|
LadyPact -> RE: Unjust and ineffective sex laws in USA (8/12/2009 12:04:33 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyPact
At the age she was at the crime, she had less than a year until her eighteenth birthday.
And when she committed the crime that was supposedly worthy of forever being branded a sex offender, the boy in question was just weeks away from being an age that would not have qualified her as such under back-asswards laws.
Yes. Those weeks still put him in the category of age that the law was designed for.
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyPact
Even the article says this lady was "not the most organized" individual, and missed her appointments. Anyone on probation has at least some idea that those appointments are kind of important if you'd like to stay out of jail.
Like when they are young teenagers committing a normal pubescent act that becomes their first offense? You're essentially saying she merits a ludicrous punishment because of inattentiveness and naivete that is par for the course at that age.
I'm not buying the naive part for a bit. Are you trying to claim here that, at 17, this girl didn't have any idea that giving a fellow student a blow job in public would warrant a punishment of some kind? Please introduce Me to the first 17 year old in a public school who is of sound mind who isn't aware that they shouldn't be engaging in sexual acts during class.
The punishment wouldn't even have applied had she bothered herself to follow her probation. Not only did she have no respect for the law, she had no respect for the consequences when she broke it.
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyPact
Reading the whole piece, as slanted as the publication was attempting to make this law, it goes on to read of a story where this law was completely effective, such as the case of "Mike" who was 22 and having sex with a gal who was too young to drive a car. Another example was a 27 year old who was also having sex with a girl who was barely old enough to have a learner's permit. In those cases, the law obviously works.
It works, again, when it's protecting kids, not branding them as criminals. This isn't about teaching kids the consequences of their actions. This isn't about making an example of her to kids warning of the mistakes of violating antiquated laws based on puritanical morality (which is the only reason what she did even qualified as "sodomy" at the time).
If these laws cannot do the job they're supposed to and/or if we are not competent enough to effect them in ways where they do what was intended without harming innocent children, then we're fools for even having them in the first place.
It seems to Me that, in the majority of the article, in fact, the law is working. I'll bet she never gives a 15 year old a blow job again. I'll bet if she ever commits any other crime, she'll sure make those probation appointments.
|
|
|
|
