US Teenager expelled, arrested for underage relationship, Homophobia alledged motivation

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Kopikatsu:
Minors are not legally capable of making their own decisions. Parents make their child's decisions until they're of age. If the parents say the relationship should end, then it should end. It was not, so legal action was taken. System worked.

If parents want a relationship between two kids to end, they either ground the kid or confront the parents of the other kid. You don't turn the other kid into a sex offender. I mean, was there even anything sexual going on in the relationship, beyond a bit of kissing?

Lilani:

LetalisK:
Okay, let me play devil's advocate. How much do the sexes of those in the relationship play a role in this, do you think? Would there be a different kind of outrage if it were an 18 year old male with a 15 year old female?

Btw, why didn't you link where you got your quote?

Statutory rape laws are in place to defend children and those under the age of consent when they are being taken advantage of by someone older. Not to be used as a vehicle for disapproving parents to run over others if their child engages in a relationship they don't approve of.

How do you know that she was not taken advantage of? Pretty much every senior guy that dates a freshman does it cuz it's easy why can't girls do that? High school in most cases has a very structured hierarchy, it is just as possible that a more mature girls that is more aware of her sexuality took advantage of a younger girl.
You are jumping to conclusions without having any information to back them up beyond some cute pictures and a Facebook post.

Lilani:

Kopikatsu:
Minors are not legally capable of making their own decisions. Parents make their child's decisions until they're of age. If the parents say the relationship should end, then it should end. It was not, so legal action was taken. System worked.

If parents want a relationship between two kids to end, they either ground the kid or confront the parents of the other kid. You don't turn the other kid into a sex offender. I mean, was there even anything sexual going on in the relationship, beyond a bit of kissing?

This girl, legally an adult, was well aware her girlfriend's parents wanted her nowhere near their daughter, legally a minor. Knowing that she continued her relationship with this girl knowing full well her parents were against it. What do you do as a parent when there is an adult who is refusing to stay away from your child after you have made it clear to them that you want them to stay away? You call the police and let them handle the matter.

Besides being illegal the girl was also being incredibly selfish and disrespectful. If I had a kid I certainly wouldn't let them date anyone who was that quick to disrespect my wishes when it came to my son or daughter. I say to hell with the gay angle of this story. It's largely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. I support these parents simply because the older girl seems to be totally lacking any and all due respect for her girlfriend's parents.

Now the authorities are trying to do this girl a solid by not throwing her in jail as they seem to have more or less an open and shut case at this point. What she should do is accept that her actions were not only illegal but also totally inappropriate and apologize to these parents for the trouble her selfish and disrespectful actions have caused and then proceed to accept the consequences of those actions.

I find it completely stupid how something can be illegal between two parties half the days of the year but not the other half.

That's what this case can come down to.

Let's say the eldest girl was born on January 1st and the younger girl was born on June 1st. So for half the year, after the elder's birthday, it's illegal for them to engage in erotic behavior but for the other half of the year, when the yonger "catches up", it isn't illegal. Only by turning 18 did it become a problem, she wasn't a criminal one day but on the next she was. What if there was only a 5 day difference between their birth days? "No erotic behavior, babe, or they'll have me for stat-rape. Just wait 5 days and we'll be in the clear again."

How fucking ridiculous.

Abomination:
I find it completely stupid how something can be illegal between two parties half the days of the year but not the other half.

That's what this case can come down to.

Let's say the eldest girl was born on January 1st and the younger girl was born on June 1st. So for half the year, after the elder's birthday, it's illegal for them to engage in erotic behavior but for the other half of the year, when the yonger "catches up", it isn't illegal. Only by turning 18 did it become a problem, she wasn't a criminal one day but on the next she was. What if there was only a 5 day difference between their birth days? "No erotic behavior, babe, or they'll have me for stat-rape. Just wait 5 days and we'll be in the clear again."

How fucking ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous, a line has to be drawn somewhere legally. The law can't work on vagueness - there needs to be specific dates and definitions set so things can work.

Super Not Cosmo:

Lilani:

Kopikatsu:
Minors are not legally capable of making their own decisions. Parents make their child's decisions until they're of age. If the parents say the relationship should end, then it should end. It was not, so legal action was taken. System worked.

If parents want a relationship between two kids to end, they either ground the kid or confront the parents of the other kid. You don't turn the other kid into a sex offender. I mean, was there even anything sexual going on in the relationship, beyond a bit of kissing?

