Florida strikes again- on teen sex- selective prosecution?

[chiver78]

May 28, 2013 17:54:08 GMT -5 zdaddy said:

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.

that's right up there with the countries that have no problem with parents introducing their children to alcohol at young ages, in the home, and how the alcoholism rates in those countries are significantly lower than what we have here. teaching your children how to responsibly handle themselves in specific situations means it is much more likely that they will be reasonable and responsible adult members of society.

just my two cents

[chiver78]

May 28, 2013 18:13:43 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

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.

I really hope you were being deliberately obtuse in order to make a point about zdaddy's choice of wording.....

[billisonboard]

May 28, 2013 18:13:43 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

... 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.

Are you sure that they didn't allow it, hoping rather than worrying? Something to help you not be so uptight!

[Virgil Showlion]

May 28, 2013 18:29:03 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

May 28, 2013 18:13:43 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

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.

I really hope you were being deliberately obtuse in order to make a point about zdaddy's choice of wording.....

If I said "I'm going to stay over at Andrew's house tonight.", and Andrew was a friend, my point is that my parents would say 'OK' without the slightest thought running through their minds that sex might be involved.

I didn't start dating until 17 and in university, and sleeping over at my dates' houses wasn't something I'd considered because I hold it to be inappropriate. I didn't have any female friends growing up. Maybe in the Netherlands, male/female friendships are more common, and even dating couples are friendship-oriented enough that sleeping over doesn't raise any eyebrows. The bottom line is that the teens there have less sex. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that this leads to less parental stigma against sleepovers, and not the slightest bit reasonable to assume that teens have less sex because they can sleep over at each other's houses.

[chiver78]

even though YOU consider it inappropriate (I do too, fwiw*), doesn't mean that everyone does. and zdaddy's post was definitely a euphemism.

*I moved back home for a couple years, when I was traveling more than half-time for work. my BF at the time would stay over when I was home, and I was really the only one that found it all a bit weird.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 28, 2013 18:40:44 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 28, 2013 18:13:43 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

... 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.

Are you sure that they didn't allow it, hoping rather than worrying? Something to help you not be so uptight!

Sex outside of marriage leads to disease, pregnancy, abortion, and the loss of a special, valuable part of a husband-wife pair bonding that fornicators don't even know they've lost.

Sex is nice. It's important. It's wonderful and beautiful if done in the right way. But it's such a hollow and incomplete component of a relationship. Especially in a marriage relationship going out 'till death do we part, it's like a single food in a very large refrigerator. The fact that our society is utterly obsessed with it doesn't change that fact.

My parents taught me the risks and the rewards, and so I can honestly tell you that no, they weren't secretly hoping I'd "score" and then beat the odds.

[billisonboard]

[EVT1]

Well as far as sending a message as Virgil says- it only sends a message to FL since a lot of other states follow the 4 year gap rule.  There is a different version in almost every state and if you look at them the whole point is try NOT to lump in HS kids in realtionships with the true sex offenders.

As far as a jury- it isn't going to be someone with a soft spot on lesbians that locks it up- I guess it could be, but it would be one person that will see the situation for what it is- a heavy handed prosecution.  Someone that can empathize either by their own past or imagining one of their own children in the same situation and cannot vote guilty.  It is quite a thing to sign your name to a document that is going to forever alter the life of someone.  No telling what kind of emotional show this would be- the 'victim' on the stand being forced to testify against her girlfriend- the whole thing stinks and I hope they do not go that far- but one thing you can rely on is that prosecutors are professional assholes and are not in the habit of backing down. 

[pappyjohn99]

And most judges are former prosecutors.

[Deleted]

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?


exactly

who are you, or we, to tell a jurisdiction what laws they should have on the books?

evt wants all the states to have the SAME laws....why.....when did the states give up their rights and sovereignty

i despise the islamic fundamental religious laws...but while i was in Saudi Arabia...you better damn well believe i followed them

you may not agree with all laws everywhere....i sure in the hell dont.....so either you stay out of that country/state or you follow their laws

pretty simple....

[chiver78]

May 28, 2013 20:26:59 GMT -5 pappyjohn99 said:

And most judges are former prosecutors.

and.....?

