10 years in prison for a blowjob...

[MyndFyre]

The law is such to protect underage people who may be unable to make an appropriate decision about sex.

Quite honestly, I knew what the statuatory limits were on consent when I moved to Arizona at age 14.  I also knew what they were in Illinois before then.

If you don't like it, vote in congresspeople who will lower the age.

[Rule]

x86] link=topic=8212.msg103519#msg103519 date=1166683999]
The law is such to protect underage people who may be unable to make an appropriate decision about sex.

Quite honestly, I knew what the statuatory limits were on consent when I moved to Arizona at age 14.  I also knew what they were in Illinois before then.

If you don't like it, vote in congresspeople who will lower the age.

And obviously this is a great example of how the law is poorly constructed and applied, even if it was made with good intentions.  It is incredibly crucial for there to be discretionary power to interpret individual situations rather than only rigid adherence to what can be at the very best a general guideline.

First of all, the punishment does not fit the so-called "crime" in this particular instance, and I think we can both acknowledge an overwhelming majority of the public would agree with this assessment; after all, the legal system is supposed to effectively represent the overall best interests of the public.

Secondly, he is not at all alone in what he did: there must be 1000s of teenagers in his state "guilty" of a similar "crime" who will not be pursued in this system, because hardly anyone would take this sort of situation seriously.  So not only is the public indifferent, the law is inconsistently applied, even if there is some good sense behind it (and there clearly is none).

The problem isn't with the legal age limit, and the solution isn't to tell the few people who are even aware of this story to change their votes as a result.  The problem is the idea that fairness in this system is construed to mean a uniform interpretation of undoubtedly limited laws and regulations.  The solution is to start fresh, after having sterilized those below a certain intelligence quotient, in the hope that such an unthoughtful, ineffective and inflexible system will not develop once again.  In Canada the boy wouldn't have been found guilty of anything, as there is a 2 year age difference between him and the girl.  In other states, this wouldn't have been heard in court.  Is there such a large cultural difference between Canada and the US to account for this incredibly large difference in outcomes?  Is there such a large cultural difference between the state this boy lives in and other states to account for such a drastic difference in outcomes?  In this case it shouldn't matter exactly what's written down on paper.  It should matter whether someone with a high functioning brain is making these life-changing discretionary, individual decisions.

[Joe]

Also, take into account that sexual education is a requried course. I don't know about the rest of the US, but I took it in 8th grade (and proudly passed with flying colors, TYVM). I think that if you can pass that class then you are "intelligent" enough to consent. The stupid people of the world aren't smart enough, though, thus high age of concent's.

[Super_X]

x86] link=topic=8212.msg103519#msg103519 date=1166683999]
[...] statuatory [...]

Thank you, I couldn't figure it out so next best thing is phonetics.

[ZeroX]

Wait he was 17 and did it with a 15 year old? They cant say shit.

I think the state supreme court knows a little more about what they can say than you.

Iam sure they do. But when it violates their own laws then I consider what they can say and not. In the states 18 is the legal age of adult hood. With that being said nobody of legal adult hood can have sex with a minor. From what I heard and read. The guy was 17 and the chick was 15. No guts no glory.

[MyndFyre]

Iam sure they do. But when it violates their own laws then I consider what they can say and not. In the states 18 is the legal age of adult hood. With that being said nobody of legal adult hood can have sex with a minor. From what I heard and read. The guy was 17 and the chick was 15. No guts no glory.

No.  In the States, the only constitutional law regarding people who are 18 is the legal voting age - people who have reached such an age shall not be denied the right to vote.  To illustrate this point, note that you cannot legally drink until you have reached age 21.  Many consider this the "true age" of "adulthood." 

Legal issues regarding the age of a person and whether you are an "adult" is left to the states.  That's why you hear about whether a 16- or 17-year-old is being "tried as an adult."

You should do some research into what you're talking about before you try to prattle off nonsense.

And obviously this is a great example of how the law is poorly constructed and applied, even if it was made with good intentions.  It is incredibly crucial for there to be discretionary power to interpret individual situations rather than only rigid adherence to what can be at the very best a general guideline.

I don't want you to think that I agree with the ruling; I haven't read the article so I don't know the details.  In general, law is constructed in such a way here so as to allow for there to be such flexibility in interpretation on a case-by-case basis.

What I was simply saying is - if you are going to be engaging in any behaviors, you should make yourself aware of the potential repercussions.  One of the reasons I don't drink, at all, is that I know one of the potential repercussions is that I can be hit with a DUI.  It's not worth it to me to have any remote chance of that happening.  When I was in high school I didn't fool around with the underclassmen because I didn't want to be hit with such an incredibly harsh penalty (someone I know from two classes is now a registered sex offender in my area). 

There once was a notion of personal responsibility.  10 years is probably a bit excessive; like I said, I haven't read the article.  My point is simply: if the penalty was a viable outcome under Georgia law, the guy should have had the foresight to know that before he got busy with the chick.

[Rule]

He might have been aware about the age limitations and chose to ignore them.  Even in this case, however, I think the ruling was unfair -- irrespective of whether or not it followed from a strict interpretation of a law intended to protect youth.

To be completely honest, I don't know whether I'd ignore the law or not in this case.  It's not just the harsh punishment that bugs me, but the fact that so many people do this and no-one cares, and so kids are almost arbitrarily picked out of the crowd and "made examples of."  This usually amounts to needlessly damaging a relatively innocent person's life, while making a mockery of our legal system.

Having said all this, I'm now rather curious how this got to the court in the first place?  Who blowed the whistle? Hmm...

[CrAz3D]

Having said all this, I'm now rather curious how this got to the court in the first place?  Who blowed the whistle? Hmm...

my guess is the girl's parents.

[iago]

Having said all this, I'm now rather curious how this got to the court in the first place?  Who blowed the whistle? Hmm...

my guess is the girl's parents.

I think the Girlfriend did.

..... oh wait, what do you mean by "whistle"?

[Newby]

Damnit. I come in to capitalize on that comment, and two people already have.

[Warrior]

Having said all this, I'm now rather curious how this got to the court in the first place?  Who blowed the whistle? Hmm...

my guess is the girl's parents.

I think the Girlfriend did.

..... oh wait, what do you mean by "whistle"?

I love you.

Yea, it's perfectly possible for the two to have sex while both agreeing while the parents can still tell on you.

Personally, this whole thing about states having different laws is a load of bullshit.

[dark_drake]

x86] link=topic=8212.msg103642#msg103642 date=1166744481]
Personally, this whole thing about states having different laws is a load of bullshit.

I totally agree. DAMN FEDERALISM TO HELL!!!!  ::)

[Ersan]

x86] link=topic=8212.msg103519#msg103519 date=1166683999]
[...] statuatory [...]

Thank you, I couldn't figure it out so next best thing is phonetics.

For fucks sake, it's STATUTORY, you're all retarded I swear.

[ZeroX]

x86] link=topic=8212.msg103642#msg103642 date=1166744481]

Having said all this, I'm now rather curious how this got to the court in the first place?  Who blowed the whistle? Hmm...

my guess is the girl's parents.

I think the Girlfriend did.

..... oh wait, what do you mean by "whistle"?

I love you.

Yea, it's perfectly possible for the two to have sex while both agreeing while the parents can still tell on you.

Personally, this whole thing about states having different laws is a load of bullshit.

Civil war showed that this isnt possible.