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

[Radar]

Notice how biased the laws are? He was also under age. How much time did she get? The man is always punished more than the woman under American law. The woman always has an advantage. In child custody battles, rape cases, and even murder.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Radar

Notice how biased the laws are? He was also under age. How much time did she get? The man is always punished more than the woman under American law. The woman always has an advantage. In child custody battles, rape cases, and even murder.

He was not under age. There is this little thing called "Age of Consent", each state is different. Sexual orientation is not a factor, meaning it is not different for males and females. 17 yrs is an age of consent, 15 yrs is not. Like it or not, it is the law.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

In Florida, there is no difference between a pedophile and a sex offender. Any "sex offense", from urinating in public to molesting a toddler, gets you listed in the state's database (your name, address, etc, but not the specific offense you committed) and forces you to abide by the same restrictions and lack of rights after your sentence is served.

It's the same in California. Your bladder can be ready to explode, but if you safely pull off the side of the highway and take a pee in the bushes, you're labeled a "sex offender" for life.

I personally believe kids under the age of 18 can't grasp all of the ramifications of having sex and therefore can't be trusted to make reasonable and rational decisions regarding it. They have no consent to offer because all consent belongs to their parents. I'd keep laws against having sex with those under 18, but allow the judges to have discretion to make the punishment fit the crime.

For instance, making both of them work at an STD clinic, abortion clinic, orphanage, etc. but not being called "sex offenders"

[Radar]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

He was no under age. There is this little thing called "Age of Consent", each state is different. Sexual orientation is not a factor, meaning it is not different for males and females. 17 yrs is an age of consent, 15 yrs is not. Like it or not, it is the law.

The age of consent is the age at which you can buy a beer. It's the age at which you are responsible enough to make ALL decisions for yourself and have the ability to support yourself. All states should be forced to allow alcohol and gun sales to those who are the same age as their consensual sex age. I think we'd see those ages rise a bit if we did.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Radar

The age of consent is the age at which you can buy a beer. It's the age at which you are responsible enough to make ALL decisions for yourself and have the ability to support yourself. All states should be forced to allow alcohol and gun sales to those who are the same age as their consensual sex age. I think we'd see those ages rise a bit if we did.

Wrong. That is not how the law is written and that is not the way society views it.


http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/consent.htm

[TheMercenary]

More:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboliti...f_consent_laws

http://blog.laborlawtalk.com/categor...t-laws/page/2/

[Radar]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Wrong. That is not how the law is written and that is not the way society views it.


http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/consent.htm

I don't argue about how the law is written, but it is how society and the law SHOULD view it because it makes sense. You are old enough to make your own decisions (including military, marriage, alcohol, sex, gambling, drugs, contracts, guns, etc) or you aren't.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Radar

I don't argue about how the law is written, but it is how society and the law SHOULD view it because it makes sense. You are old enough to make your own decisions (including military, marriage, alcohol, sex, gambling, drugs, contracts, guns, etc) or you aren't.

I would say that the fact remains that most teens have sex. Given that, I would say that it does not mean they also have the capacity to make good decisions because they can and do have sex. Laws need to be in place to protect young people from exploitation by older people. Lines have to be drawn somewhere. Because you are 15 does not mean you are capable of making adult decisions about military, marriage, alcohol, sex, gambling, drugs, contracts, guns, etc . Hell even some 18 olds are not mature enough to make good decisions. The law and society has drawn the lines. Live with it or go somewhere that it makes no difference.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Or change it.

[classicman]

Another hit from the SD random thread picker led me to this thread. Did a little looking and found a lot of updates.
gotta do the search yourself though

12/23/2007 12:01:00 AM
Two more young men freed in case that changed sex laws

ATLANTA - Two more young men have been freed after serving time in jail for a case involving a 17-year-old who had consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl.

Ryan D. Barnwell and Cortez Robinson, both 22, were released from prison Friday morning after spending 31⁄2 years behind bars. The two pleaded guilty to child molestation after attending a 2003 New Year's Eve party with Genarlow Wilson, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for having oral sex with the girl.

Wilson, now 21, was freed Oct. 26, 2007 after the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that that his sentence was 'cruel and unusual punishment.' Georgia law at the time of his trial required a minimum of a decade in prison.

The case prompted lawmakers to change state law to make such cases a misdemeanor when they involve teenagers close in age.

[glatt]

Good.

It looks like it was a small local newspaper that broke this story initially. I wonder what will happen when most of the local newspapers die in the next few years? The internet is great for some news sources, but will anyone be covering local news like this anymore? The story was initially a small one. "Georgia Supreme court refuses to hear appeal." That happens all the time. But this time a small paper picked up on it. These kids are free now and the law was changed because of newspapers.

Who will track this stuff in the future? Maybe some Georgia state law school student journal, but I doubt such a journal would have the circulation and influence that newspapers have enjoyed.

Call me a luddite, but I'm sorry to see newspapers dieing. Even my print edition of the Washington Post has become very skinny. It's maybe 60% of its former content.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I think there will be a slew of startup papers, really local, probably free, local ads, wanted/for sale ads, and a smattering of local news. Hopefully some journalistic talent will follow, but they won't want to insult advertisers.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I think there will be a slew of startup papers, really local, probably free, local ads, wanted/for sale ads, and a smattering of local news. Hopefully some journalistic talent will follow, but they won't want to insult advertisers.

This is the problem. With craigslist, there is no reason to pay for a wanted/for sale ad. It's the biggest single reason local papers are struggling.

[Clodfobble]

Yeah, Austin's free alternative newspaper is still going strong. But a large portion of their pages are ad content, humor, (left-wing) op/ed, and weekly live music listings. They still would have been all over exposing a story like this though.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

They still would have been all over exposing a story
like this though.

I'm sure they would have loved to expose this story, but do they have reporters actively monitoring all the cases going on in the state? That's how you find a story like this. It doesn't just land in your lap unless someone gives it to you.

There are always ways a story like this could come to light without traditional local papers, but I'm just sad to see that one source declining. It makes it less likely that a small local story like this sees the light of day.