[EVT1]

May 28, 2013 20:46:52 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

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?


exactly

who are you, or we, to tell a jurisdiction what laws they should have on the books?

evt wants all the states to have the SAME laws....why.....when did the states give up their rights and sovereignty

i despise the islamic fundamental religious laws...but while i was in Saudi Arabia...you better damn well believe i followed them

you may not agree with all laws everywhere....i sure in the hell dont.....so either you stay out of that country/state or you follow their laws

pretty simple....

Usually it is the Supreme Court that purges those books of dumb laws because state legislatures are slow to change anything.

And what is wrong with having the same laws in this country?  Don't we have enough lawyers?  Why keep the system so complex?  Would it not be a sane idea to decide as a nation what constitutes a crime rather than have a citizen subjected to numerous different schemes depending on where they happen to be at the moment?  It's stupid really- crossing some line on a map is no different than crossing some particular age limit- on my left foot I am guilty, on my right I am not. You do not magically become a different person with a different degree of maturity on a birthday.  Bright line laws do not work for this- but I would think we could manage to tweak the law to keep HS kids that have sex out of jail. But hey- screw it- let's just put them on welfare since we are going to ruin their employment chances and then complain about it later.

This is why we have such absurd outcomes in the legal system- in one state something is legal and in another your ass is in jail for a long time.  And people want to whine about mistake or ignorance is no excuse- so tell me when is the last time anyone here read their local criminal code- you probably don't know the first thing about it.  Teenagers sure as shit don't know about it.

[EVT1]

May 28, 2013 20:55:08 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

May 28, 2013 20:26:59 GMT -5 pappyjohn99 said:

And most judges are former prosecutors.

and.....?

Yes- and?  One is paid to be impartial, and the other is a paid advocate for the state.  You think it matters what their former job was?  That would imply they have no integrity.  Of course some don't have any- including some of our SCOTUS members  

[Politically_Incorrect12]

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 disagree with the law in regard to those within the same peer group, but why is it that every time a law or anything is enforced and if the person who it happens to be enforced on happens to be non-white, female, etc....some people want to automatically go to saying that is why they are being treated a certain way? There is real discrimination in the world, but when people want to almost automatically go there initially, it diminishes what those who face actual discrimination go through.  It is ridiculous that people have to be concerned about something might be perceived when taking an action...which makes having a conversation about discrimination difficult because perception vs. reality doesn't always equal up.  By the way people of all skin colors, genders, religions, etc can face discrimination....politically correct, politically convenient, or politically acceptable discrimination is still discrimination.

[Deleted]

May 28, 2013 22:14:31 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

May 28, 2013 20:46:52 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

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?


exactly

who are you, or we, to tell a jurisdiction what laws they should have on the books?

evt wants all the states to have the SAME laws....why.....when did the states give up their rights and sovereignty

i despise the islamic fundamental religious laws...but while i was in Saudi Arabia...you better damn well believe i followed them

you may not agree with all laws everywhere....i sure in the hell dont.....so either you stay out of that country/state or you follow their laws

pretty simple....

Usually it is the Supreme Court that purges those books of dumb laws because state legislatures are slow to change anything.

And what is wrong with having the same laws in this country?  Don't we have enough lawyers?  Why keep the system so complex?  Would it not be a sane idea to decide as a nation what constitutes a crime rather than have a citizen subjected to numerous different schemes depending on where they happen to be at the moment?  It's stupid really- crossing some line on a map is no different than crossing some particular age limit- on my left foot I am guilty, on my right I am not. You do not magically become a different person with a different degree of maturity on a birthday.  Bright line laws do not work for this- but I would think we could manage to tweak the law to keep HS kids that have sex out of jail. But hey- screw it- let's just put them on welfare since we are going to ruin their employment chances and then complain about it later.

This is why we have such absurd outcomes in the legal system- in one state something is legal and in another your ass is in jail for a long time.  And people want to whine about mistake or ignorance is no excuse- so tell me when is the last time anyone here read their local criminal code- you probably don't know the first thing about it.  Teenagers sure as shit don't know about it.

what you, and others here may think are "dumb" laws are on the books in that county/state because the citizens elected officials who chose to put those laws in effect there

same the stupid shit colorado laws on legal marijuana....i dont like them, but that state put them on their books

what you consider stupid, obtuse, or archaic others may think are exactly what their citizens need and want

Doesnt it all come down to right and wrong.....do you believe this 18 year girl is "in the right"

She was offered a way out....and maybe if they would have negotiated, instead of throwing their hands up saying "we did nothing wrong", they could have even done better

This was her choice...the act, the no plea, everything

Where is her culpability?

