[TommyDale]

Yep. Now that some prisoners are now being released because of the idiot ruling, such as the guy doing a 15 year sentence for having homosexual sex with a boy of 14, we are just tickled pink. (Pardon the pun.)

If it had been with a girl of 14, the law is quite clear. According to the Supremes, now it is okay for statutory rape agains someone of the same sex? The 6 justices who voted for this should be removed forcibly.

[Coronal]

If you're referring to the case I think you are, the perpetrator was 19. If his victim had been female, he would have had a much shorter sentence He deserves to be punished for his actions, but the double standard is wrong.

[jlogajan]

If it had been with a girl of 14, the law is quite clear.

I think that was the point. The punishment for hetero underage sex was much less.

[dark_lord]

Yep. Now that some prisoners are now being released because of the idiot ruling, such as the guy doing a 15 year sentence for having homosexual sex with a boy of 14, we are just tickled pink. (Pardon the pun.) If it had been with a girl of 14, the law is quite clear. According to the Supremes, now it is okay for statutory rape agains someone of the same sex? The 6 justices who voted for this should be removed forcibly.

Two comments on this. The first is -- I find it amusing that the punishment for a guy that apparently likes to give oral sex to men is to be sent to prison. Talk about brother rabbit being tossed into the briar patch! The second things is -- in that state, oral sex on a 14 year old girl by a 17 year old guy would have been a maximum sentence of 3 years. This guy had already served 3 years. That is why he was let out.

[muawiyah]

"...removed forcibly..."

from each other and little children perhaps, eh?!

Give an investigator 10 minutes on their computers and that SC will be changed forever.