RE: Legally Confused ;-)

RE: Legally Confused ;-) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

caitlyn -> RE: Legally Confused ;-) (10/2/2006 1:09:02 PM)
But it's not the same thing really, because there is no flip side ... you know, solicitation of a cop, who really turns out to be a hooker. My confusion lies not only in no actual crime being committed, but if you are going to judge by intent, why doesn't intent apply when you 'intend' to be with an adult, that turns out to be a minor? It seems to me that they should put these guys on some pervy dude watch list, or something like that, but stop short of legal action, based on thought police.

Chaingang -> RE: Legally Confused ;-) (10/2/2006 1:12:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kedicat A cop with no intention of carrying out a sexual act, gets an offer and the one who offers is charged. It's the solicitation, not the act itself. The question is not one of "would" it is one of "could." An adult pretending to be underage could not provide anyone with sex with a minor. I admit it's a fine point, but a palpable one nonetheless. Shorthand: Drug sting - the drugs are present as a fact of the case. Prostitution sting - a person is available to take sex for money. The facts to support the elements of the crime are actually present.

gooddogbenji -> RE: Legally Confused ;-) (10/2/2006 1:14:52 PM)
Ah yes, the dreaded "Pervy dude watch list." I think half the people on here would be happy to be on that list, and the other half are women, and would want it renamed first. I think the name might have to be a bit more intimidating, like the PDW List. Yours, benji

seeksfemslave -> RE: Legally Confused ;-) (10/2/2006 1:17:29 PM)
I have watched other entrapment shows, usually about prostitution or drug dealing and I dont agree with it in those two cases.ie entrapment being legal. Not saying what the law is , I just dont agree with it. Have not seen this Dateline show and there is so much unexplained in the OP, who actually initiates what ? There was a famous murder case in the UK where the police tried to "entrap" someone they "knew" was guilty. Charges were thrown out and subsequently someone else was charged. All in a days work I suppose. Just being pedantic but the first Puritans to leave for the US actually started/prepared their journey from/in Holland.

caitlyn -> RE: Legally Confused ;-) (10/2/2006 1:26:24 PM)
As usual, I have a socially unacceptable opinion about all these issues. [;)] Being twenty, I remember pretty clearly the kinds of things I used to think about and do when I was sixteen. It always struck me as funny that when I was sixteen, sex with someone my own age was ok, but not with someone older. The worst sexual predators out there are sixteen year old guys. [;)]

gooddogbenji -> RE: Legally Confused ;-) (10/2/2006 1:32:27 PM)
That's cuz you've never met me in real life, Caitlyn. Yours, benji

Chaingang -> RE: Legally Confused ;-) (10/2/2006 1:44:17 PM)
Ah, I see - the "Dateline" tv show...as seen here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15066391/ The men are charged with "Attempted" whatever... I still object because it's basically a hypothetical thought crime with which they are being charged. Plus, I am always annoyed that real crimes go begging for attention when the police focus undue attention on a problem more easily solved by good parenting. As Caitlyn's admission points up - who is the damaged person in these situations? Some jurisdictions put the age of consent at 16, others set it at 18 (As a Latino, I become a little more alarmed when the person is under 15 years of age). Sometimes these statutory rape cases are maintained over the objections of the minor in question - in other words, they do actually consent but it is not legally recognized. Basically, I think the police have better things to do with taxpayer monies.

toservez -> RE: Legally Confused ;-) (10/2/2006 1:55:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang Ah, I see - the "Dateline" tv show...as seen here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15066391/ The men are charged with "Attempted" whatever... I still object because it's basically a hypothetical thought crime with which they are being charged. Plus, I am always annoyed that real crimes go begging for attention when the police focus undue attention on a problem more easily solved by good parenting. As Caitlyn's admission points up - who is the damaged person in these situations? Some jurisdictions put the age of consent at 16, others set it at 18 (As a Latino, I become a little more alarmed when the person is under 15 years of age). Sometimes these statutory rape cases are maintained over the objections of the minor in question - in other words, they do actually consent but it is not legally recognized. Basically, I think the police have better things to do with taxpayer monies. Even though I do dissagree with you and Caitlyn on this issue, I do not pretend that it is not crystal clear and the whole thing is a slippery sloap. I know I am a big hypocrite on this as when I was 16 and 17 I had a few adult partners and it would have killed me to see them get into trouble but at the same time I want to know that there are people out there trying to protect troubled kids from adults who actively are out there searching for minors to have sex with and the younger the better. Sex is never black or white and what age and maturity level at that period is very hit an miss.

Chaingang -> RE: Legally Confused ;-) (10/2/2006 2:06:30 PM)
I dunno, toservez, with real criminals in the white house I am going to have to de-prioritize this issue on my action list. [;)]

swtnsparkling -> RE: Legally Confused ;-) (10/2/2006 3:01:15 PM)
quote: They didn't try to set up a meeting with a minor, they tried to set up a meeting with a legal person that was lying. Wrong They dont know the person is lying they beleive they are speaking with a 13 14 yr old so they are infact setting up a meeting with a Minor. They arrive at and go into the home with condoms and booze. They want to hook up with a minor they deserve to get caught. Dr's, Policemen, Military, Rabbi, Teachers, even a Homeland security guy.