This girl, legally an adult,

For less than a week before she was charged. For 99% of the relationship she was legally a minor

was well aware her girlfriend's parents wanted her nowhere near their daughter, legally a minor. Knowing that she continued her relationship with this girl knowing full well her parents were against it.

Well if the parents were homophobic then to be perfectly honest, fuck their wishes.

What do you do as a parent when there is an adult who is refusing to stay away from your child after you have made it clear to them that you want them to stay away? You call the police and let them handle the matter.

Neglecting the fact that they had been campaiging against the girl since before she turned 18.

Besides being illegal the girl was also being incredibly selfish and disrespectful. If I had a kid I certainly wouldn't let them date anyone who was that quick to disrespect my wishes when it came to my son or daughter.

Well truthfully that would make you a horrible father/mother. The parent's only objections (as far as we know because again, my article isn't the best one and no one has found a better one) was that their daughter was dating another girl. If someone is a bigot they deserve no respect period end of line.

I say to hell with the gay angle of this story. It's largely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. I support these parents simply because the older girl seems to be totally lacking any and all due respect for her girlfriend's parents.

Respect is earned, not demanded or entitled.

Now the authorities are trying to do this girl a solid by not throwing her in jail as they seem to have more or less an open and shut case at this point. What she should do is accept that her actions were not only illegal but also totally inappropriate and apologize to these parents for the trouble her selfish and disrespectful actions have caused and then proceed to accept the consequences of those actions.

So what? Authority is always right despite any evidence to the contrary? Fuck it's legal in South Dakota by court precedent to rape your wife (or to be more specific, the justice system in that state does not regonise that it is possible to rape your spouse), following your logic then just because that's the law any raped wife should apologise for refusing sex to their husband.

Yes, it is, in the state of Florida, illegal to grope someone under the age of 16 (that is actually what counts as a violation of this law). However considering the girl had been 18 for only a few days it's probable that the event that she's being charged with happened prior to her being an adult (because that's one of those things the article neglected to mention), and many states and some countries have specific exemptions for this exact sort of scenario.

So basically you're just appealing to authority for moral guidance.

FavouriteDream:

Abomination:
I find it completely stupid how something can be illegal between two parties half the days of the year but not the other half.

That's what this case can come down to.

Let's say the eldest girl was born on January 1st and the younger girl was born on June 1st. So for half the year, after the elder's birthday, it's illegal for them to engage in erotic behavior but for the other half of the year, when the yonger "catches up", it isn't illegal. Only by turning 18 did it become a problem, she wasn't a criminal one day but on the next she was. What if there was only a 5 day difference between their birth days? "No erotic behavior, babe, or they'll have me for stat-rape. Just wait 5 days and we'll be in the clear again."

How fucking ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous, a line has to be drawn somewhere legally. The law can't work on vagueness - there needs to be specific dates and definitions set so things can work.

FUnny, in Australia there is enough vagueness to give Judge's the room to make the best call based on the situation. The law needs a degree of vagueness to regonise that not every circumstance that comes before a court can be accounted for. You make things to specific and strict and you wind up with the middle-ages problem where Judges were so restricted by precident that miscarriages of justice kept happening because they literally had no other recourse avaliable (finally my law class pays off).

FavouriteDream:

Abomination:
I find it completely stupid how something can be illegal between two parties half the days of the year but not the other half.

That's what this case can come down to.

Let's say the eldest girl was born on January 1st and the younger girl was born on June 1st. So for half the year, after the elder's birthday, it's illegal for them to engage in erotic behavior but for the other half of the year, when the yonger "catches up", it isn't illegal. Only by turning 18 did it become a problem, she wasn't a criminal one day but on the next she was. What if there was only a 5 day difference between their birth days? "No erotic behavior, babe, or they'll have me for stat-rape. Just wait 5 days and we'll be in the clear again."

How fucking ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous, a line has to be drawn somewhere legally. The law can't work on vagueness - there needs to be specific dates and definitions set so things can work.

The solution is actually quite simple, do not make it "2 years" difference but "no more than 3 years" difference. This way there can not be a situation where the relationship is legal and illegal depending on the days of the year.

That would mean at any point in the relationship the ages are capable of being 19 and 15 the relationship is illegal - until of course the youngest is 16.

