I've been indicted on multiple charges!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon


I'm not extending it. I'm just suggesting that the current criteria are silly.



The best way to deal with this is to give the police some discretion. What usually happens is that the police will only prosecute a stat case if there are some aggravating factors (like one party being much older than the other or evidence that some kind of coercion has occurred or evidence that the younger party is particularly immature).

Both the police and the prosecutor have discretion in these cases, whether or not they use it is another thing. By the time Korn's mess got to the judge there wasn't all that much he could do. Korn was guilty of something even though it sounds as though the prosecution was overzealous. The judge didn't put him away forever, but used his discretion to give Korn a chance to clean up his record. So one of the three government parties to this incident seems to have used their discretion properly, though obviously Korn is wishing that that party had been the police on the night in question.

Btw, you seem to assume that it is conservatives who are behind this wave of what some describe here as Puritanism. Take a look around, you are far more likely to see much more stringent laws as well as much more aggressive prosecutions in liberal areas like Boulder Colorado for instance. This is because stronger sexual assault laws and domestic abuse laws have been a cause celebre for feminists for decades. It is the more conservative states that waited the longest to change either age of consent laws or domestic abuse laws.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Frogger


A 10 year-old can't reason about sex the same way a 16 year-old can.

If the person has reached the age the law has decided the mental capacity to give consent kicks in at, then the person they screw is not committing a crime. The kid might be violating his parents' wishes by doing it, but that shouldn't have to be the concern of the kid's sexual partner. See above for movie example.

Reason contract analogy is flawed is that 18 is age where reason for money matters kicks in, as far as the law is concerned. Contracts are part of that, as is necessity for person to feed and clothe themselves.

There is no such obvious connection to sexual decision-making.

With sex comes the possibility of pregnancy and a child. That's bigger IMO than any financial contract. Or should be.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Frogger
BTW, I know a girl who was 13 and ****ed a 21 year-old guy. That's rape. I feel it in my gut, and it makes me angry to think about it.

Having a 17 year-old's parents scream rape is pathetic in comparison.

In my gut, I don't think that is rape (forced sex). The girl can say yes or no. nature has programmed her to breed at 13. It's not so much different from a 17 year old (who can be quite silly).

[korn469]

supersneak

And AH! High five!!! We saw right through that crap, didn't we? Probably best that we live on different chunks of the planet...could be trouble if we actually hung out...but some day...some day...

lol yea you did, and you're right about it being trouble if we did hang out

kittenOFchaos

P.S Korn are you now a convicted rapist?

No, I plead guilty to a catch all misdemeanor. It basically could be for just about anything, from being with (or encouraging) underage people in breaking curfew or skipping school, to providing them with alcohol, to just about anything the DA can think of. My sentencing for that is in less than two weeks.

Oerdin

I first met her when I was 23 about to turn 24. I just turned 26, and when this is over, we're going to give it another try.

frogger

Remember that this isn't about the parents' say-so. It's about what's victimisation and what's not.

Exactly, I completely agree with you, though i'm not sure completely sure which reforms would be best. Although i know that there isn't going to be any reforms of this law in the US anytime soon.

If it was up to me I'd increase the weighting of the "victim's" opinions in the process, and then additionally a good fix might be to tighten the laws up even more. Increase the age of consent to 18 and even dropping the 4 year age difference clause but change it from a strict liability law. Then instead of having the law say if anyone under 18 has intercourse with anyone 18 or older it shall be a felony, make it so that in addition to the age thing, that the prosecution has to prove that actual victimization had occured, or that some kind of malicious intent existed. To me I think that this would be the best solution of all; because, if you simply go by ages and not by the actual circumstances of the relationship then either the law will be too strict and will punish people unfairly, or they will be too lienient and will fail to stop some actual victimization. If by looking into the actual facts, and basing punishment on actual instead of theoretical harm the system would function much better.

Sikander

So one of the three government parties to this incident seems to have used their discretion properly, though obviously Korn is wishing that that party had been the police on the night in question

lol, Very much so, but in the end i learned several important lessons from this; lessons i might not have learned otherwise. So perhaps this is a blessing in disguise. Though I'm sure if they give me any jail time at the sentencing (which I highly doubt) then I won't be saying that.

I also think you are absolutely right about much of the justification for this particular set of laws coming from the liberal side of the political spectrum. I think that both democrats and republicans both have an equal amount of law and order members who advocate tough laws on certain issues.

[Dinner]

Korn: Just go out and find a girl your own age. I'm almost the same age as you and I couldn't possibly imagine going out with a girl so young. You atleast want someone in her twenties so you can go out clubing and/or to social events together.