Another person who wants to throw their comments in the ring without reading the relevant case. Why am I not surprised?
All right! Fair enough! I should have stated my premises, before posting my comment. For the purposes of the comment they were as follows. Based upon the comments of others in the thread, I concluded--and assumed:
1. That the Judge in turning the offender loose, was doing so because the law would have punished an 18 year old, taking sexual liberties with a 14 year old, less seriously than it punished this individual, taking deviant liberties with another boy.
2. That his rationale for such act was the voiding of the Texas Sodomy law, a day or two earlier, because the Court held it to violate the rights of Homosexuals to privacy.
3. That the Court was, in effect, holding that actions driven by normal sex urges--the force for ongoing life--could somehow be equated with diverted or preverted urges, growing out of hormonal action, but focused on an object that would be inappropriate even were there no age question involved.
If the Judge acted for some other reason, not based upon those assumptions, then my comments were indeed inappropriate. And I apologize. If my assumptions were, on the other hand, substantially correct; than my comments were appropriate, and should be reiterated, accordingly.
Thank you for helping to clarify the discussion.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site