Making an 18 year old a sex offender for dating someone 2 years younger than them is completely absurd. What does the 15 (soon to be 16) year old have to say about this? Their opinion and state of being is being entirely ignored so their parents can remove a lesbian from her life by having her EXPELLED and be made a criminal. Boy, that's a sure-fire way for your daughter to not hate you forever. This is an example of an "everyone loses" scenario.

Abomination:

FavouriteDream:

Abomination:
I find it completely stupid how something can be illegal between two parties half the days of the year but not the other half.

That's what this case can come down to.

Let's say the eldest girl was born on January 1st and the younger girl was born on June 1st. So for half the year, after the elder's birthday, it's illegal for them to engage in erotic behavior but for the other half of the year, when the yonger "catches up", it isn't illegal. Only by turning 18 did it become a problem, she wasn't a criminal one day but on the next she was. What if there was only a 5 day difference between their birth days? "No erotic behavior, babe, or they'll have me for stat-rape. Just wait 5 days and we'll be in the clear again."

How fucking ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous, a line has to be drawn somewhere legally. The law can't work on vagueness - there needs to be specific dates and definitions set so things can work.

The solution is actually quite simple, do not make it "2 years" difference but "no more than 3 years" difference.

To be fair "two years" doesn't nessicarily translate to "no more than one day over one year and three-hundred and sixty-four days." In theory a judge could take the two year limit (which I should point out apparantly is not a thing in the state of Florida) and say "the difference is two years and xxx days, I think that still fits within the intent of the law. Case dismissed *bangs gavel*"

Shaoken:

Abomination:

FavouriteDream:

It's not ridiculous, a line has to be drawn somewhere legally. The law can't work on vagueness - there needs to be specific dates and definitions set so things can work.

The solution is actually quite simple, do not make it "2 years" difference but "no more than 3 years" difference.

To be fair "two years" doesn't nessicarily translate to "no more than one day over one year and three-hundred and sixty-four days." In theory a judge could take the two year limit (which I should point out apparantly is not a thing in the state of Florida) and say "the difference is two years and xxx days, I think that still fits within the intent of the law. Case dismissed *bangs gavel*"

Or another judge could swing it the other way... and that's the danger of having a law that is non-specific in such a manner.

Shaoken:

Granted I'm biased because laws in my country (Australia) state that it's not statutory rape if both parties are over ten and the older party is less than two years age difference from the younger.

Also from Australia here, but thats the same system they were using. when they were 17 and 15 it was legal, but because she was more then two years older, she turned 18 before the younger party turned 16, meaning one was an adult more then two years older then the child.

Also, that system seems stupid, because a 10 plus a day year old with a 10 minus a day year old would be statutory rape, surely it should be : both parties are over 18 or both parties are within two years of each other?

So searching the interwebs for more information, I came up with a few more articles. First up is HP (beggers can't be chosers):

A Florida teenager faces criminal charges stemming from her relationship with another young female student.

Kaitlyn Hunt, 18, faces two felony counts of "lewd and lascivious battery on a child 12 to 16" after the parents of her 15-year-old girlfriend pressed charges earlier this year, according to Examiner.

"These people never came to us as parents, never tried to speak to us... and tell us they had a problem with the girls dating," Kaitlyn Hunt's mother, Kelley Hunt-Smith, wrote in an statement posted to Facebook. "...They were out to destroy my daughter. [They] feel like my daughter 'made' their daughter gay."

According to Hunt-Smith, police arrived at the family's home Feb. 16 and put her daughter in handcuffs. Local news website TCPalm.com listed Kaitlyn Hunt's arrest for "lewd and lascivious battery" on Feb. 18, and the girl's mug shot is still easily accessible on the Internet.

But the trouble didn't stop there. The other girl's parents repeatedly tried to have Kaitlyn, a senior, expelled from school. Despite the Sebastian River High School administration's denial of their request, and a judge's order allowing Kaitlyn to remain in school (so long as the girls had no contact), the 15-year-old's parents successfully petitioned the school board to have Hunt removed from school weeks prior to graduation.

According to Hunt-Smith's statement, Kaitlyn attended an "alternative school" for the remainder of her senior year, but will be allowed to attend senior events and graduate from Sebastian River High School. The Huffington Post reached out to Sebastian River High School administration for comment, but requests were not returned as of press time.

Hunt-Smith wrote that the girls had started dating at the beginning of the school year, and that their "mutual consenting relationship" had been known to both parents for months prior to the arrest.

