The Kansas Supreme Court ruled today that a convicted sex offender be resentenced with a more lenient term.

The offender was 18 and performed an illegal sex act with a 14 year old boy. Kansas law has the consent age at 16, meaning it was illegal. The typical penalty for such a crime - if heterosexual in nature is 15 MONTHS. However, because it was homosexual in nature, the guy was sentenced to 17 YEARS.

You can read the whole thing here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9773533/)

The article I read was citing a "Romeo and Juliet" law that made the sentencing 15 months for normal sex. Who would have thought they needed to draft a "Romeo and Romeo" law.

The truly horrifying part of the entire case is that one of the participants is retarded and the other is only a little bit better. Not exactly the poster case for gay priviledges.

Kansas really is an embarrassing state. If you are from Kansas, I am sorry, but do try to speak some modernity into your neighbors. As a member of the rest of the nation, I must say our necks are getting tired from shaking our heads at you.

They DO realize we live in the year 2005, don't they ?

Why is year so relevant?

I believe gay sex is worse than hetero sex and also the extent of corruption of a minor is greater in a homosexual account of statutory rape than a heterosexual one, although 17 years seems quite extreme. In Poland, you couldn't get that for murder.

Eventually you will grow up Chev.

You couldn't get 17 years in Holland for frigging genocide (of course, a gross exaggeration, but underage thieves get a slap on the wrists while those who roughly apprehend them get a prison sentence :rolleyes: )

The original sentence is way off chart, especially since the raper was retarded, what is the use of a prison sentence if the criminal doesn't completely understand what he did wrong?

A lower court had said the state could justify the harsher punishment as protecting children’s traditional development, fighting disease or strengthening traditional values.I don't get this:
1. If this raper is to be made an example, why not publically execute him to make the full statement?
2. Rapers act on impulsive lust (I have not studied psychology, but I worked as a cleaner at a publisher and I always took some extra psychology magazines home, so correct me if I am wrong,), what the government will do to you is hardly a thing you consider just before doing the deed, and if you do consider it, the thought will get steamrolled over, especially if the is-to-be raper is a retard.

That is why you are the cleaner, and not the prosecutor.

First of all, it was consensual sex, and second of all, c'mon!, those hats with the tiny propellers are damn sexy!

Please remember that everything is worse in Kansas.

Ahem - this thread is rapidly degenerating into useless generalizations of a place that most of you have never visited. Please stick to the topic and try to make the posts somewhat serious, given that this has been posted in AoDA and not Whatnots.

Thanks.

He and M.A.R. lived at a group home for the developmentally disabled. In court, an official described M.A.R. as mildly mentally retarded and Limon as functioning at a slightly higher level but not as an 18-year-old.The fact that the victim was developmentally disabled, and that the offender was capable of knowing right from wrong may have lead to the difference in sentencing. Had that relationship been heterosexual, and the girl bein developmentally disabled, then they could have been justified in a more serious charge, and a stiffer penalty.

Eventually you will grow up Chev.Was that really necessary? Just because we aren't fans of immorality doesn't mean that we are immature. Quite the opposite--it takes incredible restraint to refrain from flaming some people who say stupid stuff like that to the point where the mods throw us out!


[Good point. Thanks Gnarff, I missed that my first time through the thread. Someone else's morality does that does not equate to yours does not mean that they are more or less mature, just different. Let's all keep that in mind.] -dmc

[ October 22, 2005, 08:59: Message edited by: dmc ]

Good point? I dont think so. And I absolutely resent your implying that people who are not anti-gay are, of course, fans of immorality! If that isnt an offensive post I dont know what is.

[I implied nothing of the sort. The point is that just because someone has a different morality than you does not mean that they are immature -- the "Chev, grow up" comment was aimed at Chev because he stated his beliefs as to the morality of homosexual sex. That I completely disagree with him does not mean that he is less mature than me or that I am less moral than him, especially considering that the relative morality of two people is rather difficult to rate as there is no absolute standard.] -dmc

Frankly, I prefer Pac man's blunt way to this underhanded fashion of insulting others any day. Talk about restraint and how I am "mature" enough to adhere to the forum rules.

[ October 22, 2005, 20:49: Message edited by: dmc ]

Guys, easy there or we're going to start bickering over which one of us is the least mature. :rolleyes:

Doesn't the gay lib movement rely on questioning or even negating morality as irrelevant in politics and people's liberties?

Guys, easy there or we're going to start bickering over which one of us is the least mature. I am, and you all know it. :p ;)

Doesn't the gay lib movement rely on questioning or even negating morality as irrelevant in politics and people's liberties? Short answer: NO.
Long answer: It questions prejudice, not morality. (Unless, of course, you think your religion has a monopoly on morals. :rolleyes: )

It questions morality, calling it prejudice, then. It's very easy to call prejudice a moral norm that prohibits something you (or people you sympathise with) enjoy doing. Gay lib movement calls prejudice the norms that regard homosexual intercourse as aberration. Paedophiles oppose the age of consent norms. There are also zoophiles and necrophiles and fetishists and sadomasochists, all opposing morals they find inconvenient. Why should we consider the gay cause privileged over the remaining ones.?

Because it's not a matter of consent (usually). Children cannot give consent due to lack of understanding of ... just about everything, and animals and dead bodies cannot give consent due to the language barrier. But gay adults can.

In this very rare case of gay and underage, though, I think there ought to be a little bit extra time for the additional damage done to the child. An extra 1300% is a bit much, but 20% or more might be reasonable for the extra damage done to the child's sexual psyche.

Kids can materially give consent; age of consent is a legal construct based on the limitations of legal validity of a contract entered into by a minor. A minor can physically and mentally give consent to sex with an adult as much as with another minor and the premise of the statutory rape laws is that adults are expected to trick minors by default. Dead bodies can be given to others as sex toys in people's wills. Animals can be slaughtered, eaten, whatever, why not shagged -- a zoophile could ask.

Besides, if homosexual sexual cohabitation isn't bad, why not polygamy? Or groups of people of both genders all entering into one matrimony? Why the incest ban?

Again, kids do not understand what sex is, so any 'contract' would be nullified by them not understanding what exactly it is that they're agreeing to. Dead bodies given as sex toys, while sickening to you and me, would be perfectly fine. And as for owning animals, you'd have to speak to PETA. :heh:

Let's see, what's next...
Polygamy: whatever floats your boat
Group marriage: ever heard of orgies? (see Polygamy)
Incest: The sole exception because inbreeding has been proven to increase the chance of genetic defects.

Oh boy... If you start throwing around accusations that the liberal movement will sooner or later start advocating zoophilia, incest, polygamy etc. then I should probably accuse the religious right of rolling back the women's rights, reinstating the inquisition and slavery, cutting rights of black people etc. But I won't, because the notion is so completely absurd that I'm not sure if you even believe in it yourself or are you just trying to find a conveniet excuse to enforcing your moral and religious view on others.

The issue is gay sex, not zoophilia, not incest, not polygamy. If you wish to discuss those then go ahead and start a thread about it, the fact is though that none of those have such a wide support as gay marriage and very likely never will have. The fact is that quite a large part of the population is either homosexual or bisexual the amount of people interested in polygamy, zoophilia, incest etc. are a whole lot less. The entire point of democracy is satsifying the needs of its population, now you can't allways satisfy the needs of every existing group but if these groups are large enough they start having power in their claims and they need to be recognized by the democratic government or the government is ignoring its democratic responsibilities.