[billisonboard]

May 29, 2013 7:57:04 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

...Doesnt it all come down to right and wrong...

No. It all comes down to legal and illegal. What she did was illegal and a consequence for that illegal act is appropriate. Exactly what that consequence should be is an important question. IM(not so)HO, the answer would best be left to those who are directly involved/informed of the specifics of this case. It seems that there is adequate space in the law to allow for them to jail a predator and slap the hand of a youngster in "love".

[zdaddy]

So I've changed my mind somewhat about the Hunt case. I just learned  that at one point Hunt aided her younger girlfriend in running away from home for a weekend. As a parent, I do think that behavior crosses the line and Hunt probably should face a misdemeanor. I'm still pretty adamant that this should not result in 15 years in prison, but I'm afraid the prosecutor and judge are going to throw the book at her now for not taking the plea deal.

Also, I think the gay angle is still important if local heterosexual boys are getting a slap on the wrist for the same crime. Still don't know if that's the case or not.

As far as the whole Dutch thing goes, I'm not sure Dutch teens have less sex than Americans. Overall, the Netherlands is a very pro-sex country. I think they just do a much better job of teaching their kids how to have responsible sex. And let's face it - American teens are on one hand told sex is taboo while at the same time bombarded with oversexualized movies, tv shows and ads. It's a dangerous mix.

At any rate, here's an interesting article looking at five countries that have far less of a problem with teenage pregnancies and STDs than America:

www.alternet.org/story/154970/5_countries_that_do_it_better%3A_how_sexual_prudery_makes_america_a_less_healthy_and_happy_place

[EVT1]

She's not going to get 15 years no matter what happens.  I looked at the sentencing guidelines and I think it was around 30 months, but the judge could zero it out and use probation or other things.  At least avoiding the plea deal she has a shot to not have a felony on her record.

That's who is going to come out as the wise one on this- the judge- the prosecution blew it.  Assuming, of course, they can get a guilty verdict.

[Deleted]

prosecution didnt blow it

the girl, her parents, and her lawyers blew it

they needed a serious sit down negotiation session...where the girl admitted wrongdoing, and they negotiated a better plea deal

the prosecution has this nailed....and i wouldnt be surprised if they do work out a plea.....just not as good as Ms. Hunt would like, or would have gotten earlier

but nothing will happen like that till she accepts the fact that she was WRONG!

if not, she is going to jail

[Deleted]

May 28, 2013 18:13:43 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

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.

Virgil,
I didn't read whole thread but I have to agree with your statement above.
We are very close as A family and we love each other unconditionally. 

[Deleted]

I want to make it sure that I am not saying others are not.
I am saying it was our way.

[EVT1]

May 29, 2013 14:20:24 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

prosecution didnt blow it

the girl, her parents, and her lawyers blew it

they needed a serious sit down negotiation session...where the girl admitted wrongdoing, and they negotiated a better plea deal

the prosecution has this nailed....and i wouldnt be surprised if they do work out a plea.....just not as good as Ms. Hunt would like, or would have gotten earlier

but nothing will happen like that till she accepts the fact that she was WRONG!

if not, she is going to jail

That already happened- her lawyer tried to get them to accept a misdemeanor plea.  They wouldn't budge.  We will see down the road if it was a good idea.

Yes- she was wrong as far as the law goes in FL.  108 days younger or one state over and she would not have been.  Of course all teenagers in HS should be familiar with statutory rape laws and be sure to check the ID of whomever they decide to get busy with....

[cme1201]

That's who is going to come out as the wise one on this- the judge- the prosecution blew it. Assuming, of course, they can get a guilty verdict.

She has admitted that she had intimate relations according to the arrest record, at the time the girl ran away from her home in January the child was 14 she was 18, she was charged with

This is the Statute: 800.04 Lewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of persons less than 16 years of age.—
this is the subsection (4) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS BATTERY.—A person who:
 (a) Engages in sexual activity with a person 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age;

If we apply nothing but the LAW which is what we as jurors are asked to uphold then if at any point in time before the (victim) reaches the age of 18 she is guilty.