The state attorney's office has offered Kaitlyn Hunt a plea deal which includes two years' house arrest and a year of probation, which would stay on her adult record and limit her career choices, according to Examiner.

Although local media appear to have been largely silent on the case, public outcry over the charges against Kaitlyn Hunt has erupted in an outpouring of support on the Internet.

A Change.org petition urging the Indian River County State Attorney's Office to stop prosecution of Kaitlyn Hunt had drawn more than 30,000 signatures at time of writing. "Free Kate," a Facebook group supporting the girl had amassed more than 10,000 followers.

Internet activist group Anonymous launched #OpJustice4Kaitlyn on May 19, releasing a statement addressed to the Indian River County State Attorney's Office that reads in part:

"Kaitlyn Hunt is a bright young girl who was involved in a consensual, same-sex relationship while both she and her partner were minors. She has a big future ahead of her and there are people, thousands of people in fact, that have no intention of allowing you to ruin it with your rotten selective enforcement."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/19/kaitlyn-hunt-florida-teen-felony-same-sex_n_3302713.html?ir=Gay+Voices

So besides the dubious honour of being defended by Anonymous, this article alledges that the younger girl's parents never took their problems to the older girl's parents, which seems like a basic courtsey if you really were interested in resolving this without ruining someone's life over it (paying attention Cosmo?).

And although it is anonymous raising this point, I should reiterate it that the "lewd conduct" was committed while both girls were legally minors. This article also reiterates that it was the younger girl's parents.

And one more article from Think Progress (yeah I'm not having any luck finding some "unbiased" articles). If you can ignore the pop-up:

On Friday night, 18-year-old Kaitlyn Smith and her family went public with their story: Kaitlyn was charged with a felony stemming from a relationship she had with a 15-year-old girl at her high school. The response in the 48-hours that followed, Kaitlyn's father Steven Hunt told ThinkProgress in an interview, was "extraordinary."

Already, nearly 40,000 people have signed a petition calling on the Assistant State Attorney, Brian Workman, to drop the case. On Facebook, more than 13,000 people have joined a group - Free Kate - in support of the family.

Last week, her father said, Workman offered Kaitlyn a plea bargain. She could plead guilty to child abuse, a felony, and spend two years under house arrest. The judge would determine if she would have to register as a sex offender. They were given a deadline of May 24th to accept the offer or face trial.

Kaitlyn's father suggests his daughters arrest - and the substantial sentence sought by the prosecutor - are motivated by anti-gay bias. He told ThinkProgress that the younger girl's parents have told teachers at the high school that "their daughter will NOT be gay."

So what's next for Kaitlyn?

The family is hoping that public pressure will improve the offer from the State Attorney. Her father said Kaitlyn would be willing to plead to a misdemeanor, but not a felony. If the position of the State Attorney does not change, Kaitlyn and her family are prepared to go to trial.

The family's attorney, Julia Graves, has assembled a table of experienced defense lawyers that will convene next week to discuss Kaitlyn's legal options. Meanwhile, Kaitlyn is scheduled to appear in court again on June 20. At that time, if a plea agreement is not reached, the judge could set a date for trial.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/05/19/2034111/next-for-kaitlyn-hunt/?mobile=nc#

The only reason I included this article (instead of the other one I found that had nothing that hadn't already be said) is that the older girl's father said what I've put in bold. If true, this is definately proof that homophobia is a serious part of this. Of course, the younger girl's parents have not said anything and if they're smart will not say anything so this is entirely "He said, she didn't."

mathsisfun:

Shaoken:

Granted I'm biased because laws in my country (Australia) state that it's not statutory rape if both parties are over ten and the older party is less than two years age difference from the younger.

Also from Australia here, but thats the same system they were using. when they were 17 and 15 it was legal, but because she was more then two years older, she turned 18 before the younger party turned 16, meaning one was an adult more then two years older then the child.

From what I've been reading it's a straight up "touch a minor as an adult and you're guilty" system, no wiggle room. Granted I haven't actually done independent research on the issue so I might be talking out my ass here.

Also, that system seems stupid, because a 10 plus a day year old with a 10 minus a day year old would be statutory rape, surely it should be : both parties are over 18 or both parties are within two years of each other?

Yeah, the problem with many laws that are supposed to be protecting minors from adults is that they're written out of fear as a reaction to something and aren't really thought out all that well. Hence sex offender registeries are now being filled with people who urinated on the side of the road at 2 am in the morning or teenagers who took naked photos of themselves.

