Sounds all good catwoman - until (God forbid) its your son. Since your value system is relativistic and based on little more than personal opinion, I have no doubt that you'd be all for bringing the Tower of London out of retirement the minute some shit happened to you or yours (again, God forbid, knock on wood, etc.).

Don't be so dismissive of the harm done to a certain class of victims simply because you, decider of things, proclaim that their harm done unto them is less than the harm done unto another when the criminal acts are indistinguishable. Its awfully presumptive, grossly unfair and hopelessly arbitrary.

It is because judges incompetently deployed the discretion that was made available to them in sentencing criminals that sentencing guidelines were implemented (each crime has a certain sentence - mitigating circumstances may not influence the sentence handed down). My point is that it is nearly impossible to properly exercise that discretion (you are advocating) fairly as evidenced by the fact that the only people we could dream of entrusting it to blew it.

russotto, here's the thing of it.

I don’t want some 30 year old guy making the decision about when statutory rape is and isn’t a victimless crime. Have you ever listened to a child molester speak about their crimes? I have. It twists your mind around. They never think it was a bad thing. They always think that they were lovingly introducing the child into the world of sex, or that the child was instigating it by “flirting” with them [I just threw up in my mouth a little]. They also see the crime as victimless.

It’s just not effective to say to someone “Sometimes sex between a 30 year old and a 14 year old is victimless, and sometimes it isn’t. You go ahead and use your best judgment, and we’ll let a jury referee later.” There has to be an established age of consent, it has to be applied across the board, and it has to be enforced consistently or it isn’t effective.

I have a little bit of skin in this game. One of my good friends was an English teacher at a private school. He had an inappropriate relationship with one of his students – she was 16, he was 25. She was definitely the aggressor, the instigator, the one controlling the situation. But he went to jail for 9 months. He’s an honest guy, and a good guy, but what he did was wrong, and he was justly punished for it.

It doesn’t matter that she looked and acted like a grown women. She wasn’t – legally and morally. There are protected categories under the law, and those categories need to be clearly defined and consistently applied. “No” should always mean “No”. 17 is not 18. You should never have sex with a cloven-hoofed animal.

-sm

Should a teenager who got caught stealing a car for a 'joy ride' get the same jailtime as the career thief whose been caught five times before and has been selling the cars to a chop shop? Both are grand theft auto, but as serious as the first case is, the second case has to be dealt with even more seriously. Radar, you make it abundantly clear that to you, both crimes are identical and should be treated in a cookie cutter fashon. But instead of saying the first case has mitigating circumstances, isn't it the case that the second one has circumstances that might call for MORE punishment?

You prefer the 50+ year olds in the legislature doing it?

Yeah, the NAMBLA people do turn your stomach. But statutory rape isn't child molestation. Child molestation is sexual activity with a sexually immature (physically) child. Statutory rape is sex with a sexually mature adolescent below a certain age. Two entirely separate issues.

What he did was illegal, but not wrong in itself. And once you let the law control your beliefs about right and wrong, you've surrendered your moral judgement to people like Richard Nixon, Jesse Helms, any Kennedy, or Thomas Druse.

Unlike gender, age can be a mitigating circumstance. But for the sake of argument let's say it's a 19 year old teenanger who is an adult. Yes, they should get the same punishment (assuming the person whose car it was wants to press charges) as anyone else who steals a car. The career criminal will do more jail time because he'll get the same amount of time that the other guy got for each car he steals. Less ambiguity means more justice and equity under the law.

Judges have already shown that they can be outright dishonest and exceed thier authority as in the case of the Supreme Court which routinely makes unconstitutional rulings so I don't think they should be given much latitude at all in terms of sentencing.

They already have mandatory minimum sentencing for some crimes, but what if it weren't mandatory minimums, but just mandatory sentencing. For instance...

Steal a car = 1 year in jail with no early release.

The boy who steals a car will do 1 full year and everyone who knows about it will make sure they don't do it. The career criminal who is found to have stolen 10 cars will get 10 years; one for each car.