Luckily we have the Romeo and Juliet law. Which will be her only saving grace, that is if the case is about the law.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 29, 2013 11:56:58 GMT -5 zdaddy said:

So I've changed my mind somewhat about the Hunt case. I just learned  that at one point Hunt aided her younger girlfriend in running away from home for a weekend. As a parent, I do think that behavior crosses the line and Hunt probably should face a misdemeanor. I'm still pretty adamant that this should not result in 15 years in prison, but I'm afraid the prosecutor and judge are going to throw the book at her now for not taking the plea deal.

Also, I think the gay angle is still important if local heterosexual boys are getting a slap on the wrist for the same crime. Still don't know if that's the case or not.

As far as the whole Dutch thing goes, I'm not sure Dutch teens have less sex than Americans. Overall, the Netherlands is a very pro-sex country. I think they just do a much better job of teaching their kids how to have responsible sex. And let's face it - American teens are on one hand told sex is taboo while at the same time bombarded with oversexualized movies, tv shows and ads. It's a dangerous mix.

At any rate, here's an interesting article looking at five countries that have far less of a problem with teenage pregnancies and STDs than America:

www.alternet.org/story/154970/5_countries_that_do_it_better%3A_how_sexual_prudery_makes_america_a_less_healthy_and_happy_place

They pick five countries to make the completely unsupported supposition that there are fewer STDs and teen pregnancies in those countries because they're less "sexually repressive" than the US... which they admit isn't actually sexually repressive.

America has a massive lower class. The countries in the article do not.

America has significant minorities with teen pregnancy rates five times the national average. The countries in the article do not.

The article doesn't quantify the amount of sex people are having. It doesn't address factors like wealth, culture, media, etc., etc. It suggests early adoption of gay 'marriage' and prostitution are responsible for reducing teen pregnancies. Based on what data or logic? Nobody knows.

Does it look at America historically? No.

Does it cite any studies showing a causal link to support its point? No.

Does it look at factors in highly repressive societies like Saudi Arabia, Japan, and China, whose teen pregnancy rates are also lower than America's? No.

It cherry picks five wealthy, homogenous countries with favourable characteristics, blindly posits that these societies are more "sexually open" because they have lax laws on prostitution and pornography, blindly posits that their teens have less risky sex because of the brothels and pornography, and then completely ignores the minor galaxy of datapoints that falls outside their model.

In short: no, I will not buy your swampland, alternet.

[EVT1]

May 29, 2013 17:02:01 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

That's who is going to come out as the wise one on this- the judge- the prosecution blew it. Assuming, of course, they can get a guilty verdict.

She has admitted that she had intimate relations according to the arrest record, at the time the girl ran away from her home in January the child was 14 she was 18, she was charged with

This is the Statute: 800.04 Lewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of persons less than 16 years of age.—
this is the subsection (4) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS BATTERY.—A person who:
 (a) Engages in sexual activity with a person 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age;

If we apply nothing but the LAW which is what we as jurors are asked to uphold then if at any point in time before the (victim) reaches the age of 18 she is guilty.

Luckily we have the Romeo and Juliet law. Which will be her only saving grace, that is if the case is about the law.

True- if they apply the law as written it will be guilty.  But they don't have to.  The R&J law unfortunately only keeps her off of the sex offender registry. 

[zibazinski]

Too bad. Frankly, she is a criminal for helping a minor run away. THAT'S what she should be charged with. Obviously the perps parents could care less about their own daughter to not advise her to leave a child alone.

[zdaddy]

May 29, 2013 17:08:32 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 29, 2013 11:56:58 GMT -5 zdaddy said:

So I've changed my mind somewhat about the Hunt case. I just learned  that at one point Hunt aided her younger girlfriend in running away from home for a weekend. As a parent, I do think that behavior crosses the line and Hunt probably should face a misdemeanor. I'm still pretty adamant that this should not result in 15 years in prison, but I'm afraid the prosecutor and judge are going to throw the book at her now for not taking the plea deal.