Lilani:

LetalisK:
Okay, let me play devil's advocate. How much do the sexes of those in the relationship play a role in this, do you think? Would there be a different kind of outrage if it were an 18 year old male with a 15 year old female?

Btw, why didn't you link where you got your quote?

Statutory rape laws are in place to defend children and those under the age of consent when they are being taken advantage of by someone older. Not to be used as a vehicle for disapproving parents to run over others if their child engages in a relationship they don't approve of.

Exactly. When I read this article, the first thing that popped into my head was "Geez, talk about Abusing the loopholes." This feeling increased when I saw the word "Flordia" brought up. They took the possiblely few months that the Older one is [legally] an adult and the younger one is [legally] a minor, and abused the laws to achieve their own ends. Flordia might want to reconsider rewriting its laws after this.

I kind of agree that the law does prohibit the sexual relations with regard to minors (even if consent which isn't quite legal is given). However considering this was not forced and seems to be inside a relationship then the punishment of two years house arrest and a year of probation seems extreme, I would need to know more but it seems like a harsh judgment.

On the matter of getting expelled from school, you'd have to look at their history and policies on banning students who have a criminal record/record related to the abuse of minors (it probs. wasn't abuse but we'll roll with that for now).

To me it just seems like everyone is taking this too seriously, if the older girl had clearly been forcing or coercing the younger girl to have sexual relations with her then there might be more of a case here, however I don't know all the details so the judge is probably right in his verdict in the eyes of the law.

Abomination:
I find it completely stupid how something can be illegal between two parties half the days of the year but not the other half.

That's what this case can come down to.

Let's say the eldest girl was born on January 1st and the younger girl was born on June 1st. So for half the year, after the elder's birthday, it's illegal for them to engage in erotic behavior but for the other half of the year, when the yonger "catches up", it isn't illegal. Only by turning 18 did it become a problem, she wasn't a criminal one day but on the next she was. What if there was only a 5 day difference between their birth days? "No erotic behavior, babe, or they'll have me for stat-rape. Just wait 5 days and we'll be in the clear again."

How fucking ridiculous.

Or, perhaps children shouldn't be participating in erotic behavior at all- even with other children. Why is a 16 year old hooking up with a 15 year old seen as 'harmless fun' but a 21 year old hooking up with a 16 year old 'disgusting and immoral'?

Because historically, until a few hundred years ago, most girls were married at 12 and had children by 13 with their husbands being in the 30-40 year old range.

Kopikatsu:

Abomination:
I find it completely stupid how something can be illegal between two parties half the days of the year but not the other half.

That's what this case can come down to.

Let's say the eldest girl was born on January 1st and the younger girl was born on June 1st. So for half the year, after the elder's birthday, it's illegal for them to engage in erotic behavior but for the other half of the year, when the yonger "catches up", it isn't illegal. Only by turning 18 did it become a problem, she wasn't a criminal one day but on the next she was. What if there was only a 5 day difference between their birth days? "No erotic behavior, babe, or they'll have me for stat-rape. Just wait 5 days and we'll be in the clear again."

How fucking ridiculous.

Or, perhaps children shouldn't be participating in erotic behavior at all- even with other children. Why is a 16 year old hooking up with a 15 year old seen as 'harmless fun' but a 21 year old hooking up with a 16 year old 'disgusting and immoral'?

Because historically, until a few hundred years ago, most girls were married at 12 and had children by 13 with their husbands being in the 30-40 year old range.

So basically you don't believe teens should have sex period?

Gray Tresson:

So basically you don't believe teens should have sex period?

I believe the law should be consistent. You either forbid sex until a certain age or you don't.

Kopikatsu:
I believe the law should be consistent. You either forbid sex until a certain age or you don't.

So you think it's fair for a teenager to end up on the sex offender list for the rest of their life because they made a stupid decision when they were 16?

Lilani:

Kopikatsu:
I believe the law should be consistent. You either forbid sex until a certain age or you don't.

So you think it's fair for a teenager to end up on the sex offender list for the rest of their life because they made a stupid decision when they were 16?

Absolutely. Age isn't relevant, only the crime is. I think juvenile court, and all that comes with it is a sham. They're not 'delinquent', they're criminals. They should be treated as such. (To clarify this statement, if you're convinced of a crime as a minor, you're not a 'criminal'. They call you a 'delinquent', and there are various protections afforded to delinquents but not criminals.)