Now to the topic itself. I don't have enough information to make a judgement, needless to say the fact that heterosexual sex with a minor is better than homosexual sex is in my opinion travesty of justice and complete bs. Under normal circumstances when a 18 year old has sex with a 14 year old I'd say that it should not be criminal. Having it be criminal is just stupid. The young mature in a very different way and most girls have the full capability of having sex at the age of 14, in some boys the development might take a bit longer but if I don't remember it all incorrectly most boys should also be biologically mature at that point. Now the real question is about responsibility, which comes through education, which is why I think that at the age of 14 children should allready know the basics of sex and preventation so they know what they are doing.

Now there is the point of one or both of the boys being mildly retarded which could count a lot to make the sexual relationship criminal, but the article does not exactly say a lot about it so I can't really judge the case.

Topic: Underage Gay Sex Worse than Underage Straight Sex in Kansas - Until Now

needless to say the fact that heterosexual sex with a minor is better than homosexual sex is in my opinion travesty of justice and complete bs. Yes! Emphatically Yes!

When a person is capable of making a valid decision depends on the mental and emotional maturity of the person. Laws are set up to protect the general population.

Having said that let me get back to 'Underage homosexual sex VS underage heterosexual sex'

One is equally as bad as the other. Having had a close female relative sexually molested as a child, Starting about age eight until about 14, I can tell you the emotional scars are deep.

I have also known boys who where sexually molested by men. There also the scars are deep.

The way I feel about child molestation I would give them a minimum sentence of life.

In the particular case referenced in this topic there are extenuating circumstances and I do not have enough information to make a judgement.

Don't forget the "Romeo & Juliet" nature of the law at issue Nakia. It specifically deals with children (or near children) having sex with each other.

The child abuse situations of adults having sex with kids is completely different.

You are right, dmc. I reacted to some of the comments made. This is one subject I feel really strongly about.

If the age of consent is say 16 and a 17 yr old has sex with a 15 yr. old, I wouldn't approve but I wouldn't put him or her in jail.

@Morgoroth: Why is polygamy so repulsive to you if monogamous homosexual relationships aren't? Why are you so offended by the mere comparison?

Next, the more is talked about gay rights, the more courageously paedophiles or zoophiles or even necrophiles step up. All around we here voices against the age of consent, even here, as people believe it's restrictive. I remember arguments against keeping paedophilia criminal also on these boards. I can't recall arguments in favour of zoophilia being legal, although that may well be a hole in my memory.

Back in the time when "free love" was advocated, along with non-committed relationships and one night stands, people would have been similarly offended by the mere suggestion that the liberal movement might lead to gay marriage in the future. Heck, back in the time when homosexualism was becoming legal and accepted, the idea that that would lead to gay adoption was probably similarly absurd to many people. Experience teaches, however, that the slippery slope is still there, no matter how offended people get in the meantime.

What I am stressing again is that homosexual sex is a perversion of the sexual drive and as such, having homosexual intercourse with a minor has a potentially more damaging effect than a heterosexual one. From an internal point of view, a person having homosexual intercourse with a minor may be doing the same as a person having a heterosexual one. There is also the question of the minor's healthy or perverted sex drive and his or her contribution in the act. However, on the material level, it's worse. It's statutory rape with homosexual intercourse added on top of it.

Next, my experience is subjective and may have been very specific, but it seems to me that girls are more into older guys than guys are into younger girls. Back when I was eighteen, slow-dancing with a fourteen year old felt a tad bit weird. Of course, some people mature fasture or simply look older or are smarter than their age. However, I don't think a boy aged 18 and a girl aged 14 are a normal coupling, considering average people. By not normal, I don't necessarily mean it in a negative sense. It may be weird or just unusual, depending on the situation and the people involved. However, it's not normal.

@Morgoroth: Why is polygamy so repulsive to you if monogamous homosexual relationships aren't? Why are you so offended by the mere comparison? Repulsive? No, it's not repulsive but it has a fair share of problems. The first being the purely legal part where a large part of our inheritance laws would have to be rewritten. The second problem is that I doubt that a person could equally love two or more persons and if the marriage is not equal then it's doomed to fail. I see polygamy as inpractical not directly repulsive.

Next, the more is talked about gay rights, the more courageously paedophiles or zoophiles or even necrophiles step up. All around we here voices against the age of consent, even here, as people believe it's restrictive. Yes, let's scrap good old democracy and silence those gay activists so that we'll get none of those unfortunate collateral effects. :rolleyes:

Personally I think it's their democratic rights (yes even the paedophiles have some rights) to step up and talk about if they want. Now if they're suicidal enough to go and advocate paedophilia on the streets then they can go ahead. The result would be quite messy though and their community would hardly recieve any more sympathy than they did before. Additionally they will never grow as large as the gay community, so they will most likely never get their demands through.

The age of consent should be at 14 and that's my view. If there is any sort of sexual abuse involved then it will be criminal no matter what the legal age is. At the age of 14 most people are allready biologically sexually mature so the only thing lacking is the knowledge, which they in here should have been taught about quite a few times allready. I see no sensible reason why the age of consent should be any higher. The complete scrapping of the "legal age" might also be a working idea since in my opinion it's difficult to exactly define when the youth is acting out of consent and when he/she is not. A case to case investigation might be more effective to find out if there was mutual consent or not.

What I am stressing again is that homosexual sex is a perversion of the sexual drive and as such, having homosexual intercourse with a minor has a potentially more damaging effect than a heterosexual one Yes that is what you are stressing over and over again, but I won't agree. Even so that won't change the fact that the homosexual community is becoming increasingly organized and politically significant and there is only so long you can deny them their rights.

While I could agree that homosexual intercourse can have a more damaging effect especially if the target was heterosexual, the crime is still the same and it's injustice to treat it differently than a case of heterosexual sex. At the same time you'd have to start redefining laws according to different ways of having sex. Anal sex could well be more damaging than vaginal sex but I doubt that there are separte laws making anal sex more severe.

Anal sex could well be more damaging than vaginal sex but I doubt that there are separte laws making anal sex more severe. Actually, though I'm not 100% sure, I believe sodomy (anal sex) is illegal even between a consenting man and woman in some southern states in the US. I know they at least used to be enforced, but I can't say for sure if they're still in place.

Oh, and chev, I'll give you a reason to partially legalize zoophilia if you really want it. ;) Though I'd never be a part of something like that.

The way I feel about child molestation I would give them a minimum sentence of life.The only arguement you'll get from me is if the Death Penalty is on the table.

Don't forget the "Romeo & Juliet" nature of the law at issue Nakia. It specifically deals with children (or near children) having sex with each other.

The child abuse situations of adults having sex with kids is completely different.I think that the fact that the boy was mentally challenged, thus potentially negating concent. This may be why the more serious charge was used.

If the age of consent is say 16 and a 17 yr old has sex with a 15 yr. old, I wouldn't approve but I wouldn't put him or her in jail.I wouldn't either, but there needs to be some sanctions placed so that the door is not opened to adjusting the age limits (lowering age of concent, increasing the age of people allowed to have sex with underagers). It's not so much about punishing those in the situation you mentioned, but to firmly hold the lines in place.

Actually, though I'm not 100% sure, I believe sodomy (anal sex) is illegal even between a consenting man and woman in some southern states in the US. I know they at least used to be enforced, but I can't say for sure if they're still in place.And if Sodomy is outlawed in that state, then that's a whole different charge. Two guys can't have vaginal sex with each other...

quote:The way I feel about child molestation I would give them a minimum sentence of life.

