Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

I think this could be an important case.

I'm solidly on the side of prosecuting.

1 posted on 12/07/2006 7:14:58 AM PST by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: newzjunkey
I'm solidly on the side of prosecuting.

I would be if a sex offense conviction didn't destroy a person's ability to hold more than a minimum wage job for the rest of their natural life. So be all in favor of prosecuting if you want. I hope you will remember that when this minimum wage worker ends up on welfare because more respectable employers won't hire a "sex offender".
2 posted on 12/07/2006 7:20:53 AM PST by JamesP81 (If you have to ask permission from Uncle Sam, then it's not a right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: newzjunkey
By passing that law, legislators were sending a message, Bates said: Sex with or among children is unacceptable.

My belief is the legislature never gave this scenario the least bit of thought, making certain juvenile actions a misdemeanor and for younger children a felony.

At least in my state, Illinois, the prosecution could have filed a Juvenile Petition for Minor in Need of Intervention, and given the children an appropriate disposition, other than a felony and the possibility of having to register as a sex offender. The axiom, "tough cases make for bad law", seems true.

3 posted on 12/07/2006 7:26:41 AM PST by Lawgvr1955 (You can never have too much cowbell !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: newzjunkey

bkmark


4 posted on 12/07/2006 7:27:17 AM PST by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/optimism_nov8th.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: newzjunkey
Its ridiculous to prosecute teens for making out.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

9 posted on 12/07/2006 7:33:01 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: newzjunkey

Prosecuting this case is ludicrous. Many States include a 'difference in age' clause in their statutory rape laws, in order to avoid this sort of situation. There's a huge difference between an older kid abusing a younger kid, and two kids of (approximately) the same age 'playing doctor'.


15 posted on 12/07/2006 7:47:40 AM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: newzjunkey

This is simply none of the government's business.


17 posted on 12/07/2006 7:50:07 AM PST by Mr. Jeeves ("When the government is invasive, the people are wanting." -- Tao Te Ching)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: newzjunkey

"The girl was put in this odd position because she was found guilty of violating a state law that prohibits sex with someone under age 14. She also was the victim in the case against her boyfriend, who was found guilty of the same violation by engaging in sexual activity with her."


I have to say this is strange.

Usually, doesn't such a law pertain only to people ABOVE that age limit?

I.e., noone OVER 14 could have sex with someone UNDER 14?


21 posted on 12/07/2006 7:54:39 AM PST by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: newzjunkey
"By passing that law, legislators were sending a message, Bates said: Sex with or among children is unacceptable."

Thats all well and good, but the fact that the girl became pregnant, and the boy impregnated her argues that both are post pubescent and therefore no longer children. Anyway,what are they going to do? lock them up? Sentence them to hard labor?

It seems to me that any punishment greater than grounding them would do more harm than good. Do you really want to send these kids to prison with juvenile offenders and gang members who are on their way to becoming hardened criminals?
25 posted on 12/07/2006 8:04:27 AM PST by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: newzjunkey

If there is no mitigation for sex with children under age 14 because it's understood they can't rationally make a decision under that age, how can they (kids under 14) be prosecuted (and convicted) under the same statute, indicating they knew right from wrong?


28 posted on 12/07/2006 8:10:17 AM PST by VeniVidiVici (What's the one elected position Ted Kennedy has never held? Designated Driver.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: newzjunkey

This is - and I am choosing my words very carefully here - very stupid.

Our country is completely incapacitated by fatal schiziphrenia.

Our culture is effectively dead and impotent, but many don't know it yet. It is like the freshly cut off head of a rattlesnake, still able to do some last bits of damage as it assumes room temperature.

It's been a fascinating ride and an interesting thing to watch. The change is like a parabolic curve and we have moved into the virtually verticle line in just the last few years.


33 posted on 12/07/2006 8:24:52 AM PST by RobRoy (Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Naziism was in 1937.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: newzjunkey

Utah has a history of allowing youth to marry at 13. I knew a girl that got married in Utah at 13 because they would allow there with parental consent. Where the heck were the parents??


34 posted on 12/07/2006 8:27:39 AM PST by ThisLittleLightofMine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: newzjunkey

From the people who brought you the war on drugs, now brings you the war on teenage sex.


37 posted on 12/07/2006 8:49:37 AM PST by garbanzo (Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: newzjunkey

Kinda of sad in that it demonstrates where our society is going, but other than that, not new.

Prosecuting these kids would be a big show for the DAs careers... a clown show.

It's sad, but it's not news, and only a fool interested in the dog and pony show itself, and not the kids, would try to prosecute this case. Making sex offenders out of some young teenage couple... that is insanity. Not that I condone what they did... but do you want to mark these kids as "sex offenders" for the *rest of their lives* for what is nothing but young teenage hormones? SOmebody needs to be slapped around. There is no "vitim" there is no "perpetrator".. just sme missing or incompetant parents.


38 posted on 12/07/2006 8:50:35 AM PST by Bones75
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: newzjunkey

Both kids need to be firmly disciplined by their parents and given counseling .Neither needs to be prosecuted as criminals. Were one 16 and the other 12 then I would agree with charging them but charging two kids the same age is just plain silly.


41 posted on 12/07/2006 9:18:22 AM PST by SmoothTalker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: newzjunkey

This is so ludicrous it would be funny if it weren't so serious for the two kids involved. I guess I should be labeled a sex offender for life for all the times I played doctor in middle school when I was 13, or all those times I "rubbed one out" when I was a kid, I was really committing a sex offense against myself???

Common sense and public outrage should be brought back into vogue along with tarring and feathering and these stupid jackass prosecuters should be run out of office. Mad-dog prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves will be the end to our society.

I feel like the British doctor at the hospital in Damascus in Lawrence of Arabia who goes around yelling "outrageous".


43 posted on 12/07/2006 9:21:45 AM PST by rednesss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: newzjunkey

This is silly. The point of consent laws it to protect minors from adults, not to prosecute minors for sex with each other. That issue is for parents to deal with. (This is why there are like-age exceptions).

All this shows is that Utah's laws are very poorly written.


44 posted on 12/07/2006 10:35:14 AM PST by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: newzjunkey

For most of recorded (and not recorded) history, humans have had sex whenever their bodies matured enough to function.

The modern version of Western cultural morality (no sex after puberty until the arbitrary age of 18)was only adopted about a century ago.

What we consider children today were often married in past centuries.

While we can easily legislate morality by establishing laws against adults (pick your age: 17,18,19,20,21,etc.) having sex with minors (pick your age: 21,19,18,17,16,etc)the problems inherent in legislating when minors can have consensual sex with minors are highlighted by this case.


45 posted on 12/07/2006 10:53:35 AM PST by wildbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson