  There is the spirit of the law and the letter of the law- and besides that we hope that prosecutors and judges use their discretion in an equitable manner- that is what I question here.  Why was she not offered a misdemeanor plea?  Which is back to the OP- does that particular office charge HS kids with felonies and offer them similar deals or not?  I am sure someone is going to research it before this hits trial.  They better hope they do or it is going to get really ugly IMO.

FYI this is not a crime in AL, AK, CO, DC, HI, IO, ME, MD, MI, NE, NJ, NY, NC, PA  and I stopped looking.....
...
Everywhere else it appears to be a straight misdemeanor except NH, FL and LA, possible MA- so far

Here is how screwed up the laws are:

aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/sr/statelaws/statelaws.shtml

This is ridiculous- I am fan of the model penal code because of this craziness.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 28, 2013 15:59:57 GMT -5 zdaddy said:

May 28, 2013 15:07:45 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I don't agree with murder as an appropriate response to a man defying a parents' wishes, but if the particulars were that a black man was pursuing a white woman and the parents objected to this--for whatever reason they saw as fit, including bigotry--it would be incumbent on the man to stay away from their daughter. And if miscegenation laws afforded them the ability to prosecute the man if he persisted, then that would be his risk to take.

We do not live in a society where what you and I think parents should do in the best interest of their child has any relevance. We live in a society of causal laws. Do this, the punishment is this. Do that, the punishment is that. I realize that you and EVT1 in particular resent the parents' decision, but again: clearly, fortunately, we don't live in a society where (her?) opinion overrides the parents'. They are proceeding in a way they feel is just. They are acting in what they hold to be the best interests of their child. The law is clear, and the defendant doesn't have a leg to stand on. All the foaming in the mouth and calling them 'assholes' in the world won't change that.

Just because a law is on the books doesn't make it ethical or moral. Not that long ago we had laws making it a crime to drink from the wrong water fountain or sit at the front of the bus. A hundred-odd years ago, you would be looking at serious hard time for helping a slave escape but would get a cash reward for murdering Native Americans and bringing in their scalps.

Now, before I'm accused of being all high-and-mighty, I do get where the 14-year-old's parents are coming from. It's probably much easier to convince yourself that your daughter was seduced than to accept she's probably a lesbian or bi. I might not even have that much a problem with the prosecutors if they treat hetero cases the exact same way. This doesn't change the fact in my mind that this is a gross injustice and waste of government resources.  The girl in this situation is looking at 15 years in prison - 5 more than the Steubenville kids got for gang-raping an unconscious girl. As a parent, I'd much rather see the government going after those kind of animals than going after someone my kid wants to date. I can handle that situation in-house.

You're using the girl's lesbianism as an excuse. I don't care if the parents don't want their daughter in the relationship because they think homosexuals eat babies, and I don't care what you think is moral or ethical.

Some people believe that religion is a mass delusion and the root of all evil, and they teach their children this from an early age. But believe it or not, if this were a case of an 18-year-old being prosecuted because a 14-year-old's parents didn't want their daughter dating a Christian, as repugnant as I consider their viewpoint, my response would be exactly the same: The laws are clear. Parents have authority over their children, and that authority means something. If you go against a parents' wishes in contravention of a clear law, don't expect me to sympathize with you when you face the consequences.

If we assume this 18-year-old isn't simply interested in martyrdom, she refused the plea deal because she hopes to play on the emotions of a jury. She hopes that there will be a few zdaddy's in the jurors' box who care more about the fact that she's a lesbian than they do about the fact that she committed a crime. If she succeeds in getting off with a slap on the wrist, that won't be justice, it will be the triumph of emotion over reason.

[zdaddy]

May 28, 2013 17:10:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 28, 2013 15:59:57 GMT -5 zdaddy said:

Just because a law is on the books doesn't make it ethical or moral. Not that long ago we had laws making it a crime to drink from the wrong water fountain or sit at the front of the bus. A hundred-odd years ago, you would be looking at serious hard time for helping a slave escape but would get a cash reward for murdering Native Americans and bringing in their scalps.

Now, before I'm accused of being all high-and-mighty, I do get where the 14-year-old's parents are coming from. It's probably much easier to convince yourself that your daughter was seduced than to accept she's probably a lesbian or bi. I might not even have that much a problem with the prosecutors if they treat hetero cases the exact same way. This doesn't change the fact in my mind that this is a gross injustice and waste of government resources.  The girl in this situation is looking at 15 years in prison - 5 more than the Steubenville kids got for gang-raping an unconscious girl. As a parent, I'd much rather see the government going after those kind of animals than going after someone my kid wants to date. I can handle that situation in-house.

You're using the girl's lesbianism as an excuse. I don't care if the parents don't want their daughter in the relationship because they think homosexuals eat babies, and I don't care what you think is moral or ethical.

Some people believe that religion is a mass delusion and the root of all evil, and they teach their children this from an early age. But believe it or not, if this were a case of an 18-year-old being prosecuted because a 14-year-old's parents didn't want their daughter dating a Christian, as repugnant as I consider their viewpoint, my response would be exactly the same: The laws are clear. Parents have authority over their children, and that authority means something. If you go against a parents' wishes in contravention of a clear law, don't expect me to sympathize with you when you face the consequences.

If we assume this 18-year-old isn't simply interested in martyrdom, she refused the plea deal because she hopes to play on the emotions of a jury. She hopes that there will be a few zdaddy's in the jurors' box who care more about the fact that she's a lesbian than they do about the fact that she committed a crime. If she succeeds in getting off with a slap on the wrist, that won't be justice, it will be the triumph of emotion over reason.

