This frikkin' insane!

[Saras]

Originally posted by Pekka
Plus, obviously, the parents sets the rules. Usually the guy goes over to the girl at first, too. It's like, if they accept you being there and spending nights (which means sex), then it's OK. But if they say you can't spend the night, it means you can't have sex in there so you must go to your place.

You should write a book "Pekka's guide to underage sex in cold Scandinavia"

[Pekka]

Winston and Miller sitting in a tree M-O-L-E-S-T-I-N-G..

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Judges are supposed to apply the law, not just make up whatever they want. They are not legislators and never were supposed to be. Anyone who basically throws away the law only because they personally don't like it should step down as a judge immediately, IMO.

It would be up to the jury to nullify the decision

[Pekka]

Saras, obviously if you are older than the girl or something, you know like .. if she's 15-16, and you're15-17.. it's ok. But if you're like 18 and she's 15.. it's a no go in my books. You have to be the same age, and you both have to be OK with it. And if the girl goes for it, it means her mom knows about it in most cases. I know for a fact that when I was 16 and my then girlfriend.. she would talk about this sex stuff with her mom all the time.

So, she accepted it as well. There has to be respect, if the parentsw say like, no, you can't have sex with each other, then you have to respect that, until of course you are like 17 or so. But if you're younger, you sohuldn't do it if the parents are against it. Maybe some petting, kissing, dry humping, watching porno together.. but no actual sex. When you have the consensus of 'ok do it, but you have to respect this house and each other' then you know.. go for it.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by LordShiva


They spelled "Gandhi" wrong I hate that misspelling

Seconded.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Pekka
Winston and Miller sitting in a tree M-O-L-E-S-T-I-N-G..

Originally posted by Verto
wtf pekka?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Whoha
It would be up to the jury to nullify the decision

Yeah, because they get to pass the sentance initially. A judge ruling on appeal has to operate in some constraints.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by DanS
Well, let's just say, that wouldn't go down too well here.

I did this at sixteen, although there wasn't any sex sex until seventeen.

[Ned]

"The sentence sounds mandated by state statute, and I don't think there's any Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause problem here. One can argue that the distinction between between genital sex and oral sex violates the Equal Protection Clause, but while this argument was accepted in a related context by the California Supreme Court, which held that the distinction lacked a rational basis, it was rejected by the Georgia Supreme Court in Odett v. State, 541 S.E.d 29 (2001), on the grounds that "General Assembly could reasonably conclude that the psychological well-being of minors is more damaged by acts of sodomy than by acts of intercourse" — not very plausible grounds, I think, but likely sufficient to pass the rational basis test (see also this related item from the California Appellate Report blog). "

I don't get how sodomy is "more" damaging than intercourse. Regardless of the prior ruling of the GSC, I would have pursued this to the US Supreme Court if necessary.

I hope the Gov. commutes his sentence.

On the larger issues, though, I am steadily becoming convinced that all forms of statutory rape laws are fundamentally wrong. Where there is true consent, and not consent by power or influence, there should be no crime. Perhaps we have statutory rape laws to simply proof under the assumption that all sex with minors is "forced" in some fashion. But clearly, this is not the case in every case, such as the instant case.

But with freedom, there may be adverse consequences. Pedophilia, for one, might be legal (where there is consent). Does this shock you?

[Kuciwalker]

I agree with Ned

[Lorizael]

His opinion... it's so... so... reasonable!

[lord of the mark]

would you apply the same thing to contract law? If someone offers a 7 year old some candy, in exchange for 20% of their future earnings, and gets him to sign a contract, should that be legally enforceable absent evidence of undue power? Or should we stick to current rules that contracts with minors are generally not enforceable?

[LordShiva]

Or child labour.

[MikeH]

Was she hot? Even so, she'd probably be quite crap and inexperienced at that age, totally not worth it.

[Odin]

OMFG! I agree with Ned!!!