I'm not sure what the laws like over here on this matter, I doubt it's that strict. I have two friends that have been together for about 4 years now, despite the fact she was 15 and he was 17 at the time.

Kopikatsu:
Absolutely. Age isn't relevant, only the crime is. I think juvenile court, and all that comes with it is a sham. They're not 'delinquent', they're criminals. They should be treated as such. (To clarify this statement, if you're convinced of a crime as a minor, you're not a 'criminal'. They call you a 'delinquent', and there are various protections afforded to delinquents but not criminals.)

I don't accept this argument because the intention is completely different. Two teenagers fooling around are not going through the same thought process as a child molester. And if you plan on responding with "intention doesn't matter," then first please explain to me why murder and manslaughter are two different things.

Lilani:

Kopikatsu:
Absolutely. Age isn't relevant, only the crime is. I think juvenile court, and all that comes with it is a sham. They're not 'delinquent', they're criminals. They should be treated as such. (To clarify this statement, if you're convinced of a crime as a minor, you're not a 'criminal'. They call you a 'delinquent', and there are various protections afforded to delinquents but not criminals.)

I don't accept this argument because the intention is completely different. Two teenagers fooling around are not going through the same thought process as a child molester. And if you plan on responding with "intention doesn't matter," then first please explain to me why murder and manslaughter are two different things.

Couldn't agree more. Kopikatsu seems to be living in some made up fantasy world where laws work in ways they don't actually.

Lilani:

Kopikatsu:
Absolutely. Age isn't relevant, only the crime is. I think juvenile court, and all that comes with it is a sham. They're not 'delinquent', they're criminals. They should be treated as such. (To clarify this statement, if you're convinced of a crime as a minor, you're not a 'criminal'. They call you a 'delinquent', and there are various protections afforded to delinquents but not criminals.)

I don't accept this argument because the intention is completely different. Two teenagers fooling around are not going through the same thought process as a child molester. And if you plan on responding with "intention doesn't matter," then first please explain to me why murder and manslaughter are two different things.

What defines a child molester? Why is a 15 year old in a consensual (and loving) relationship with a 28 year old considered disgusted and put on the same level as a forced relationship but a 15 year old in a consensual relationship with an 18 year old something that should be protected, despite the law prohibiting both? Why is a minor considered to be 'incapable' of making the decision to be with a 32 year old, but should be allowed to make that decision with another minor?

Edit: Manslaughter is a death that is caused because of criminal negligence. A murder is a homicide. They're different crimes. Killing someone by accident isn't a crime, it's only a crime if criminal negligence took place. Intent is only a mitigating factor. But this is also irrelevant, as we're not discussing murder and manslaughter here.

Kopikatsu:

Shadowstar38:

No risks are irrelevant if a person chooses to proceed with the act in the face of them.

Since when? Reckless driving is a major traffic violation. Illegal drug use is a federal offense in many cases. You do not have the freedom to act as you please. Laws are there just as much for your own protection as the protection of others. The State has an obligation to protect it's constituents, even if it has to protect them from themselves.

Reckless driving hurts other people as well as yourself. The rest, not so much. If people want to do something dangerous and its of no harm to the rest of society, stopping them is going past the government's limits of what they should and shouldn't do.

Shadowstar38:

Kopikatsu:

Shadowstar38:

No risks are irrelevant if a person chooses to proceed with the act in the face of them.

Since when? Reckless driving is a major traffic violation. Illegal drug use is a federal offense in many cases. You do not have the freedom to act as you please. Laws are there just as much for your own protection as the protection of others. The State has an obligation to protect it's constituents, even if it has to protect them from themselves.

Reckless driving hurts other people as well as yourself. The rest, not so much. If people want to do something dangerous and its of no harm to the rest of society, stopping them is going past the government's limits of what they should and shouldn't do.

STDS. Unwanted pregnancy. STDs hurt others, and both lead to health issues, which generally ends with the common taxpayer footing the bill. I'd call those things harmful to society.

Vivi22:

Lilani:

Kopikatsu:
Absolutely. Age isn't relevant, only the crime is. I think juvenile court, and all that comes with it is a sham. They're not 'delinquent', they're criminals. They should be treated as such. (To clarify this statement, if you're convinced of a crime as a minor, you're not a 'criminal'. They call you a 'delinquent', and there are various protections afforded to delinquents but not criminals.)