Once again, what are the lasting effects of this crime, and do they warrant the punishment? Is a 15 year sentence and a lifetime stigma as a sex offender really the appropriate sentence for a consensual relationship? Is Kaitlyn Hunt - a girl who otherwise has been described as a model student and athlete - really that much of a danger to society that she deserves a sentence far worse than actual rapists?
I see the point about parents having the right to protect their children, but in most other states this would either not be a crime or would be a misdemeanor.

Or we can just say "the law's the law." But I hope you're also ok with honor killings or stoning women to death who got caught holding hands in Islamic countries, because hey, that's what their law says is moral and ethical. Can't go against thousands of years of tradition can we?

[Virgil Showlion]

May 28, 2013 17:30:11 GMT -5 zdaddy said:

May 28, 2013 17:10:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You're using the girl's lesbianism as an excuse. I don't care if the parents don't want their daughter in the relationship because they think homosexuals eat babies, and I don't care what you think is moral or ethical.

Some people believe that religion is a mass delusion and the root of all evil, and they teach their children this from an early age. But believe it or not, if this were a case of an 18-year-old being prosecuted because a 14-year-old's parents didn't want their daughter dating a Christian, as repugnant as I consider their viewpoint, my response would be exactly the same: The laws are clear. Parents have authority over their children, and that authority means something. If you go against a parents' wishes in contravention of a clear law, don't expect me to sympathize with you when you face the consequences.

If we assume this 18-year-old isn't simply interested in martyrdom, she refused the plea deal because she hopes to play on the emotions of a jury. She hopes that there will be a few zdaddy's in the jurors' box who care more about the fact that she's a lesbian than they do about the fact that she committed a crime. If she succeeds in getting off with a slap on the wrist, that won't be justice, it will be the triumph of emotion over reason.

Once again, what are the lasting effects of this crime, and do they warrant the punishment? Is a 15 year sentence and a lifetime stigma as a sex offender really the appropriate sentence for a consensual relationship? Is Kaitlyn Hunt - a girl who otherwise has been described as a model student and athlete - really that much of a danger to society that she deserves a sentence far worse than actual rapists?
I see the point about parents having the right to protect their children, but in most other states this would either not be a crime or would be a misdemeanor.

Or we can just say "the law's the law." But I hope you're also ok with honor killings or stoning women to death who got caught holding hands in Islamic countries, because hey, that's what their law says is moral and ethical. Can't go against thousands of years of tradition can we?

I agree the sentence seems incommensurate with the crime, but a) there is an element of judicial discretion, and we don't know what the sentence will be, b) the plea deal was for two years of house arrest, which Ms. Hunt rejected, c) this isn't exclusively about Ms. Hunt; it's about the courts imposing justice uniformly over all 18-on-14 cases, and in my mind there are other 18-on-14 circumstances (such as the example I gave evt earlier) where a 10- or 15-year sentence and lifetime stigma is appropriate.

The law is only a deterrent to an extent. I acknowledge that. But a conviction in this case will send out a clear message: If you are an adult, and you pursue a sexual relationship with somebody more than three years younger than you expressly against their parents' wishes, they can (and sometimes will) destroy your life. Do. not. do. it. If you have the slightest bit of reason and self-control: do not do it. Parents take their kids very seriously.

Could the punishment be less severe with the message being the same? Quite possibly. Cases like this might cause the laws to revamped to reduce sentences or to increase judicial latitude in sentencing, and so be it.

[zdaddy]

Allright, maybe we are closer in agreement Virgil than at first I thought. I've just never been a big believer in blindly accepting a law just because it's on the books. I'd also say that maybe we as America should take a look at why we see a 14-year-old as the same as a toddler, incapable of making any of their own decisions. I recently read an article about how in the Netherlands, it's legal and socially acceptable for teenage couples to have sleepovers at each others' houses. And yet the Dutch have a much, much lower number of STDs or unwanted pregnancies than America where we threaten to throw sexually active teens in prison for decades.

[Opti]

May 28, 2013 12:00:02 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

May 28, 2013 11:55:56 GMT -5 pappyjohn99 said:

Tex - I had a conversasion with Swamp about this. Check page 2. Hence-this pedophile is a molester rather than a rapist.

I saw it. I just don't understand how we can have laws on the books that are completely discriminatory toward one gender....regardless of which gender it is.

I'm guessing your missing it is not gender discrimination but leaving homosexual intercourse equivalents addressed in other laws. It could be a 18 year old senior girl having her way with a 14 year old boy.  18 year old boy with 14 year old boy doing umm mutual pleasuring wouldn't be addressed under the law concerning intercourse either.

[Virgil Showlion]

I recently read an article about how in the Netherlands, it's legal and socially acceptable for teenage couples to have sleepovers at each others' houses. And yet the Dutch have a much, much lower number of STDs or unwanted pregnancies than America where we threaten to throw sexually active teens in prison for decades.

Teens can have sleepovers anywhere, as far as I know. I slept over at plenty of friends' houses. I wasn't having sex with them.

STD rates are directly linked to the amount of sex teens have. Less sex, less sexual disease. I don't see that US laws have any say at all on 'sleepovers'.

Also, you're confusing cause and effect. You're suggesting that because sleepovers are more "legal[ly] and socially acceptable" in the Netherlands (which I fail to understand since sleepovers are legally and socially acceptable here), they have less sex. I would suggest to you that the reality is that the socially conservative Netherlands trusts their teens not to have sex, and because of this, parents are more willing to let their teens have sleepovers.

There is something to be said for vesting teens with responsibilities. I agree that parenting works better when parents grow in trusting their kids' ability to make good moral judgments, and allow them increasing independence as they approach adulthood. Personally, I'm quite grateful I could go over to a sleepover party with friends without my parents worrying about whether I'd have sex.