posted
I don't know. If I'm a prosecutor and I believe there is evidence I have a rapist on my hands, and I can't convict him of the rape, then I might push harder to convict him of whatever lesser charge I can. I wouldn't do anything unethical or illegal, but we have no reason to think the prosecutor did anything like that. The kid was charged under a law that was on the books at the time, and the punishment was appropriate for the crime as the law was written.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I don't think it can be universally agreed on that X, Y and Z are harmful behavior. That's like three other conversations right there.
Standards, rules and guidelines (SRaG) are great, and should be taught to kids, but they shouldn't be held to with iron bands. Some things are acceptable and appropriate at certain times, and not at others. Also, these SRaG are ultimately up to the individual to make and adapt to in life, and any deviance from the authorities SRaG should not be seen as necessarily wrong, but should be evaluated and discussed and agreed upon. I think we are treating this situation like it's a deal, and the guy should have to aknowledge what happened and deal with it, but that yes, it should be expected and we as a society and as individual people and families should have a framework for handling the situation that will result in the best circumstances for all involved.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's scary to think how much influence over your life the prosecutor might have in such a situation, depending on whether he decided to go for the maximum or not. I don't like the idea of any human having that much power over me. I know that that power is not unchecked, but still, it's scary.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not bothered by what this particular prosecutor did (as far as I can tell everyone-defense, prosecution, judge, and jury- did what they were supposed to do), just the idea that a prosecutor would "push harder" to get someone convicted of one crime because the court found them innocent of another that the prosecutor FELT he was guilty of.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I don't know. If I'm a prosecutor and I believe there is evidence I have a rapist on my hands, and I can't convict him of the rape, then I might push harder to convict him of whatever lesser charge I can. I wouldn't do anything unethical or illegal, but we have no reason to think the prosecutor did anything like that. The kid was charged under a law that was on the books at the time, and the punishment was appropriate for the crime as the law was written.
I'm sure Mike Nifong would agree with you
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, before i throw in my two cents, I have to admit that when i was in high school, I used to smoke pot, drink alcohol, and have sex with girls who were around my age (yes some of them were under 16, but so was I).
In Indiana, they have found a wonderful way to solve the problem that this. The 3 year rule. If 2 minors ages are within 3 years of each other, then it is not absolutely an criminal act. If 18 year old decided to go sleep with a girl who is 15, but she'll 16 before he is 19, then they are in the clear. However, if the older individual is 3 years and 1 day older then the younger one, that is child molestation / statutory rape. And in IN all forms of sex are considered to be equally as criminal... it doesn't matter if it's oral, anal or vaginal....
Now, I personally don't see any reason why an individual who is 17 and a junior in high school can't have sex with a sophomore who is 15. I mean on moral grounds yes i see the problem, but i firmly believe that laws shouldn't be written based on morals. Laws are meant to keep society running and two kids getting it on in the back of their run down car in no way threatens to tumble our society.
Posts: 20 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Madb: Oh never mind then, still I think this whole sordid affair is profoundly wrong and quite twisted.
I mean who doesn't smoke up, get drunk & try to get laid in highschool?
- MaSTERdb
While I might not have complained about getting laid, getting drunk and stoned was definitely not an interest for me.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Mike Nifong did push it too far and did things that were unethical. Something I specifically said I would not do and that I think is wrong. We have no evidence that this prosecutor did anything of the sort.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: I'm not bothered by what this particular prosecutor did (as far as I can tell everyone-defense, prosecution, judge, and jury- did what they were supposed to do), just the idea that a prosecutor would "push harder" to get someone convicted of one crime because the court found them innocent of another that the prosecutor FELT he was guilty of.
Wouldn't that fall safely within the bounds of prosecutorial discression?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Laws are meant to keep society running and two kids getting it on in the back of their run down car in no way threatens to tumble our society.
But in this situation, that is not what was happening. This was not a date between a couple of teenagers. It was a party with alcohol (illegal, as the drinkers were underage), marijuana (illegal, no matter what your age), and group sex with girls that were underage and *may have been drunk or stoned* and thus unable to consent.
* of course, that hasn't been proven by the information we have, yet based on what we do know, I must submit I think it likely
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: I'm not bothered by what this particular prosecutor did (as far as I can tell everyone-defense, prosecution, judge, and jury- did what they were supposed to do), just the idea that a prosecutor would "push harder" to get someone convicted of one crime because the court found them innocent of another that the prosecutor FELT he was guilty of.
Wouldn't that fall safely within the bounds of prosecutorial discression?
I'm not sure I understand your question.