Also, I think the gay angle is still important if local heterosexual boys are getting a slap on the wrist for the same crime. Still don't know if that's the case or not.

As far as the whole Dutch thing goes, I'm not sure Dutch teens have less sex than Americans. Overall, the Netherlands is a very pro-sex country. I think they just do a much better job of teaching their kids how to have responsible sex. And let's face it - American teens are on one hand told sex is taboo while at the same time bombarded with oversexualized movies, tv shows and ads. It's a dangerous mix.

At any rate, here's an interesting article looking at five countries that have far less of a problem with teenage pregnancies and STDs than America:

www.alternet.org/story/154970/5_countries_that_do_it_better%3A_how_sexual_prudery_makes_america_a_less_healthy_and_happy_place

They pick five countries to make the completely unsupported supposition that there are fewer STDs and teen pregnancies in those countries because they're less "sexually repressive" than the US... which they admit isn't actually sexually repressive.

America has a massive lower class. The countries in the article do not.

America has significant minorities with teen pregnancy rates five times the national average. The countries in the article do not.

The article doesn't quantify the amount of sex people are having. It doesn't address factors like wealth, culture, media, etc., etc. It suggests early adoption of gay 'marriage' and prostitution are responsible for reducing teen pregnancies. Based on what data or logic? Nobody knows.

Does it look at America historically? No.

Does it cite any studies showing a causal link to support its point? No.

Does it look at factors in highly repressive societies like Saudi Arabia, Japan, and China, whose teen pregnancy rates are also lower than America's? No.

It cherry picks five wealthy, homogenous countries with favourable characteristics, blindly posits that these societies are more "sexually open" because they have lax laws on prostitution and pornography, blindly posits that their teens have less risky sex because of the brothels and pornography, and then completely ignores the minor galaxy of datapoints that falls outside their model.

In short: no, I will not buy your swampland, alternet.

My takeaway from the article was not that gay marriage or prostitution reduce teen pregnancies (those things just speak to a society having a more realistic view of human sexuality). Rather, it was comprehensive sex ed and easy access to birth control that made a huge difference.

Also, I agree with you I'd like to see a greater breakdown by social class, but France, Germany and Spain do have significant minority populations. Spain also has a pretty high level of unemployment. I think it's a total copout to say they don't face similar problems to American teens.

As far as Saudi Arabia goes, the point is these are wealthy countries that strike a good balance between personal freedom and responsibility. It's not just about reducing teen pregnancies by any means necessary, including honor killing.

[Virgil Showlion]

Rather, it was comprehensive sex ed and easy access to birth control that made a huge difference.

It could be a factor, but there isn't so much as a shred of evidence in the article to support it.

The STD rates and teen pregnancies in America circa the 1950's were lower than the Netherlands' are now, and 1950's America was downright ascetic compared to the US today. Are we going to assume that's because they had really good sex ed?

The other 'joke' is their portrayal of America as "sexually repressed"? You're serious, alternet? The pornography and sexual entertainment capital of the world? Where every book for teens, every TV show for teens, every movie for teens makes virginity at age 14 a virtual crime against the self? Where binge drinking and sex is commonplace at everything from birthday parties to weekend get-togethers? That's your "sexually repressed" society?

Also, I agree with you I'd like to see a greater breakdown by social class, but France, Germany and Spain do have significant minority populations. Spain also has a pretty high level of unemployment. I think it's a total copout to say they don't face similar problems to American teens.

They also had the numbers closest to the US's.

The correlation between wealth and sexual behaviour is so marked that any study not accounting for it is all but worthless. Which is just one of many reasons why this particular article resides on a backwater blog with nary a citation in sight.

[swamp]

May 28, 2013 22:19:49 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

May 28, 2013 20:55:08 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

and.....?

Yes- and?  One is paid to be impartial, and the other is a paid advocate for the state.  You think it matters what their former job was?  That would imply they have no integrity.  Of course some don't have any- including some of our SCOTUS members  

Actually a prosecutor is paid to advocate for justice. In theory. They're supposed to do what's right, not just get convictions. 

[The Captain]

Wait, what is defined as "right"

Following the letter of the law as it is written, or

Looking at individual circumstances as has been previously suggested.

Are prosecutors allowed to let personal beliefs and feelings influence their actions?