The only arguement you'll get from me is if the Death Penalty is on the table. @Gnarfflinger: Your wouldn't get an arguement from me. my governing word was minimum

I really get quite annoyed when I see people righteously shake their fist at the "evilest" of "monsters", the child molester. When things involve sex, people suddenly lose all sense of perspective. The death penalty? Life in jail? How are these punishments in any way equivalent to the suffering of a molested child?

There is a national hysteria with regard to childhood sexual abuse. The reasons are threefold: Catholic priests, politians trying to get votes, and the medias trying to sell products.

Get some perspective.

The actual percentage of human beings who molest children is quite miniscule. In the United States, there are about 500,000 registered sex offenders in a nation of 300 million; that means the population consists of 0.17% of people whom are actually child molesters. That is about one in six hundred people.

And yet the medias talk about molested children almost daily. Do you know why there is the lack of proportion?

As a society, we have decided to use abused children for the purpose of drama. Oh how our blood quickens as we imagine the fear of the child. And the pure disgust that we feel when we look through the eyes of the abuser. And how normal and righteous we feel when we can clearly label the evil person as someone whom we are not.

It is not just the child molester who is taking part in robbing these children of their dignity.

[ October 23, 2005, 23:09: Message edited by: Late-Night Thinker ]

For the media part, your words have merit. However the number of registered sex offenders obviously is not the whole truth, because many such cases never get reported. Also one individual molester often has several victims, and often the abuse goes on for a very long time.

Mass hysteria aside, rape is a serious crime and doing it to a child is even more damaging than to an adult, hence the demand for more severe punishment. But using it to make money is pretty low.

On the actual topic: the sentences mentioned represent unequality before the law. It also hints at unequality between sexes; it seems to suggest that a man molesting a boy is somehow more serious and unacceptable than a man molesting a girl.

Actually, though I'm not 100% sure, I believe sodomy (anal sex) is illegal even between a consenting man and woman in some southern states in the US. I know they at least used to be enforced, but I can't say for sure if they're still in place. Heh. For some reason I'm not surprised. I think Bush should be more concerned about bringing liberty in those states before he starts exporting it abroad. :lol:

Late Night Thinker --

I think it's a little more complicated than what you state. People react more to children being sexually abused because

1) Children shouldn't be experiencing this period. (People here were outraged when a Tulsa rapist, molested a TWO YEAR old child (a Hurricane Katrina transplant a couple weeks back). Grabbed her out of her window and HAD SEX with her behind her house. You don't think that's worthy of a little outrage? Are you going to try to say, that that's the same as if a grown adult is raped? (And I'm not saying that either is right)

2) Children are perceived as being defenseless, unable to stop the attack -- innocence robbed because of some idiot with a hard on.

Sorry -- you'll never convince me that we're doing TOO much to stop this insanity.

Actually, though I'm not 100% sure, I believe sodomy (anal sex) is illegal even between a consenting man and woman in some southern states in the US. I know they at least used to be enforced, but I can't say for sure if they're still in place. Lawrence v. Texas made it pretty clear that such laws are unconstitutional

Sorry -- you'll never convince me that we're doing TOO much to stop this insanity. Me too! This is an emotionally charged subject for me. That I freely admit.

Any comments I made apply equally to men and women molesting either boys or girls. The scars run deep.

@to LNT - I didn't realize that there are 500,000 registered sex offenders and I'm not sure what that means. But sounds scary. so only 1.66% of the population are sex offenders. Tell their victims that.

A child molester usually molests more than one child. Child molesters are frequently relatives or friends.

500,000 registered could mean as many as 50,000,000 molested, as many offenders have been known to reach 100+ victims, but I think the average is a bit lower, so that's more like 20,000,000 or so. And that's not even counting the ones who haven't been caught yet. But even 1 child molested is 5 too many.

@AMaster:
That's a relief; thanks for the info. :)

@ Spellbound

Grabbed her out of her window and HAD SEX with her behind her house. Why do you know such sordid details of this child's misfortune? Don't you think the child is going to go through a period of intense shame? Knowing that the entire nation can watch the tale being told on television is not going to help the child get well. I speak from experience when I say that prior to a lengthy healing process, sexual abuse is something the victim wants kept strictly private. Just the fact that you know the details hurts that child.

You don't think that's worthy of a little outrage? Not from you. In the long run, your anger is going to hurt the child. That anger the child feels towards his abuser is poison in the well. Having the rest of society use childhood sexual abuse as a personal moral crusade is not going to have a positive effect upon the child's period of sickness. This is not to say you should not be angry when confronted with this tragedy; however, you should not be confronted in the first place. Again, why do you know the horrible details of a child's tragedy?

Sorry -- you'll never convince me that we're doing TOO much to stop this insanity. You absolutely CAN do too much to stop these tragedies. A child raised in protective isolation is a tragedy unto itself.

I think you need to understand something: Being molested is not as bad as people who have not been molested imagine it to be. Don't get me wrong, it is truly awful. The repercussions are of course worse than the physical pain of the actual act. But you are not "broken" or different or weaker or anything other than a normal human being with a traumatic experience.

And don't think I am minimizing the experience. Trust me, my own involved knives and threats of death and it continued for a couple years; but that was then and this is now. I have a really great life. Don't get me wrong, it's not perfect, but in all seriousness, things are good. I don't think the guy who abused me spending his life in jail or being killed is in any way a punishment equal to his crime. To inflict that upon him would just be taking pleasure in vengeance.

I think the problem is that the crime involves sex. Sex does funny things to people. A person would rather have sex with the same gender and suddenly half of humanity wants to persecute them. A person rapes a child and suddenly they are incapable of ever doing a decent thing for the entirety of their lives. A person is raped as a child and suddenly they are incapable of ever having the well-being that they would have had without the childhood rape experience.

Just because sex is titillating and dramatic and eventful does not mean it has the power people think it does. Never have truer words been spoken: "Sex is overrated."

@ Nakia

so only 1.66% of the population are sex offenders. You moved the decimal place. 0.16% That is approx. 1/600.

I don't think the guy who abused me spending his life in jail or being killed is in any way a punishment equal to his crime. To inflict that upon him would just be taking pleasure in vengeance. If that's true, then either you're a better man than I or you're just a coward who can't face his demons. I don't know that much about you, so I can't judge either way, but I'll assume you're the former. Personally, I'd castrate the *******.

Though you do bring up a good point at how we force the victims to relive their experience every time we mention it, would the child have known it was wrong had we not told them? Of course not; they might have even grown up thinking that this behaviour was normal, and would have perpetuated it on their kids. (It's happened, so don't even try to deny it. :nono: ) Awareness may hurt the victims, but it can save others from becoming victims.

A person rapes a child and suddenly they are incapable of ever doing a decent thing for the entirety of their lives. Oh, they're capable of doing decent things alright, but they will never again be decent people; all the good deeds in the world will not excuse their crimes.

A person is raped as a child and suddenly they are incapable of ever having the well-being that they would have had without the childhood rape experience. Another valid point, but not every child is so lucky as to have a forceful enough personality to survive mentally. Rape is a violation of your very being; those few who cannot handle it are nearly destroyed, and even those who can are never the same. Every experience you have changes you, some for the better and some for the worse, but I can't imagine any situation where it'd change you for the better.

@LNT-You are right about the %. Doesn't change my opinion though. You are a better person than I am.