No, the difficulty here is that you fail to understand that you are completely, 100%, absolutely wrong. :rolleyes:

statutory rape is bloody difficult because there are so many mitigating circumstances, often the younger person is the dominant one and it is totally victimless but sometimes it isn't and getting that difference right is bloody hard. Australia has a fairly good system , after 16 you can screw anyone you want and before that there is a two year leeway system, for example a 15y.o can have sex with a 17y.o. I think that strikes the right balance between giving people freedom and protecting them from exploitation, by 16 you should be capable of making your own choices. I've got a few friends who had flings or relationships of one sort or another with people in their 20s while 16 or 17 and no harm came of it.

But jag, do you agree there ought to at least be a special case regarding teachers/coaches/other people in authority positions in the teenager's lives?

I'm the father of a two year old and a five year old. Both boys. If either of them were placed in this situation I would want the fullest extent of the law leveraged against the adult. I would not want race, religion, or gender to intervene and reduce the punishment. Even if the child was sexually mature enough to engage in this activity, he was not legally responsible to make this decision. Too many far-reaching factors from this single event could alter their future hopes and dreams.

I'll admit that I'm more disappointed when a person abuses their authority to take advantage of someone. However I feel the penalty for this type of predator should be the same. They prey on our children and should be removed from society.

The crux of this discussion is based on the myth that men are mere beasts with raging hormones while women search for “love” and follow their heart. It doesn't matter. Even if one excuse sounds more romantic, both results are the same.

(By the way, if this were really true, shouldn't men get a lesser sentence since they are biologically helpless and predisposed to commit such crimes. After all, women are consciously making the choice to follow their heart and “make love” with a minor. Men can't help but follow the dumbstick. Ridiculous!)

We are not slaves to our heart or sexual desires and should be held culpable for our actions equally.

By having a different scale for men and women, aren't we stating that women, once overcome with the passion of love, are the weaker of the sexes and should receive extra protection from society? To justify this argument you would then need to consider that females are emotionally irresponsible and mentally incompetent. Therefore, society has extended far too many rights to them. Absolutely ridiculous!

What happened to equality in the eyes of the law? If we are to consider the sexes to be equally responsible and accountable for their sexual behavior, then we must try them using the same legal rules.

Enough isn't done to protect the children. Sex offenders of children rarely spend much time in jail. Sadly, these types of criminals repeatedly offend and releasing a convicted child molester back into society shows complete indifference to the children of the community. Just check out your local city, county, or state sexual offense web page and you'll see just how many of these people, both men and women, move in and out of the system.

Not only do we need to make the penalties equal, but severe enough that at the very least the chance for a repeat offense is small.

I am just trying to push boundaries. Sorry if people can't cope with this level of discussion. Lets get back to safe ground quick.

And by the way - personally, I do think men and women should receive the same punishment, if it is the same crime. I merely question whether the same crime is possible, whether it is a man and a woman, or two different men. I also question methods of punishment, and the concept of punishment itself, but this is perhaps food for a different debate.

I have stated before that the perspective I present here is not necessarily my opinion. I was interested to see how far we could take this one. Maybe this is it. Such crimes are perhaps too emotional to discuss with much clarity.

For the record, I'm glad someone is.

Savage Love knows what he's talking about.

Well said Joe.

It IS the same crime. It's the same crime regardless of their gender. It is EXACTLY the same crime and gender doesn't change that. If a man with a gun shoots an unknown old lady just walking down the street without cause, is it a different crime when a woman shoots an unknown old lady just walking down the street without cause? NO!!! It's the same crime. If a woman has sex with a 14 year old it is EXACTLY THE SAME CRIME as when a man has sex with a 14 year old.

I'm not making an emotional argument. Emotion has nothing to do with it. This is a logical and rational argument based on indisputable facts.

No matter how you try to package it differently, or what kind of a pretty bow you put on the box, it's still got the same thing in it. No amount of dodging, or squirming, or rationalizing will change it. If you put a baseball on top of your car, it's still a baseball. If you put it in your shoe, it's still a baseball. If the person throwing it is an old woman, or a young man, it's still a baseball. If the baseball is shot out of a cannon it's still a baseball.

Without question, and without a doubt the crime is the same and the punishment should be also.

what if you put the baseball into orbit? then it's a sattelite
in your ass? a suppository
in your lover's ass? a buttplug
in your bra? a falsie

Same crime if the victim is touched by a hand, versus harshly sodomized?

Same crime if the predator/victim are both men? Both women?

I think sometimes the differences matter.