Full Version: Teen given ten-year prison sentance...
I just find it funny that the one that always that gets accused of these types of crimes is always the male no matter the age or gender. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but when was the last time you saw a male's parents complain about this type of accusation in the news? Its always about the quick $
Politicians and there crappy laws
QUOTE (Drego @ Jan 26 2008, 05:57 AM) 
Wow... just out of curiosity, OldTime, what page was this thread on?
First page, fourth post.
each state as different law of age of consent.
Here in Illinois its 17 some prosecutors will take advantage of this by saying a 17 year old boy can not have consenting sex with a 15 year old because he is legal she is not.
They ignore the fact they are both children.
I don't believe the 3 year gap argument is valid its just ignorant and a blatant loop hole.
He is 17 and a stupid kid he is at the stage that sex is some thing he craves. if a girl gives him any kind of ok to have it with her, drunk or not he will take the opportunity. All of these kids involved should have bin prosecuted in some way. a 10 year sentience and a mark like pedophile is not some thing that boy should have.
Here in Illinois its 17 some prosecutors will take advantage of this by saying a 17 year old boy can not have consenting sex with a 15 year old because he is legal she is not.
They ignore the fact they are both children.
I don't believe the 3 year gap argument is valid its just ignorant and a blatant loop hole.
He is 17 and a stupid kid he is at the stage that sex is some thing he craves. if a girl gives him any kind of ok to have it with her, drunk or not he will take the opportunity. All of these kids involved should have bin prosecuted in some way. a 10 year sentience and a mark like pedophile is not some thing that boy should have.
edited out response due to necromancy.
http://www.wilsonappeal.com/
"Genarlow Wislon Free: Heartfelt Thank You to Everyone!"
THANK GOD. This is so goddamned stupid. If these freaking hicks had good enough sex ed there would be no reason for prosecuting for consensual acts.
Seventeen-year-old and ten-year-old, there's a problem; proper consent cannot be given. Seventeen and fifteen? Give me a freaking break.
I have to give the lawmakers a bit of a break when it comes to that, admittedly, because there's no set age for readiness. It all depends on the individual. But unless a person involved is pre-pubescent, I don't see how there could be charges involved. Therapy, maybe, on BOTH parts, but not jailtime.
"Genarlow Wislon Free: Heartfelt Thank You to Everyone!"
THANK GOD. This is so goddamned stupid. If these freaking hicks had good enough sex ed there would be no reason for prosecuting for consensual acts.
Seventeen-year-old and ten-year-old, there's a problem; proper consent cannot be given. Seventeen and fifteen? Give me a freaking break.
I have to give the lawmakers a bit of a break when it comes to that, admittedly, because there's no set age for readiness. It all depends on the individual. But unless a person involved is pre-pubescent, I don't see how there could be charges involved. Therapy, maybe, on BOTH parts, but not jailtime.
QUOTE (bigdog112 @ Jan 31 2008, 02:27 AM)
They ignore the fact they are both children.
Not in Illinois. That's the purpose of the law there, to establish that 17 is ADULT.
QUOTE (Drego @ Jul 4 2007, 07:05 AM)
In my mind, that is WAY too controlling. In a way, that is the government dictating when people are allowed to do certain things based on something that is no proper indicator of (emotional) maturity. I define consent as one individual's willingness to participate and their acceptance of all possible repercussions (sp?). So, no... speaking from a strictly legal standpoint, it is not a good argument. But I feel that the only way to have a good legal system is to have one where courts look beyond the defined law and therefore, put some kind of effort into their decision. That is the only way they can come to a moral conclusion. Following that logic (and assuming the age of consent is 16, and she is a willing partner), a sixteen year old can have sex with a fifteen year old the day before her "sweet sixteen" and serve a prison sentence of 25-life for statutory rape. Doesn't that seem a bit ridiculous? I know that these laws were placed with good intent, but they go more harm than good when looked at with that "logic".
QFT. Agree.
QUOTE (WraithGod @ Feb 4 2008, 05:42 PM)
http://www.wilsonappeal.com/
"Genarlow Wislon Free: Heartfelt Thank You to Everyone!"
THANK GOD. This is so goddamned stupid. If these freaking hicks had good enough sex ed there would be no reason for prosecuting for consensual acts.
Seventeen-year-old and ten-year-old, there's a problem; proper consent cannot be given. Seventeen and fifteen? Give me a freaking break.
I have to give the lawmakers a bit of a break when it comes to that, admittedly, because there's no set age for readiness. It all depends on the individual. But unless a person involved is pre-pubescent, I don't see how there could be charges involved. Therapy, maybe, on BOTH parts, but not jailtime.
"Genarlow Wislon Free: Heartfelt Thank You to Everyone!"
THANK GOD. This is so goddamned stupid. If these freaking hicks had good enough sex ed there would be no reason for prosecuting for consensual acts.
Seventeen-year-old and ten-year-old, there's a problem; proper consent cannot be given. Seventeen and fifteen? Give me a freaking break.
I have to give the lawmakers a bit of a break when it comes to that, admittedly, because there's no set age for readiness. It all depends on the individual. But unless a person involved is pre-pubescent, I don't see how there could be charges involved. Therapy, maybe, on BOTH parts, but not jailtime.
Exactly
Stackofbooks, what's "QFT"?
QUOTE (IamsSon @ Jul 5 2007, 03:48 AM)
Legally, anyone below the age of 18 is not an adult and is, therefore, unable to give consent to certain things, among them engaging in sexual relations. So, the argument that it was consensual is not a good legal argument.
But children (and I use the term loosely) are maturing so fast these days,who can say is mature and who isnt?
That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of! I though there was like a two year limit, like, if you're 18, it's ok to be with someone 16. . .or is that only in certain places? I was 17 when I hooked up with my now husband who is 11 years older than me. . .he would have been totally screwed if my parents had decided to file charges. . .of course, it was an odd situation between my parents and my husband was actually granted legal "custody" of me until I turned 18. . . but, honestly, most kids have sex before they're 18, so, like someone said earlier, if this was actively enforced, the jails would be overflowing. . . while people that are actually out there doing things that are REALLY bad are getting off with next to nothing. My ex-room mates boyfriend was discovered to be involved in a lot of child pornography things, and they didn't even hold him for a night! And I'm talking about stuff involving little girls that are like 6 and 7, not teenagers. . . I will never understand some of the decisions the courts make. . .
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.