meatcleaver -> RE: Legally Confused ;-) (10/2/2006 3:19:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: swtnsparkling Wrong They dont know the person is lying they beleive they are speaking with a 13 14 yr old so they are infact setting up a meeting with a Minor. They arrive at and go into the home with condoms and booze. They want to hook up with a minor they deserve to get caught. Dr's, Policemen, Military, Rabbi, Teachers, even a Homeland security guy. I can see why Bush is not having such a tough time taking rights away from Americans.

swtnsparkling -> RE: Legally Confused ;-) (10/2/2006 3:29:20 PM)
An adult show ups at a home with the intent of having sex with some one they beleive to be 13 yrs old and that's ok with you?

meatcleaver -> RE: Legally Confused ;-) (10/2/2006 3:32:26 PM)
Enticement and entrapment are all a little KGB. Now it is something you approve of, tomorrow it might not be but your rights have already gone. Doh!

swtnsparkling -> RE: Legally Confused ;-) (10/2/2006 3:45:39 PM)
LOL Wow

DomKen -> RE: Legally Confused ;-) (10/2/2006 11:57:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn I'm sure everyone has considered some of the mysteries of the law as it relates to age ... you can be drafted at 18, but can't drink until you are 21 ... you can be tried as an adult even if you are minor, but there is no provision to extend rights as an adult in such cases. Just so you know there is a way for a minor to get the legal rights of an adult. It's called emancipation. The minor goes to court and convinces a judge to emancipate him from his parents/guardians, usually because they are awful, and the minor can now enter into contracts such as leases and is legally an adult except for things like voting, driving and drinking which are not expressly linked to being a legal adult.

WhipTheHip -> RE: Legally Confused ;-) (10/3/2006 1:12:44 PM)
First of all, someone with attraction to a young adult who has gone through puberty is not a pedophile. Pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent minors. There is an element of entrapment in these Dateline cases. In the past we hunted witches, gays, the mentally ill and commies. The enemy de jure today are those over 18 attracted to those under the age of 18. Sex is considered the very worst thing that can happen to a young adult. Two teenagers who had sex with each other were each charged with statutory rape, and the guy is being tried as an adult even though the female was the more aggressive initiating party. The notion that no teenager is mature enough to have sex is a very recent one as far as human civilization goes.

WhipTheHip -> RE: Legally Confused ;-) (10/3/2006 1:19:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn I'm sure everyone has considered some of the mysteries of the law as it relates to age ... you can be drafted at 18, but can't drink until you are 21 ... you can be tried as an adult even if you are minor, but there is no provision to extend rights as an adult in such cases. Just so you know there is a way for a minor to get the legal rights of an adult. It's called emancipation. The minor goes to court and convinces a judge to emancipate him from his parents/guardians, usually because they are awful, and the minor can now enter into contracts such as leases and is legally an adult except for things like voting, driving and drinking which are not expressly linked to being a legal adult. Emancipation does not cover statutory rape. Having consensual sex with an emancipated 15 year old will get you 30 years. In many place, you'd be better-off if you committed first-degree murder. Some high school girls basketball coach got life for having consensual sex with a sixteen year old.

NorthernGent -> RE: Legally Confused ;-) (10/3/2006 2:55:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Enticement and entrapment are all a little KGB. Now it is something you approve of, tomorrow it might not be but your rights have already gone. Doh! Just when I think we're not even part of the same species you come up with something I can absolutely 100% agree with.

caitlyn -> RE: Legally Confused ;-) (10/3/2006 4:57:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: swtnsparkling An adult show ups at a home with the intent of having sex with some one they beleive to be 13 yrs old and that's ok with you? No offense, but in my opinion, this is exactly where this conversation shouldn't go, because it's a reaction based on emotion, not rights. I haven't seen anyone here, say it was ok to have sex with a minor. As a matter of fact, several have clearly pointed out that it isn't ok, and that something drastic should be done with these people. But, inventing a crime where none was committed, isn't the answer. Two wrongs don't make a right. You can't take action against someone, based on a crime that never happened. There was no minor, and there was no sex. Now, if they want to use this tactic to lure people that perhaps have outstanding warrents for sex crimes, etc ... that's a different story, because there is at least potential that a crime has been committed. In the instance of the OP, the authorities doing the luring know fully well that there will be no sex with a minor, nor any sex at all. The real danger of tactics like this, is that money is spent on them, that could be spent catching people that have actually committed some crime ... like how about spending this money keeping convicted sex offenders in prison, rather than letting them out, because there isn't enough money to keep them in jail.

Chaingang -> RE: Legally Confused ;-) (10/3/2006 7:14:49 PM)
That's well said, Caitlyn. I believe that the age of consent should be set lower than 18, possibly down to either 15 or maybe even as low as 13. I am considering physical maturity more so than I am considering emotional maturity attempting to arrive at an age below which no one could reasonably dispute a person is too young to consent to adult sexual activities. [Just as an aside here, consider that Juliet from Shakespeare's famous "Romeo and Juliet" is actually still merely 13 when her parents consider marrying her off to County Paris. Not really that shocking, okay?] Once this question is more firmly settled and more reasonable, I would have no problem supporting legislation making sexual conduct with a minor punishable by life-long sentences. But right now, as others have pointed out, a 16 year old can be prosecuted in some places for having sex with another 16 year old. I think when I was a young man I was 18 and my girlfriend was 17 (scandalous, I know). In my book, those are not criminal activities because everyone involved is actually capable of responsible sexual behavior. Those kinds of vagaries need to be removed from the laws on the subject. It's too stupid. If we waited for actual emotional maturity to set in, some people might never arrive. It's too ambiguous an idea.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125