Though you do bring up a good point at how we force the victims to relive their experience every time we mention it, would the child have known it was wrong had we not told them? Of course not; they might have even grown up thinking that this behaviour was normal, and would have perpetuated it on their kids. (It's happened, so don't even try to deny it. ) Awareness may hurt the victims, but it can save others from becoming victims. You realize that the information "sex with a child is wrong" can be disseminated without reporting the details, circumstances, and identities of childhood victims. How many abusers do you think are protected by the unwillingness of parents to face such public shame? How many children won't tell anyone because they think, in their naivete, that it will be their face on the news?

I cannot over-emphasize the shame a child feels regarding their abuse, particulary boys (I imagine, as I am not a girl); public knowledge of what happened to them is often the very thing abusers use to enforce secrecy. Playing these stories virtually nightly on the public news, so we all will stay tuned and be enthralled in horror, is playing into the hands of abusers everywhere. I am not advocating enforced public silence, I am just saying we should display some moderation; perhaps public service announcements aimed at victims rather than public news stories. I don't know; it is certainly not a situation that lends itself to easy solutions. But I recognize the entertainment of "horror" news stories and it makes me sad to see the tradegy of a child used to garner ratings so that Mad Bill of Mad Bill's Used Cars will buy commercials from the media outlet.


Oh, they're capable of doing decent things alright, but they will never again be decent people; all the good deeds in the world will not excuse their crimes.
I really have no idea why when something involves sex, suddenly everyone is capable of judging that person. Who are you to determine the decent people? What crime is ever excused? From what vantage point do you claim such perspective?

Another valid point, but not every child is so lucky as to have a forceful enough personality to survive mentally. Rape is a violation of your very being; those few who cannot handle it are nearly destroyed, and even those who can are never the same. Every experience you have changes you, some for the better and some for the worse, but I can't imagine any situation where it'd change you for the better. Nothing done to you by another removes your ability to make choices; being raped does not make you a victim of fatalism. A choice taken away does not make all choices following less owned.

What future choices has the victim lost? What capabilities? I think all it does is provide an almost impenetrable excuse to be as degenerate as others will allow.


Edit...

Just to finish up:

I think that human beings tend to imagine this invisible cloud just floating around trying to infect people with evil and cause us harm. To provide an example: The Holocaust was not the cumulative result of millions of individuals consciously deciding to, if not outright murder, then certainly cause harm upon Jews; rather, in retrospect, Europe was just infected with "evil" at that time.

I think it is fairly obvious that child molesters have become the modern witches in the woods just looking to steal and eat our young. How about we all put away the burning pole. They are not people infected by demonry... Stamping them to death is not going to make the world less hostile towards us... They are just individuals whom have made a conscious decision to cause someone pain and suffering and should be treated as just that.

The death penalty? Life in prison?

Are those really punishments you have thoroughly considered?

[ October 24, 2005, 11:58: Message edited by: Late-Night Thinker ]

I suppose the point people here are trying to make is that not everybody is as strong as you, Late-Night Thinker. Stories from raped adults - from themselves, not a money-hungry third party - suggest they often get unhinged quite badly. I've also read some of what child molestation victims have to say after they grow up, and it seems the scars often indeed are deep. For many it's hard to trust people or let anybody close after something like that.

What I agree on is that the way the media drags all the disgusting details out on display is unethical, the aim being to get better ratings and thus more green for commercials. I think this subject should be talked about, but with more consideration as to *how.* And there are other important things, such as adults getting raped, that get shamefully small coverage in comparison.

A person rapes a child and suddenly they are incapable of ever doing a decent thing for the entirety of their lives.If it's real rape, I hardly see the person living a decent life. If it's child molestation, I'm still highly doubtful. I believe a small share of "statutory rapist" may be good people and victims of circumstances, but not many. I've only heard of two rapists reforming and it was heavy penance on which their further life focused. Their life was basically centred around repenting. One of them was a guy who raped and killed his wife, then became a monk in prison (and I don't even know how credible the story is). The other was the attempting but unsuccessful rapist of St. Maria Goretti (she died resisting at the age of 11 years IIRC). I've been challenging people for months to provide more examples but haven't been given any.

Oh, they're capable of doing decent things alright, but they will never again be decent people; all the good deeds in the world will not excuse their crimes.Erm... you can't excuse things retroactively. A circumstances that excuses an act needs to exist at the time of committing the act or before. You can make up for crimes in various ways afterwards but you can't undo the original crime, either. I'm not excluding the possibility of a rapist ever becoming a good citizen but the only two I've heard about have ended up in religious orders repenting for the rest of their lives, so hardly "citizens" in the same sense as everyone.

A person is raped as a child and suddenly they are incapable of ever having the well-being that they would have had without the childhood rape experience.Scars remain for life, especially from childhood and from things far lesser than rape, but people who have been raped aren't damaged goods.

You absolutely CAN do too much to stop these tragedies. A child raised in protective isolation is a tragedy unto itself.I have to agree. I've seen examples of that. Obsessive protection of a child's virtue ends in creating drones that don't have the willpower to resist anything on their own. I especially dislike the absurd rules some Catholic parents make up for their children. For example, while they don't see anything wrong in kissing on dates, they forbid their children from dating the same person twice in a row because they don't want attachments to be formed, as in their minds, sticking to one person leads to sex. So in order to avoid their children having sex, they encourage taking it out by having romantic encounters with more people than just one and many romantic relationships but of a lighter kind, to balance out each other. As a result, while they mean well, they end up making their children feel guilty for having a boyfriend or girlfriend, and that not because of the PDA involved but because it's with one person. I've heard one of such teenagers rant on how bad pairing up is. So, in order to avoid something which can potentially lead to a bad thing, they accept or even create something which is already bad (which they admit under sufficient pressure).

A person would rather have sex with the same gender and suddenly half of humanity wants to persecute them.I don't think that's true. There are neo-Nazis and others who would beat gay people up on sight but being opposed to gay sex, gay "marriage" and gay adoption doesn't mean persecution. For example, I'm firmly against calling gay unions marriage or letting them adopt children and even more firmly against any sort of propaganda claiming that homosexualism is normal, but I don't want to see gay people hurt or even ridiculed for being what they are, discriminated in areas where their homosexualism isn't relevant. I think most people who are against gay "marriage" and adoption think the same. Prosecution is a nice dramatic word but it doesn't reflect reality.

Oh, and chev, I'll give you a reason to partially legalize zoophilia if you really want it. Though I'd never be a part of something like that.Shhh... let's not give people ideas. ;)

You realize that the information "sex with a child is wrong" can be disseminated without reporting the details, circumstances, and identities of childhood victims. How many abusers do you think are protected by the unwillingness of parents to face such public shame? How many children won't tell anyone because they think, in their naivete, that it will be their face on the news? Very true, and we do tend to go overboard; I only meant to point out that the opposite extreme could be even worse. Moderation, as you said, is indeed the best policy.

I really have no idea why when something involves sex, suddenly everyone is capable of judging that person. Who are you to determine the decent people? Because all human beings are egotistical, self-righteous pr*cks.
.
.
.
Oh yeah, and me too. :shake:

From what vantage point do you claim such perspective? My high school girlfriend was raped, and I tried to help her through it. It wasn't easy, and I'm ashamed to say that I failed in the end. She never was quite the same after that. And before you go spouting again, there was no news coverage, which made her feel like noone cared what had happened to her. It's been four years, and last time I called to ask how she was doing, she was still too afraid to leave the house at night.

Nothing done to you by another removes your ability to make choices; being raped does not make you a victim of fatalism. A choice taken away does not make all choices following less owned.

What future choices has the victim lost? What capabilities? I think all it does is provide an almost impenetrable excuse to be as degenerate as others will allow. No, it does not make you a victim of 'fatalism', but it sure as hell gives you a strong push in that direction. And degeneration is not always bad in the long run, if done correctly. Some, left to their own devices, would simply degenerate on their own and rot at a comfortable level of self-pity and desolation. Others (possibly like yourself) refuse to give in the least bit.

The third path has become the most trusted: the rebound. Hit rock-bottom and bounce back stronger for the experience. Pushing down past the farthest depths of despair to get to a level of misery that is beyond the threshold of comfort, you can bounce back up and put the whole thing in the past.

Those who would rebound on their own simply rebound faster, and those who would rot are given the strength to hit and bounce. But those who resist are sometimes pushed down into the 'comfortable' level by this therapy. I often wonder if that's what I did, or if I was simply not strong enough to see her through.

My throat's starting to close up, so I think I'll finish quickly.
The death penalty? Life in prison?

Are those really punishments you have thoroughly considered? More than you can ever imagine...

I'm of two minds on this issue. First of all, I can't debate that anytime someone has a traumatic experience, it can have recurring effects for the rest of their lives. Yes, they may never fully recover (mentally). However, I do not think that this is something that happens only in the case of people who are sexually assaulted/raped/etc.

I know of one person who refuses to drive at night, after having been in a serious accident while driving at night. She wasn't doing anything wrong, and the person who struck her was driving with a suspended lisence, and yet, she will not drive herself at night. I can only imagine that the traumatic experience this person has gone through has been just as life-altering and long-lasting as that of people who have been molested. Yet, I don't think people could justify sending someone to prison for life or executing them for driving with a suspended lisence.

The problem here is that the reprecussions cannot be quantified or predicted in advance. Many people get into car accidents, and don't have long-lasting effects. I'm also reasonably sure that most people who have been molested recover in time as well. However, there's no way to predict, at the time it occurs, how long-lasting the effects will be, or if they will go away at all. I'm just not sure that being molested is that much worse than any other traumatic experience, whether that be a car accident, seeing a family member die, or even something like suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. In fact, while post-traumatic stress disorder is something most closely associated with people who have been in extremely stressful situations in the military, based on the symptoms and reactions, it seems like most of these other people are suffering from the exact same thing. I don't know if we can say that one case is worse than another.

As for the case at hand, I don't think that the punishment should be any harsher for homosexual contact as opposed to heterosexual contact. I say contact, because the charge was not any form of rape or sexual assault. That suggests, at least, that there was no sex involved.

I'd also like to point out that this isn't a case of child molestation - at least not a typical one. Typically child molestation is used to refer to an adult forcing himself on a child who has not reached sexual maturity. With a 14-year old and an 18-year old, that doesn't apply. Hell, I know of many instances when I was in high school of a freshman dating a senior, and in some cases that was a 14-year old and an 18-year old.

I also agree with Morgoroth's point of tying the age of consent to when you reach sexual maturity. And 14 seems to be a pretty reasonable figure in that regard. I'd imagine that would cover upwards of 95% of males, and probably upwards of 98% of females.

Well, Aldeth, on surface, driving with a suspended licence is just it, driving with a suspended licence. But licences are revoked or suspended for a reason and there's also a reason why only people with a licence are allowed to drive (at least on their own) or people who have been drinking are banned from driving. A person who chooses to drive in such circumstances endangers other people either as a matter of choice or stupidity. I don't like the fact that it depends on a crash happening or not how many years a given person will get (if at all), while all such persons make essentially the same initial choice and it doesn't depend on them if the crash eventually happens or not. But I don't like the idea of punishing people for what they haven't done. If we were to punish all drunken drivers (or people with suspended licences) as potential crash culprits, we would need to be consequent and punish the actual drunken car accident perpetrators only for posing danger. There is, however, too much room for speculation: how drunk is drunk, what about individual limits, was drunkenness (suspended licence) the only cause or just a sufficient one or completely incidental etc etc. Finding out if an accident would have happened if a car had been approaching from the opposite direction would be even more bizarre. I think we are well off enough with what we have now. As for the comparison between child molestors and car accident perpetrators, the first basic difference that comes to my mind is the fact that child molestation, let alone rape, is a voluntary crime, while car accidents are mostly results of stupidity. There's a difference between malice and stupidity.

I tend to think traumas from car accidents should also be easier to heal, given that a car accident is often close to a natural disaster from the point of view of the victim. Not the same, because there's still someone to blame, but close. In molestation, one is directly faced with the dark side of the human soul. I think that's more traumatic, although it surely depends on individual cases and individual people. Seeing a family member die can be explained away: accidents happen, age exacts toll, diseases collect mortal boon. "People sometimes molest children" doesn't really work that way. Again, it surely depends on the intensity of molestation.

As for 18 year olds dating 14 year olds, I can tell you that when I was 18, being hit on by girls three or four years younger didn't feel right. Perhaps not wrong but not normal, either. Individual maturity or even just older looks seem to help the situation a bit, but it still feels somewhat weird.

As for age of consent, sexual maturity is a vague term. Do you mean the ability to have intercourse or finished puberty or the psychological condition of being able to understand the implications and possible consequences of sexual intercourse (which in 90% cases doesn't come before 30 :p )? Personally, I don't think people should have sex before they have finished puberty and are ready to bring up children, but a maturity-based distinction seems to be a good one for the purposes of criminal law.

LNT:

Knowing that the entire nation can watch the tale being told on television is not going to help the child get well. The objective of informing the viewing public of a situation such as that is so that they are AWARE of what kind of predator is on the loose. There were no graphic details given, as you seem to imply. The media reports these things at the police dept's REQUEST....so if we see the moron, we can report him. :rolleyes:

Not from you. In the long run, your anger is going to hurt the child. That anger the child feels towards his abuser is poison in the well. Having the rest of society use childhood sexual abuse as a personal moral crusade is not going to have a positive effect upon the child's period of sickness. Personal morale crusade?? The anger that people feel, just MIGHT help to catch these criminals -- to be more aware. And you're right, it might not have a positive effect on that particular child, unless that child feels somehow good that other children won't suffer the same.

You absolutely CAN do too much to stop these tragedies. A child raised in protective isolation is a tragedy unto itself.
Funny, but that's just what you're proposing, by your earlier comments. Keep the crime and the child locked away -- so that the public can't help in some way to get these monsters off the street.

Being molested is not as bad as people who have not been molested imagine it to be. Don't get me wrong, it is truly awful. The repercussions are of course worse than the physical pain of the actual act. But you are not "broken" or different or weaker or anything other than a normal human being with a traumatic experience. I think you really need to speak for yourself here. There are many individuals who HAVE been traumatized and DO feel broken -- I think it's quite as bad as it's reported to be.

Just because sex is titillating and dramatic and eventful does not mean it has the power people think it does. Never have truer words been spoken: "Sex is overrated." I cannot even believe you would make such a comment, particularly in the context of this discussion. Absolutely unbelievable. :rolleyes:

@ Spellbound

Regarding the "sex is overrated" comment...

There are far more damaging things done between two people besides one molesting the other as a child. And yet, at least according to my view of popular culture (which could be wrong of course), the child molester is considered the single most vile human being to exist. In fact, to most people, they are not even human, but rather some sort of monster.

So that seems somewhat inconsistent. To my view, it is because the child molester is a deviant variant of human sexuality. Once sexuality enters the picture, all of the sudden people lose all sense of perspective, hence the statement: "Sex is overrated."

Child molesters are bad people. Don't imbue them with magical properties. They are in no way capable of effecting someone for the rest of their adult lives. That is just overly romantic dramatizing.

I think perhaps we are in disagreement over the healing process. I say there is one and it ends one day. The popular view is that being molested or raped is a life-long affliction. I think the popular view is not true.

If a person claims to be "broken", I claim there is someone else allowing them to exist in a broken state by providing them with a lower standard.

People whom claim not to be able to walk, demand others carry them, and yet own two working legs make me ill. Put them down. They'll get hungry and walk again. Trust me.

Child molesters are bad people. Don't imbue them with magical properties. They are in no way capable of effecting someone for the rest of their adult lives. That is just overly romantic dramatizing.Sorry to chime in like that when you're obviously talking back to Spelly, but it doesn't even take molestation to mark someone for life. Children are generally vulnerable to such things and not only children. The fact the stigma, internal and external, can be shaken off, doesn't mean it hadn't been caused first by the offender. Where the lawyer in me agrees with you is that people should be punished for what they have done, not for how bad we feel about them. Murderers are scary, child molesters are creepy. The creepy part comes from the fact they get off on it, a very specific kind of perverse pleasure, making them sick in the eyes of the rest of people and rightfully so.

If a person claims to be "broken", I claim there is someone else allowing them to exist in a broken state by providing them with a lower standard.Being a perpetual victim is convenient. One of the way of cheating one's way out of normal requirements, perhaps, plus a way of attracting attention.

I wish I had said "person who has done a very bad thing to someone". Bad people is sort of a judgement I am not truly capable of making. That is the domain of the suprahuman...

But regardless...

My point (I think I had one...) was that the hysteria surrounding child molestation hurts the abused by offering them the "understandable" mindset of a victim. Eventually, you just have to tell them to "walk it off" or they will become the carried.

LNT:

Child molesters are bad people. Don't imbue them with magical properties. They are in no way capable of effecting someone for the rest of their adult lives. That is just overly romantic dramatizing. Excuse me... I didn't realize that you were speaking for all people.... or that it was "Life According to Late Night Thinker". For your information, one of my closest friends was raped at an earlier period of her life -- she hasn't worn a dress since that attack.....in fact she goes out of her way to dress like a boy. Not broken?? Romantically dramatisizing? What gives you the right to make generalizations like this? SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, please, and stop minimizing other people's traumas.

If your friend is afraid that wearing a dress will cause her to be raped again, do you recognize that as irrational? Are you complacent in allowing her to think that is a rational cause & effect relationship? Being abused as a child does not grant someone the right to be irrational.

Maybe she is just not the "wilting flower" type... Plenty of women are not "wilting flowers" without being raped. Correlation does not imply causation, even if claimed by the subject.

But in all honesty, I was talking about claimed effects a little worse than choice in attire: things like alcoholism and spousal abuse and infidelity. You know, things that are important.

LNT:

But in all honesty, I was talking about claimed effects a little worse than choice in attire: things like alcoholism and spousal abuse and infidelity. You know, things that are important. I cannot discuss this with you any further. I find your comments unbelievably arrogant and highly insulting. Who the hell are you to say what is important to a victim and what isn't?? Can you not see that the attire issue is a manifestation of a serious wounding that never healed? Who do you think you are? You have quite the gall.

Who the hell are you to say what is important to a victim and what isn't?? Which word in that question implies special privilege?

But if you don't want to talk, then fine...

[ October 25, 2005, 05:54: Message edited by: Late-Night Thinker ]

If your friend is afraid that wearing a dress will cause her to be raped again, do you recognize that as irrational? Are you complacent in allowing her to think that is a rational cause & effect relationship? Being abused as a child does not grant someone the right to be irrational. You may have had a couple good points before, but now you have not only crossed the line, you urinated on it. Spellbound may have been able to restrain herself, but I will NOT let you off so easily.

Do you honestly think that she would not (at least occasionally) try to dissuade her friend from an ultimately harmful compulsion? Do you also assume that her friend is stupider than even you, so that she cannot see how irrational her actions are? Do you think that her friend does not struggle with this every single day of her life!?!

If so, then you know less than nothing about psychological damage, and you should stop posting in this thread so as not to further embarass yourself. I have seen people try to overcome these things with disastrous results. When the brain recognizes a danger (imagined or real), it can pump out dangerously high levels of adrenaline and other chemicals. Someone in imagined danger can even have a fatal heart attack.

I'll end with a word of warning that I hope and pray you will never need. Based on your previous posts, I'd say it's possible that the damage you suffered is festering so deep that it's become a part of who you are. If so, it will spread like a cancer and eventually there will be nothing left except a gaping hole in your soul. And should the worst occur and you turn into that which you hate, I hope you will remember my words and stop yourself by whatever means are necessary.

Each person is an individual. Each reacts according to his or her own strengths and weaknesses.

What we have in the way of support also affects us.

My childhood was in the era when silence was the norm for the crime of child molestation. In fact I'm not even sure it was a crime then. People just ignored it.

Let us not keep silient but let us recognize that what is true for one person is not of necessity true for another. How I react is not going to be the same as someone else.

Bad people is sort of a judgement I am not truly capable of making. That is the domain of the suprahuman...Yes, well, refraining from making judgement is also the domain of the suprahuman; one can't live and not judge things, events, people, what have you.

One may claim--and believe--one's judgements are invalid or irrelevant, one may refrain from speaking about them, but one makes judgements nonetheless.

Aldeth's hit the nail on the head, IMO. Not sure about the sexual maturity thing at 14, though - physically, yes, but mentally? I think statutory rape is a bit of a crock, since it's a strict-liability offence that only requires actus reus, and the defence to "normal" rape doesn't apply to it. Personally, I'd be more concerned if a hypothetical underage son or daughter of mine was having consensual gay sex than consensual heterosexual sex, but it's certainly nothing that would warrant a 17-year jail term for their partner.

Now, if it wasn't consensual... well, I'd be getting out the hypothetical shovel and getting medieval on that hypothetical someone...

LNT - You're being more than a little insensitive, but I can see what you're saying. Different people have different sensitivities, and yes, those can be amplified or worsened by media exposure, or by being told repeatedly that they're a victim. Using a particular victim as a poster-child for a campaign can perpetuate the "you're a victim, and you always will be" perspective, which does nothing to help them. That said, the "irrational" comment was a bit harsh - after all, a perceived risk requires management, and if that risk has ever translated into reality for someone, is it really irrational?

I'll end with a word of warning that I hope and pray you will never need. Based on your previous posts, I'd say it's possible that the damage you suffered is festering so deep that it's become a part of who you are. If so, it will spread like a cancer and eventually there will be nothing left except a gaping hole in your soul. And should the worst occur and you turn into that which you hate, I hope you will remember my words and stop yourself by whatever means are necessary. :rolleyes: Take up theatre Fel...

Okay -- enough bashing back and forth on an issue that is very tangential to the actual topic.

The topic, to remind y'all, is a comparison of sentencing based upon same sex/different sex statutory rape in Kansas, not whether LNT is insensitive, the best way for a rape victim to recover, or anything else.

Sheesh. You guys know better than this, you're almost all veterans here.

Anybody want to talk about the trauma of rape and/or child abuse and how best to cure it, start a separate thread and put a very specific warning that opinions expressed may be deeply offensive to some, but that only rational expressions of opinion and fact will be tolerated.

So...anywho...

Wow, Kansas-huh...

Anybody ever seen a tornado?

Tornadoes...I hear they're sorta like nukes, only, like, cooler. Less radiation, y'know.

The topic, to remind y'all, is a comparison of sentencing based upon same sex/different sex statutory rape in Kansas,The fact that the 14 year old in question is mentally challenged seems to have been lost along the way, but to me, that was a major factor in the sentence. That brings the validity of consent into question, and thus more serious charges and stiffer penalties...

I do agree that consent can be questioned in the case of someone who is mentally challenged. However, it seems that the perpetrator wasn't intellectually much better. This could be viewed as a mitigating circumstance - maybe he didn't understand fully what he was doing was wrong.

I also have to go back to my maturity statement, as several people have asked me to clarify it. What I meant by that is that the vast majoirty of people are capable of reproducing at age 14. They are mature in terms of sexual development. That is not to imply that they are mentally fully mature. In fact, one can claim that the exact opposite is true, as people in their mid-teens are some of the most irresponsible people you'll ever find. However, while they might not make responsible choices, or act responsibly in a great many ways, most 14-year olds understand what sex is, how to have sex, and that having unprotected sex can result in acquiring an STD or conceiving a child. I don't think that concept is any more difficult than say, algebra, and we teach that to 14-year olds all the time.

So, despite the fact that 14-year olds may not understand the life-long reprecussions of what having a child means, I think that they can quite easily grasp the immediate potential consequences of having sex. There has to be some basis for a legal standard for an age of consent, and having the ability to reproduce seems like a pretty logical time to draw the line.

As far as whether a stiffer sentence should apply to to homosexual under-age acts, and whether or not a person can be harmed more by a homosexual encounter as opposed to a heterosexual encounter, again, I can only say that it is impossible to quantify.

In my earlier example I used someone who was traumatized after being involved in an accident with someone who had a suspended drivers license. I was not trying to imply that the level of guilt of a person driving with a suspended license was equal to that of a sex offender. What I was trying to imply was that the level of trauma experienced by someone, in terms of life-long psychological effects may very well be the same, or at least similar.

So I have no way of knowing if this specific act would have had less of an effect on the 14-year old if the 18-year old had been female. If the 14-year old was heterosexual, maybe he would have found the act with a female less traumatic - maybe even enjoyable. However, if he is homosexual, if the offender was female, he may have found that more traumatic than the current circumstance.

I guess what I keep going back to is whether or not it should even be a crime for a 14-year old to have any type of sexual contact with an 18-year old, regardless of the sex of the poeple involved. In a typical child molestation case, I would think that the victim would have to be younger, the perpetrator older, or in most cases, both. That having been said, it seem irrational to punish someone more severely just because the act was homosexual. Especially in such a case as this, where the sentence is more than 10 times longer than what a typical sentence is.

The whole age of consent issue is especially interesting when you consider that 14 year olds were marriagable not all that long ago.

It raises a troubling specter in the entire concept of statutory rape and whether someone who is 16 should be charged with a crime for sleeping with his or her 14 year old boy/girl friend.

Should there be any prison sentence at all for a "Romeo & Juliet" situation? Should it be treated as a crime? This is a problem with US law (and maybe other countries, but I only know US law and, to a small degree, English law). There are situations where society may choose to frown on behavior, yet the only way we seem to know how to sanction it is by calling it a crime and proceeding accordingly (even traffic violations are technically crimes).

Good point dmc. It gets even more ridiulous in some states. Take Maryland for example, where the age of consent is either 14 or 16, and it depends on who you're having sex with! If you're 16, you can consent to having sex with anyone, but if you are 14 or 15, you can only consent to have sex with someone who is also a minor, i.e., under 18. If you're under 14, you can't consent at all, and it's always considered statutory rape.

So take this for a ridiculous situation. A 14-year old girl can legally consent to sex with her 17-year old boyfriend, but it becomes illegal the following year when he turns 18 and she turns 15.

So take this for a ridiculous situation. A 14-year old girl can legally consent to sex with her 17-year old boyfriend, but it becomes illegal the following year when he turns 18 and she turns 15.

Certainly the most ridiculous law ever! how could the ever overlook this flaw I wonder... I think 18-year old offenders of this law will be prosecuted, it would really be insane :D

So take this for a ridiculous situation. A 14-year old girl can legally consent to sex with her 17-year old boyfriend, but it becomes illegal the following year when he turns 18 and she turns 15. That's what people get when they don't want to wait until marriage. :p :D

The fact that the 14 year old in question is mentally challenged seems to have been lost along the way, but to me, that was a major factor in the sentence. That brings the validity of consent into question, and thus more serious charges and stiffer penalties... Weren't they both ... erm, challenged? :confused:

Can you imagine the drool puddle after that event? Yicht!...

Fel, since the court convicted the 18 year old, they must have considered him criminally responsible, and believed that he should have known better. The belief, therefore, would be that the degree of disability was not significant enough to let him off the hook. Besides, I still think that an 18 year old and a 14 year old of opposing genders should get more than 20 months...

You mean the minor should be punished for having sex with the adult, too?

Of course, they were taking advantage of adults :rolleyes:

In response to the original post, the sentence was too harsh due to the mental capacity of the 2 males, and the fact that underage gay sex is no worse than underage straight sex (in my opinion of course).

I still think that an 18 year old and a 14 year old of opposing genders should get more than 20 months... That's fine, but I still think that the terms should be the same regardless of the sex of the participants. I'm of the opinion that it probably isn't wrong for an 18-year old to be romantically involved with a 14-year old.

This is just my opinion Aldeth, but if you take a 14 year-old and an 18 year-old, you will notice a huge difference in maturity, however there will not be much of a difference between a 24 year-old and a 28 year-old, yet both are only a 4 year difference.

When I was 18, I would never have even though about dating a 14 year-old girl.

On a more sinister thought - what about a 10 year-old female and a 14 year-old male? Its very easy for an older person to take advantage of the younger.

Cuchulainn, Since the 18 year old was convicted, therefore he had to know that what he was doing was against the law. Further, the sentence took into account the fact that the younger male was in worse shape than the older male.

AFI, So where does the court get off telling the original judge how to do his job. The higher court, IMO, ignored key factors in the original sentence. 20 months for an 18 year old man having sex with a 14 year old girl is a sick joke...

Cuchulainn (again), The 10 year old is a stiffer charge (no pun intended). Unfortunately, juvenile crime laws would likely let the little punk off with a lighter penalty than he deserves.

since the court convicted the 18 year old, they must have considered him criminally responsible, and believed that he should have known better.
...
Since the 18 year old was convicted, therefore he had to know that what he was doing was against the law.Certainly you're not suggesting the courts are unfallible?

The real issue, though, is the severity of the punishment compared to that of a heterosexual counterpart. I find it hard to believe the extra years came from the "being challenged"-issue, since they were both just that, even if one more than the other.

As for a gay "encounter" being more damaging than a straight one...just phrase it a little differently, in a different order, and you'll see how absurd it is:

For messing with an underaged boy you get 17 years.
For messing with an underaged girl you get 15 months.

Are the boys somehow more precious and valuable in the society's eyes? Look at it like this:

"My next door neighbor was caught abusing a child."
"The ourage! The sheer outrage!"
"But hey, the victim was a girl."
"Oh. Well, go easy on him."

"My next door neighbor was caught abusing a child."
"The ourage! The sheer outrage!"
"The victim was a boy."
"The OUTRAGE! HANG his a**!"

What's wrong with this picture?

On the age thing, I agree with Cúchulainn - the odds of a 14-year old being even nearly as mature as your average 18-year old are miniscule at best.

Oh wow - looks like I got some 'splainin to do here. First of all, I am in no way saying that an 18-year old is not more mature than a 14-year old, nor am I saying that I would want to date someone who was 14 when I was 18.

The point I was making is that we arbitrarily decide when it becomes OK for teenagers to have sex, and when it becomes not OK. As dmc rightly points out, it wasn't all that unusual as recently as the 1800s for people to get married in their mid-teens. Is society just more enlightened at this point that we can definitively say it's a bad practice?

Or look at it another way - you say it's not right for an 18-year old to have a sex with a 14-year old. Is it OK for a 15-year old to have sex with an 18-year old? Or what about a 14-year old and a 17-year old? Or what about 14 and 16? Or 16 and 18? Now obviously, if you think you shouldn't have sex until you're married, you would think all of those situations are wrong, but taking marriage breifly out of the equation, how old do you think you should be before you start having sex, and what age limits do you place on those people? Keep in mind that while you can't get married in too many places at age 14, there are still several states that allow you to get married at 16 with parental consent.

I'm not OK with a 14-year old having sex with a 10-year old, for several reasons. The most obvious example there is that 10-year olds are generally not sexually mature, and it seems unlikely that one could validly consent to to sex before reaching sexual maturity. Heck, as any 10-year old boy knows, girls are yucky and have cooties.

The point I'm making is that while I understand a line has to be drawn at some point, I think each situation should be considered carefully. Isn't it possible that a 14-year old could fall in love with an 18-year old (and vice versa of course) and that they validly consented to sex? Or why is it OK for a 14-year old to consent to sex with a 17-year old partner, but not OK if the partner is 18?

As far as where the new judge gets the right to tell the first judge how to do his job, it's quite simple. While I didn't read the brief to the case, I'm assuming that the 18-year old's lawyer filed the appeal on the basis that his client's Constitutional rights had been violated. Allow me to refer you to the 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted. (bold added by me for emphasis)

Now, if the usual punishment is 15 months for this crime, I would say that sentencing someone to 17 years - which is more than 13 times longer - certainly qualifies as an unusual punishment. Now you have every right to write to your Congressman is you feel that the laws against juvenile sex crimes are too lenient, but the fact remains that judges are expected to rule similar judgements in similar cases. Of course, there are always extenuating and mitigating circumstances to consider, and so a judge may reasonably impose a term of 10 months or 20 months instead of the typical 15 months for example. He probably could even get away with 2 or 3 years without too much of a fight. But when you raise the sentence all the way up to 17 years, that no longer represents justice.

@Aldeth: Yes, no instance of sex without marriage is right. :p There are situations without fault, but in no case is it right. :p

As for age, 14 for women and 16 for men is OK per canon law. :p

@Susipaisti:

For messing with an underaged boy you get 17 years.
For messing with an underaged girl you get 15 months.There is a large disproportion and 17 years for consensual sex is a big joke, as he could get away with a suspended prison term for raping a grown woman. And while I believe homosexual sex is materially worse than heterosexual sex (i.e. as an act itself, not getting into people's minds to evaluate the attitude towards the act), there's no kind of consensual sex worse than rape.

Certainly you're not suggesting the courts are unfallible?They aren't, but they are approximately right in most cases, if not always perfectly accurate in all detail.

[ October 27, 2005, 17:03: Message edited by: chevalier ]

Well, you techinically didn't answer the question of what age becomes OK to start having sex, but you did give acceptable marrying age, and assuming that regardless of age, it's OK to have sex once you get married, it does sort of answer the question in a round about manner.

So, according to canon law then a 14-year old girl could in fact marry a 16-year old boy? Then assuming that those ages represent minimums, a 14-year old girl could also marry an 18-year old. And then they could have sex, and it would be OK?

You see, this is what I'm talking about. Even the Catholic Church (which is notoriously conservative) seems to think that it isn't an impossibility for a 14-year old to be involved in a loving relationship with someone who is considerably (4 years) older than her. And that's my point. In some cases it may not be acceptable, but in some other cases it should be OK for a 14-year old to be with an 18-year old.

So it does seem to imply that the sentence was so severe because it was a same sex issues.

Yes, sex is generally OK when you're married, although it surely isn't okay to require sex of your spouse if he or she is in no condition for it. It's also bad to be negligent of your own health, too. ;)

Canon law has its own minimum age but there is a rule that civil law requirements per each country are to be followed, which means you won't really get a religious marriage if you're too young for a civil one.

It would be bad to read the age requirement as it's okay for any man 16-N to marry any woman 14-N. On the other hand, age is not everything. The legal rule in canon law doesn't provide the answer to such questions. It only names the age before which marriage won't be performed.

And yes, the sentence was only so severe because of the same sex issue, of course. It should have been less severe than it was but more severe than cross-gender, I think.

I probably should clarify the "Certainly you're not suggesting the courts are unfallible?"-comment. It just seemed to me that some people made additional assumptions of the case's circumstances based solely on the sentence given, thus trusting the judgement a bit blindly.

Aldeth: Yeah, I see what you're saying with the age thing. Even though the law probably is in place to protect the youngsters, the whole thing is not so simple as to draw the line at age x. Individuals are different, circumstances vary greatly.

As an aside, for someone like me who doesn't object to premarital sex, ages like 14 and 16 sound way too early for marriage. But that's irrelevant.

It just seemed to me that some people made additional assumptions of the case's circumstances based solely on the sentence given, thus trusting the judgement a bit blindly.One thing about lawyers you need to know: whatever they write should be read twice. And then again. :shake:

Aldeth: Yeah, I see what you're saying with the age thing. Even though the law probably is in place to protect the youngsters, the whole thing is not so simple as to draw the line at age x. Individuals are different, circumstances vary greatly.Yeah, especially if we're partly protecting people from themselves. After all, it's consensual. I wonder how many people sentenced for sex with someone below the age of consent are in fact people who forgot to card their mate. :rolleyes: IMHO there should never be any such charge if the initiative came from the minor, who also looked older than he or she was or if the minor was in a place and/or situation where minors shouldn't be expected and looked older than the real age.

If 15 months for having sex with an underaged girl versus 17 years for having sex with an underage boy is not kay, then raise the penalty for having sex with an underage girl.

Secondly, the arguement I was trying to make was that the boy's mental state may have been ruled to nullify consent, therefore making th crime Rape, and the victim a mentally challenged 14 year old boy. Even if the victim was a mentally challenged 14 year old girl, the man would have gotten more than some 20 months. It would be a lot closer to the 17 years that was handed down in the original case.

Gnarff,

I get where you're coming from. Indeed, that is the other solution - you either raise the punishment for different sexes, or reduce the penalty for same sex. Although technically, I don't think it can be called rape, as no penetration was involved. According to the article it was oral sex, and AFAIK, you can't get a rape charge for that.

It isn't clear in criminal codes if coerced oral is rape or coerced sexual activity of a different kind. We can't take the penetration criterion too far or anal rape won't be rape.

Yeah, anal rape is definitely rape, but I don't think oral is considered rape. Specifically because if it was, he would have been charged with (at least) statutory rape. If it fell under the rape definition, why wouldn't that be the charge?

Courts differ. If you have "intercourse" in one paragraph and "sexual activity" in another, it depends on what the judge considers intercourse or sexual activity. You could find a judge for whom only full vaginal penetration is intercourse, so by definition, a male can't rape a male, plus everything like oral or anal is a lesser charge. Or you could find a judge for whom oral sex is always intercourse, even on par with vaginal penetration. In cases of molestation, one judge will dismiss everything short of nudity and outright nagging, another will believe a plain hug or cheek peck to be sexual. And so on and so forth. This is why I wouldn't rely too much on the charge, especially in a common law system where plea bargain is a reality.