Please. Laws that apply to mutually consenting adults are never assumed to apply to a consenting adult and a child, and there's nothing in this ruling that would make this happen. That, after all, is the premise behind statuatory rape--that people younger than the age of consent are incapable of giving consent, that is, that their consent is irrelevent. I beg to differ. Why was Roman Polanski not brought back to the United States when he fled to Europe? Because what he did is not a crime in Europe.
OK, I know what your agrgument is, "The little girl was a slut?" Right!!!
Well in Stockton, Ca, we also had a case of a Real Estate Developer named Ekhard Schmidt. Well he liked little boys and was caught with them several times. When he was let out of jail on appeal, he was caught again, so he fled to Europe. Same story, "not a crime, so not forced to return here."
Don't you understand this is what it is all about, we all should be free to do whatever perverted thing we like. It is OK in Europe, so it should apply here.
Your argument seems to be about extradition, not whether it is illegal to have sex with a minor. Whether or not it is illegal in Europe makes no difference. If Roman Polanski came back, he would be arrested as he got off the plane. No one here is promoting sex with minors. The issue here is one between consenting adults, so why don't we discuss that?