I don't accept this argument because the intention is completely different. Two teenagers fooling around are not going through the same thought process as a child molester. And if you plan on responding with "intention doesn't matter," then first please explain to me why murder and manslaughter are two different things.

Couldn't agree more. Kopikatsu seems to be living in some made up fantasy world where laws work in ways they don't actually.

On the contrary. I understand very well how the laws work. Lesson time!

Most jurisdictions work on the premise that I've stated above. Minors cannot be in any sexual relationship legally- even if both parties have given consent, it does not meet the standard of law because minors legally cannot give consent. Most jurisdictions will charge both parties of wrongdoing regardless of whether or not one (or both) parties consented. Because they cannot consent.

Florida has a Romeo and Juliet clause. However, this does not decriminalize relationships between minors. It simply means they won't have to register as a sex offender if they fall under that clause. It is completely up to the Judge's discretion whether or not the clause applies. But whether it is or it isn't, it's still super illegal for a minor to be in a relationship with another minor, consensual or otherwise. Additionally, in some jurisdictions, such as Kansas, homosexual relationships cannot be protected under the Romeo and Juliet clause anyway.

Kopikatsu:

What defines a child molester? Why is a 15 year old in a consensual (and loving) relationship with a 28 year old considered disgusted and put on the same level as a forced relationship but a 15 year old in a consensual relationship with an 18 year old something that should be protected, despite the law prohibiting both? Why is a minor considered to be 'incapable' of making the decision to be with a 32 year old, but should be allowed to make that decision with another minor?

Two fifteen-year-olds, having sex with eachother, are far more likely to be in the same mindset as one another. They're in the same position as one another. They're more likely to feel capable of breaking it off, and more likely to feel capable of saying no to sexual advances.

Please don't argue that the two situations are equivalent in the presence of any psychiatrists or special victims investigators. You'd either be laughed outta the room, or ignored, and I don't want that happening to you.

Kopikatsu:

Vivi22:

Lilani:

I don't accept this argument because the intention is completely different. Two teenagers fooling around are not going through the same thought process as a child molester. And if you plan on responding with "intention doesn't matter," then first please explain to me why murder and manslaughter are two different things.

Couldn't agree more. Kopikatsu seems to be living in some made up fantasy world where laws work in ways they don't actually.

On the contrary. I understand very well how the laws work. Lesson time!

Most jurisdictions work on the premise that I've stated above. Minors cannot be in any sexual relationship legally- even if both parties have given consent, it does not meet the standard of law because minors legally cannot give consent. Most districts will charge both parties of wrongdoing regardless of whether or not one (or both) parties consented. Because they cannot consent.

Florida has a Romeo and Juilet clause. However, this does not decriminalize relationships between minors. It simply means they won't have to register as a sex offender if they fall under that clause. It is completely up to the Judge's discretion whether or not the clause applies. But whether it is or it isn't, it's still super illegal for a minor to be in a relationship with another minor, consensual or otherwise.

Why of bother? Seems to me like they saw homosexual couple being "oppressed" and is going with that angle, I mean look at the title of the thread. We are meant to see one thing, but if looking at it with out bias, it would seem that the law is just and fair. Consent is at 16, the girl, girlfriend was 15, she should have ended the relationship or hold off till she reach of age. She didn't, she played a game of risk, and lost. Heterosexual couples get hit with the same thing, no lost, no foul, no outrage, nothing. Looks like peeps are trying to make this a big deal because she's gay.

Magenera:
Why of bother? Seems to me like they saw homosexual couple being "oppressed" and is going with that angle, I mean look at the title of the thread. We are meant to see one thing, but if looking at it with out bias, it would seem that the law is just and fair.

Congratulations on spectacularly missing the arguments many of us have made in this thread. Most of us aren't going "oh won't someone please think of the poor homosexual couple." We're arguing that the law itself, despite being applied correctly, is itself immoral and unjust, and I can not support the upholding of such silly and unjust laws.

Let's get real here, in no way is this girl a sex offender because she dated and may have had sex with this girl who is underage. They're both teenagers, they both go to the same school, and they both have the same social circle. This law is not protecting the younger girl from being exploited by a sexual predator, and is punishing a girl who is actually completely innocent of the crime she's being punished for if you stop and think for two seconds about what the law is meant to accomplish rather than how it is being applied presently.