To clarify, though, I'm only arguing my point on moral grounds here. I'm not suggesting legal impliciations - if that were even possible.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But then, I'm not terribly satisfied with the inability to give consent being the justification for criminalizing sex with those who are too young."
Hard to pick another. Physical age? Women are capable of reproducing at the onset of menses. Emotional? There are 14-year-old girls ready for the responsibility and 40-year-olds who still aren't. An arbitrary age that protects the bulk of them seems best, if awkward.
18 works as a number because it's also when you can vote, sign binding contracts, and other aspects of responsible society. But I definitely favor the 2 year rule and the removal of mandatory sentencing, and I think sex offender registrations need to be restricted to those who might actually pose predatory harm to others.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Mike Nifong did push it too far and did things that were unethical. Something I specifically said I would not do and that I think is wrong. We have no evidence that this prosecutor did anything of the sort.
No we don't, and I don't mean to suggest that he did. However, I'm sure that Nifong used the same logic that you did to justify his actions, which is a little bit scary. Nifong just happened to be unlucky enough that none of the lower charges stuck either.
As mph pointed out, prosecutors have an incredible amount of discretion. I'm uncomfortable with one person deciding that someone is a 'bad person' and then finding things to convict them of. This seems especially wrong when the defendent is not guilty of the thing that the prosecutor made the initial judgement about, so alternative things are found to convict them of. I understand that it is perfectly legal, but it just seems wrong.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Alcohol and the Drugs I have no arguement with. As far as the group sex goes, what happens behind closed doors is none of our business. I mean when one of the women comes foward and accuses, that is one thing. But when a 17 year old boy is being punnished because one of the girls was "too young" and not for the actual act... That is wrong in my opinion. The state of Indiana has the right idea with the 3 year rule...
Posts: 20 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:As far as the group sex goes, what happens behind closed doors is none of our business.
Yet, as a society we've determined it becomes our business when one of the involved people is unable to consent. Either because they are being forced, or are mentally incompetent due to disability or drug or alcohol use, or are too young.
That's what happened here. I don't think anyone here advocates throwing out all the laws that protect children from sexual predators. We do agree, most of us, that this particular situation did not call for 10 years in prison. So, the question becomes, how to write the laws so they punish the ones that need to be punished, and are lenient in cases where they should be lenient.
My only position through the whole thing, is that the kid probably doesn't deserve to be in jail for 10 years, but he does deserve some punishment for his actions. I dont' advocate leaving him in jail for a decade, but neither do I think he should have been given a pat on the back and told to go enjoy his college scholarship.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Madb: Ah come on Belle & Stephen, you guys never smoked some ganja & just hungout with your girlfriend in bed for 4hours. Or went out on friday night and got shitfaced with you friends?
It's harmless.
- MaSTERdb
Nope, nope, and nope.
I was an eyewitness to a drunk driving accident that quite nearly resulted in the deaths of three small children I knew. Not to mention a family friend who was paralysed from the waist down by a drunk driver. Yet another friend went drinking one Friday night and had to get her stomach pumped. Just this year, a pub night was organised on my campus. A 15 year old girl snuck in somehow and ended up in the hospital. I believe the people who were supposed to be checking IDs got kicked out of residence. Now combine all of the above with the fact that ethyl alcohol was all I ever tasted in a drink (until recently, when my taste buds changed) and it tastes really nasty.
Ethyl alcohol is a poison. It's just slower acting than the other alcohols. I don't mind a drink now and again, never have, but I have never understood the attraction of overloading my system with toxins and doing stupid things I'll probably regret in the morning. Where's the fun in that?
Marijuana a) stinks to high heaven and b) impairs your judgement and c) makes me physically ill to catch even a whiff of it. It's also expensive. Frankly, I had far better things to do with my time.
As for sex, I never wanted to. Again, I saw consequences I didn't like, and I had better things to do.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:My only position through the whole thing, is that the kid probably doesn't deserve to be in jail for 10 years, but he does deserve some punishment for his actions.
So do you think that the girls involved should be punished as well?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think "punishment" is the wrong way to approach a situation like this. No harm was done to any person or property. This is solely a matter of what society has deemed unacceptable. Behavioral/psychological correction via counseling and further education should be the goal here. I think fines and jail sentences of any amount are completely unjustified.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indiana has what I think are some fairly sensible laws in that regard, but it does not have a three year rule. That is an urban legend.
The basics of Indiana's laws are: If you are 14 or 15 years old, it can be consensual to have sex with someone 14 to 17 years old (this is a three year interval, but it is not a moving three year interval). If you are 16 or 17 years old, it can be consensual to have sex with someone 14 years old or older. If you are 18 years old or older, it can be consensual to have sex with someone 16 years or older.
There are modifications and exceptions given things like authority relationships.
The main difference with the rumored three year rule is that it is not consensual under indiana law for a 15 year old to have sex with an 18 year old, despite the difference being only three years.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also wonder if the punishment would have been different if the boy had been 15 and the girl had been 17 instead.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
The kid screwed up. Our actions have consequences. I don't think 10 years is justified in this case, but neither should he get that pat on the back Belle mentioned.
I can see some reasoning for the added severity of oral sex from a minor. Oral sex, especially female-to-male, carries overtones of power and dominance (in stable adult relationships this may or may not be the case, and those overtones might be part of the enjoyment). But there's studies that have been done (at least here in Canada) that younger teenage girls view oral sex more casually, can be more easily coerced into it, and don't realise the potential consequences (such as STIs). I can understand (though I'm honestly not sure if I agree) how these concerns could result in the law they did.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The rules are set up to protect what society has deemed the more vulnerable of the participants. The fact that this is not always the case is why I don't like mandatory sentencing.
<-- Didn't drink or smoke in high school, or after, or now
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: So, the question becomes, how to write the laws so they punish the ones that need to be punished, and are lenient in cases where they should be lenient.
Well, for starters getting rid of mandatory minimums would help. As Steven said in the post about his 'soft-on-crime' suggestion, it would be political suicide to go that direction now.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Madb: Oh never mind then, still I think this whole sordid affair is profoundly wrong and quite twisted.
I mean who doesn't smoke up, get drunk & try to get laid in highschool?
- MaSTERdb
It's extremely misguided to assume that your experiences are the norm, the mean, the typical. Most people think that the way they grew up is the way everyone grew up, and it just ain't so.
To answer your question: more people than you could possibly imagine.
p.s. When I used the past tense of 'grow', above, I was speaking generally. If I were only directing that post to you I would've used the present tense.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
"and if you do the crime then by implication you are saying that you are willing to do the time."
Dude no one ever wants to or is will to do the time, d'you even know what you are saying.
Steve/BlueWizard:
You seem to have missed the part where I said 'BY IMPLICATION'. When you choose to rob a bank by implication you are saying that you accept the potential outcomes of that event. You might get money, or you might get jail, but you made a choice knowing the possibilities. I think you also missed that part where I said this person committed crimes but likely thought 'he wouldn't or couldn't get caught'.
This was in intelligent person, he simply can't say he didn't know there would be consequences to getting caught breaking all these laws, and there were many. He certainly knew there could be consequences, he just didn't think he would get caught, which is a clear indication of his definite lack of maturity.
Kids do stupid things all the time with no forethought to getting caught. That's the reason youth are protected by law, they are extremely short sighted. The girl who chose to engage in this act, never thought beyond the moment and what it bought her. I suspect now with the public humiliation and her friends going to prison, she wishes she had looked a little farther into the potential future.
posted
Those of you who are in favor of a 2 or 3-year law, would you mind explaining why? What is the rationale behind protecting children from sex with older people, but not from sex with children their own age?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
m_p_h: there are several reasons, some practical and some more general.
Practicality-wise, teenagers are commonly having sex with each other, and have commonly been having sex with each other for many centuries. Dealing with this in law rather than by families seems unproductive, bound to result in extremely varied enforcement, and possibly harmful (I'm not saying teenagers should be having sex, I'm saying using the law to enforce that might be harmful).
If the children are about the same age, either both must be punished or one must be picked who is the one 'guilty'. There isn't an obvious solution, and there are obvious problems with the former and ways to manipulate the latter.
There isn't an implicit power relationship between teenagers about the same age, like there is with someone significantly older having sex with a teenager. If the goal of the law is to prevent exploitation due to implicit power relationships, then it makes sense to have a window based on nearness (that is invalidated in the case of specific power relationships).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is the rationale behind protecting children from sex with older people, but not from sex with children their own age?
Sex between children their own age is a matter of hormones. Sex between childen and older people carries with it these odd power-dynamics. I'm not too far away from 17 to believe kids can have consensual sex. It's not scientific, but that's my rationale.
I read the article, and the situation sounds gross and tacky, but we are talking about a kid's life here. I'd need to hear the testimony, but I think the court was being overly casual with this 17(now 21) year-old's life. This seems to be a problem with mandatory minimum sentencing.
I have a question? Does this mean that babies of underaged couples should be considered material evidence of rape? Why not?
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Those of you who are in favor of a 2 or 3-year law, would you mind explaining why? What is the rationale behind protecting children from sex with older people, but not from sex with children their own age?
Because the idea isn't to protect kids from sex.
The idea, as far as I understand it, is that when there's a significant age difference it results in a rather large asymmetry of power, for a variety of reasons. The idea is to prevent people from grossly abusing that asymmetry.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Fugu, I guess the three year rule is more of a... I guess guideline? At any rate, sorry for my not actually looking it up, and thanks for correcting me.
By the way Fugu, it's good to see your still around here, I hadn't seen any sign of you since i suddenly found the time to come back to the forum.
Posts: 20 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because the idea isn't to protect kids from sex.
Because I think that protecting kids from the consequences of having sex to early is something worthy of implementing by law, I don't have problems with it being illegal for two young-uns to have sex with each other.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I think stupid people should be protected from spawning devil children that will ruin their lives (not to mention what the little ankle biters will do to society)... and I don't have a problem with it being illegal for them to breed... [/end sarcasm]
Posts: 20 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like you mph, but I'm very glad you aren't making the laws. Making sex illegal would simply add another consequence. My understanding of the reason for the law is, as Juxtapose, fugu, and Iremi have said, to protect young people from being exploited by older people who can coerce them.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Also not that I didn't advocate making it illegal -- I just said that I don't have a problem with it being illegal.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
OK, maybe not... I too kinda like mph... but seriously, if you got your way, then two 17 year olds could go to prison for having sex after their senior prom... Honestly, who here wasn't at least kinda hoping to get some action at their senior prom?
posted
<deleted bacause I decided not to feed the troll - but I don't like disappearing posts so I left this note...>
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:OK, maybe not... I too kinda like mph... but seriously, if you got your way, then two 17 year olds could go to prison for having sex after their senior prom
Wrong, wrong, WRONG. That is a gross misrepresentation of what I said, on multiple levels.
I just got finished reiterating again that I am not advocating making it illegal for two kids to have sex. Therefore, it is not fair for you to say that if I had my way it would be illegal.
I have also said MULTIPLE times in this thread that I'm not saying anything about the appropriateness of any punishment. Therefore, it is wrong for you to say that if I had my way, the punishment for said action would be prison time.
I have also never said that I think that 17 is an age for which it would be reasonable to outlaw sex. Therefore, you are pulling it out of your ear when you say that if I had my way, it would be illegal for two 17-year-olds to have sex.
I don't mind you disagreeing with me, but don't make up crap and put it in my mouth.
quote:Honestly, who here wasn't at least kinda hoping to get some action at their senior prom?
quote:Making sex illegal would simply add another consequence.
There certainly is that. A case certainly could be made that the deterrent value of such a law, while not being zero (which you imply), would, by nature of teenage brains and hormones being as they are, would not rise to a level as to counteract the negative affects of adding another bad consequence to those already suffering others.
And, in case anybody has missed it previously, I never said that it should be illegal.
Also, I never said it should be illegal.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Stryker: Honestly, who here wasn't at least kinda hoping to get some action at their senior prom?
Already answered this one, but it seems some folks are having trouble with generalising from thier experiences to others. Just because some people have a hope, wish, or experience, does not mean everyone does. I wish people would stop speaking as if anyone who had a contrary experience is some sort of freak.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I totally disagree with making sex illegal between consenting minors.
Absolutely 100% against it. I'd possibly consider voting against a candidate who supported this position.
It's a violation of their rights, which contrary to much of the law, under 18 year olds DO have. Maybe we should criminalize teenage obesity too. It's dangerous, harmful, damaging to their mental well being and could result in much more negative consequences than sex. So long as we're trying to outlaw HUMAN NATURE, we might as well add eating to the list.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lying, stealing, and killing are all human nature as well, and most of us would agree that outlawing them in some fashion is a good idea.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anybody know which is more likely to result in teen pregnancy or the transmission of STDs: a young teen having sex with another young teen, or a young teen having sex with someone who is older, and likely (on average) to be more mature?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Lying, stealing, and killing are all human nature as well, and most of us would agree that outlawing them in some fashion is a good idea.
Lying, Stealing and killing are not necessary for human survival.
Eating and reproducing are.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Does anybody know which is more likely to result in teen pregnancy or the transmission of STDs: a young teen having sex with another young teen, or a young teen having sex with someone who is older, and likely (on average) to be more mature?
I think we should also make it the law that you HAVE to wear a condom. It's like a seatbelt. It's for your own safety. Or better yet, NO SEX AT ALL FOR ANYONE. You must procreate via artificial insemination. Sex is too dangerous.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
That is a gross misrepresentation of what I said, on multiple levels.
