They put a fucking 17 YEAR OLD in JAIL for this?!

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Uh, Flint, I don't think literality was what you wanted.

This case showed up on O'Reilly tonight. Three-way jabberfest between two female guests of varied professional credentials and O'Reilly -- beyond that I can't say it left much of an impression. O'Reilly as usual took the position that it's better to keep it zipped; he doesn't reckon volunteering for trouble by sailing in phallus first is ever a good thing, whether actual trouble ensues or no. In this case, it ensued.

[9th Engineer]

Everyone seems to be making references to a spirit of law, but for the life of me I can't see how that applies here. The age of consent agreed upon sets a boundery at which most people are old enough to make their own sexual desision, not everyone will fit this but there are personal exeptions to every law. The best solution would be to have every person individually evaluated, but that's impossible. The next best solution is to set a boundry applicable to the majority with minimal inconvinience to the minority.
Also, why is youth now considered an excuse for acting on ignorance and stupidity? You certainly don't have to be a legal expert to know that if you are over the age of majority then sex with ANYONE under it is strictly off limits, alcohol and drug intake to not change this. Am I really supposed to feel sympathetic for someone that stupid? Or someone that unwilling or unable to control themselves?
One of the original purposes of that law was to make a clear, nonemotional boundary for behavior. Parents involved in this sort of issue will of course be emotional, hence the law. We absolutely cannot start tweaking the law based on emotional impulses of particular moments. Emotion makes bad laws, lets keep to legality here, not hand wringing and weeping. Kid breaks the law, kid pays the penalty.

If ignorance of the law ever becomes a defence in any situation, we're all screwed.

[tw]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

One of the original purposes of that law was to make a clear, nonemotional boundary for behavior. Parents

Purpose of judges, juries and prosecutors is to also determine when the 'letter of the law' violates the 'purpose of the law'. You tell me. Clearly he committed a crime equivalent to first degree murder because some girl gave him a blow job. Clearly the law also intends a ten year sentence if she rubbed his balls even if he did not remove his pants. That is also what 9th Engineer claims.

Well we have justified a sentence of 1st degree murder because ‘purpose of laws’ is irrelevant. Using that reasoning, then those in possession of marijuana are also doing murder - because we cannot trust judges and juries to do anything but blindly enforce laws. This is how dictatorships get started. Clearly everyone is dumb and cannot be trusted; therefore we have laws?

Well if a girl has her shoes off and the car crosses a state line, then the males in that car must be arrested for rape. That also is the law - and must be blindly enforced. 9th Engineer tells us that those males must go to jail no matter what - because that is the law - no excuses.

[9th Engineer]

If the letter of the law is in opposition to the spirit or purpose of the law, then the politicians/lawyers who drafted and signed it are in gross negligence. If we have a law that says that the crime of getting a bj from your underage girlfriend mandates jail time, then the kid gets slammed with jail time and those who disagree go and drag the lawyers away from their shrimp cocktails and tell them to do their job. I'm sick of half-assed laws that get thrown out there with the assumption that other people will change them on the fly according to some ethereal 'spirit' that the law was written in, but does not reflect. You say that the real purpose of the law is protect minors? Then go headhunting for the people who fucked up their job.
If the letter of the law violates the spirit of the law, then the solution is to change the law, not to break it and say "well we don't want to enforce that law anyway".

[tw]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

If the letter of the law is in opposition to the spirit or purpose of the law, then the politicians/lawyers who drafted and signed it are in gross negligence.

That assumes extenuating circumstances do not and never exist. To not be grossly negligent, the future must be completely predictable. Clearly, 9th, your assumption is rather naive.

No wonder we don't require people with extensive experience as judges. Since every extenuating circumstance is predictable, then we can replace judges with law clerks. We can fire all those Supreme Court justices in Federal and all States. Wow. Look at how much money can be saved.

Clearly our ancestors were stupid. They did not understand all laws are complete - need no interpretation for extenuating circumstances and other variations. Clearly we have Congressmen so well endowed with brain power as to have thought all this out well in advance. And since people are so smart, then scientists need not do any experiments – they also have made all necessary predictions in advance. Well now we need not risk mankind in risky trips to the unknown - all is predicatable. We even know when the elevator will fail. Clearly we know when the murder will strike. I did not realize we have people so smart.

Meanwhile we don't have a law that specifically defines a blow job as sex. That was someone's interpretation. Law does not list every action that is sex. Clearly grabbing his balls also constitutes sex. I wonder why Congress forgot to make that clear? After all, Congress can predict all possible circumstances. Or were they (as usual) grossly negligent?

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Uh, Flint, I don't think literality was what you wanted.

This case showed up on O'Reilly tonight. Three-way jabberfest between two female guests of varied professional credentials and O'Reilly -- beyond that I can't say it left much of an impression. O'Reilly as usual took the position that it's better to keep it zipped; he doesn't reckon volunteering for trouble by sailing in phallus first is ever a good thing, whether actual trouble ensues or no. In this case, it ensued.

Well, if anyone would know it would be O'Reilly, the king of falafel.

Noone disagrees that teenagers do stupid things. I think serving a sentence normally reserved for actual forcible rape for a 2 year difference in ages is ridiculous.