This frikkin' insane!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by 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?

In the case of candy it might be. Contracts with minors to provide necessities (food, shelter, etc.) are generally enforceable.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by 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?

The difference being that making a contract unenforceable is a bit different from putting one of the parties in jail for 10 years and labelling him a child molester for the rest of his life.

[Lorizael]

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

It's quite possible that I've only ever been the recipient of good oral sex, but I've always been of the opinion that, unless the one performing is doing something atrociously wrong, it's hard for the act to be... not worth it, even if it could be much better.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


The difference being that making a contract unenforceable is a bit different from putting one of the parties in jail for 10 years and labelling him a child molester for the rest of his life.

I wasnt taking issue with those who said that the punishment in this case was excessive, but those who seemed to think that the whole concept that below a certain age informed consent is impossible is a mistaken one.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


In the case of candy it might be. Contracts with minors to provide necessities (food, shelter, etc.) are generally enforceable.

which is why i said "generally not enforceable"

[Dinner]

Originally posted by 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?

Wow, I actually find myself in total agreement with Ned.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Lorizael


It's quite possible that I've only ever been the recipient of good oral sex, but I've always been of the opinion that, unless the one performing is doing something atrociously wrong, it's hard for the act to be... not worth it, even if it could be much better.

Never had yer knob chewed by sharp teeth?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Never had yer knob chewed by sharp teeth?

Have you?

[Cort Haus]

'Chewed' was an exaggeration, in case Lori's imagination wasn't up to it.

[Lorizael]

Not to excess. Pain can be good. Uh. Family site.

[Lorizael]

And for the love of God please stop calling me Lori. Lor, Lorizzle, Az's DL, something - but not Lori.

[Dinner]

I wonder if race was a factor. If the girls were white and the boys were black then... Well, it is Georgia. Hopefuly, it wasn't a factor but I do wonder.

[Cort Haus]

My apologies, Lorizael. :humility:

It's a Anglo habit of reducing every name possible to one or two syllables.

[Lorizael]

If only we could see the tape, all our questions would be answered.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Lorizael
And for the love of God please stop calling me Lori. Lor, Lorizzle, Az's DL, something - but not Lori.

I will now proceed to call you "Lori" consistently from now on, and I urge others to do the same