But if you'd like to continue to argue against strawmen you can feel free. The rest of us will just ignore you from now on.

Kopikatsu:
Most districts will charge both parties of wrongdoing regardless of whether or not one (or both) parties consented.

Uh, they will? That doesn't seem reasonable at all. In fact, that seems so unreasonable that I very much doubt it is true.

Seanchaidh:

Kopikatsu:
Most districts will charge both parties of wrongdoing regardless of whether or not one (or both) parties consented.

Uh, they will? That doesn't seem reasonable at all. In fact, that seems so unreasonable that I very much doubt it is true.

Why doesn't it seem reasonable? If you're under the age of consent, you cannot give consent to anyone. It's a very simple concept.

Here are California's statutes as an example: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/1/s261.5

Utah and Colorado are two more states that operate this way for sure, but most jurisdictions do this.

Edit: Cursory glance through Google gave me this as well.

Edit 2: California's provisions appear to have changed since I last saw them, so...nevermind about that.

Kopikatsu:

Seanchaidh:

Kopikatsu:
Most districts will charge both parties of wrongdoing regardless of whether or not one (or both) parties consented.

Uh, they will? That doesn't seem reasonable at all. In fact, that seems so unreasonable that I very much doubt it is true.

Why doesn't it seem reasonable? If you're under the age of consent, you cannot give consent to anyone. It's a very simple concept.

Here are California's statutes as an example: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/1/s261.5

Utah and Colorado are two more states that operate this way for sure, but most jurisdictions do this.

Edit: Cursory glance through Google gave me this as well.

The reason minors can't give consent is because they aren't considered responsible for their actions when it comes to having sex. To charge someone who legally cannot be considered responsible for his actions is quite unjustifiable.

Sounds like the Utah Supreme Court thinks the same way as I do-- they "were struggling to wrap their minds around the concept that a 13-year-old girl could be both an offender and a victim for the same act - in this case, having consensual sex with her 12-year-old boyfriend", and were wondering "whether the legislature had intended the 'peculiar consequence' that a child would have the simultaneous status of a protected person and an alleged perpetrator under the law."

If indeed most jurisdictions actually handle it that way (rather than having inoperative laws), then that is quite stupid.

Seanchaidh:

The reason minors can't give consent is because they aren't considered responsible for their actions when it comes to having sex.

Sounds like the Utah Supreme Court thinks the same way as I do-- they "were struggling to wrap their minds around the concept that a 13-year-old girl could be both an offender and a victim for the same act - in this case, having consensual sex with her 12-year-old boyfriend", and were wondering "whether the legislature had intended the 'peculiar consequence' that a child would have the simultaneous status of a protected person and an alleged perpetrator under the law."

If indeed most jurisdictions actually handle it that way (rather than having inoperative laws), then that is quite stupid.

So, I found the ruling made in that Utah Supreme Court case. Here it is.

The girl had the charges dismissed, but the boy did not. Feel free to draw your own conclusions from that result.

In any event, the reason that case is exceptional is because both parties were at/under 13. For ages 14-16 is where 'double fault' mostly applies.

Kopikatsu:

Seanchaidh:

The reason minors can't give consent is because they aren't considered responsible for their actions when it comes to having sex.

Sounds like the Utah Supreme Court thinks the same way as I do-- they "were struggling to wrap their minds around the concept that a 13-year-old girl could be both an offender and a victim for the same act - in this case, having consensual sex with her 12-year-old boyfriend", and were wondering "whether the legislature had intended the 'peculiar consequence' that a child would have the simultaneous status of a protected person and an alleged perpetrator under the law."

If indeed most jurisdictions actually handle it that way (rather than having inoperative laws), then that is quite stupid.

So, I found the ruling made in that Utah Supreme Court case. Here it is.

The girl had the charges dismissed, but the boy did not. Feel free to draw your own conclusions from that result.

In any event, the reason that case is exceptional is because both parties were at/under 13. For ages 14-16 is where 'double fault' mostly applies.

The court had this to say: " 19 The State, however, applies Utah Code section 76-5-404.1 in an unprecedented manner.   By filing delinquency petitions for child sex abuse against both participants for sexually touching one another, the State treats both children as perpetrators of the same act.   In this situation, there is no discernible victim that the law seeks to protect, only culpable participants that the State seeks to punish.8  We know of no other instance in which the State has attempted to apply any sexual assault crime to produce such an effect.9"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked