Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
She's right. Were the sexes reversed they'd have thrown the books at him.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No jail time for woman who admitted having sex with 13-year-old, having his baby
- Thread starter Father Heathen
- Start date
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
She appears to me that she may not be responsible enough to be trusted with a child.
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
Exactly
PureX
Veteran Member
... Or it's teenage father and his angry parents. Like I said, there is no good solution, here. But I think ensuring that the mother does not re-offend is fairly easy to do without resorting to prison. And the baby is most likely better off with her. Also, the father can still have what's left of his youth.
Plea deals happen often. More for the convenience of the justice system than justice.
Depending on the DA, there is always some bias involved.
They are humans not robots.
Not saying it is good, just not unexpected.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Having sex without informed consent is raping.
For example one night I had a pretty young thing in bed with me. Unfortunately she had overindulged and she passed out. She was already naked by her own doing but the actual act had not started. I was old enough and mature enough to stop. Or rather, not to start without her consent. I was more concerned about her wellbeing than about me getting my rocks off. If I had proceeded that would have been arguably rape.
At thirteen it is deemed that a boy (or a girl) does not have the ability to make informed consent. That is why statutory rape is a real thing.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
A good number of states, the legal age of consent is 16.
United States Age of Consent Laws By State
I still like the California standard of 18.
United States Age of Consent Laws By State
I still like the California standard of 18.
Yerda
Veteran Member
Yes, it would still be rape.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
NOOOO! You saying that will bring forth the apocalypse!
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Someone who takes advantage of a child in such a way is not the best place for the much younger child. It appears to me the infant child is best off with the grandparents having custody.
But you and I've both known that since we were young. Boys were supposed to be trying to get it on, while girls were enjoined not to. Heck, back in the 50's and 60's (and long, long before, of course, but I don't remember further back) the boy who convinced a girl to have sex with him was everybody's hero, while the girl was just a ****.
And for the record, my own father convinced my mother when they were teens, and that's why I'm here. Her reputation never recovered, while his (by the way, he had another son by another girl 6 months to the day after I was born, and married a third girl pregnant by him 3 months after that) was undamaged.
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
Ah, I misunderstood what you meant. I thought you were being sarcastic because pf the quotes. My mistake
Agreed, though!
Depending on the state the act would be considered statutory rape. Therefore he would not legally be responsible.
I can see how it might seem that way, but there are a few things to mention. This is not commonplace. Also a crime like rape is regulated by each state. This happened in Colorado, and it is more likely a statement about Colorado than about the USA. Lastly she signed a plea bargain. A plea bargain means that she may not actually be guilty, but in exchange for a guilty plea the prosecutors give her a lenient sentence. The truth is that lots of people are convicted by a plea bargain, and they do not go to court, not really.
I agree that I do not like this. I don't think prosecutors should have this ability to make bargains, because I think it tempts them. It might be a source of profit or political gain.
But, on the other hand I am not convinced the lady raped anyone. When I was twelve I was already interested in sex, and younger people than that are, too.
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
Maybe sperm just should just swim in circles until a guy is 18. Oy.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Are you suggesting that it is not rape to have sex with someone who cannot legally consent? That minors should be able to consent? Or are you just trying to differentiate between the types of rape/sexual assault?
If she didn’t rape anyone, then what did she do? And do you believe that is/should be criminal?
No not suggesting that the law is wrong. It has to be criminal; even though sometimes its not actually rape. I think we cannot change this. Adults and minors must always be kept separate if we are to continue having a family based society, and I think that is a no-brainer. I think adults should be held accountable by the law and by society, too. We should not encourage minors and olders to court.
Plea deals aren't great for the convict. I personally know someone who took a plea deal in a molestation case. They accepted the deal. Then they were falsely accused by another minor while serving a suspended sentence and convicted for many years for violating their probation. The false accuser later recanted, but it was too late. The witness recantation could not be used to get them out of prison. So taking a plea deal was not necessarily a good thing. The convict was tossed into prison and forgotten, because they were accused while on probation. If you are innocent, fight. That is likely this woman's precarious situation. She's probably on probation and had better make herself invisible for a long time if she likes walking on grass.
A prosecutor can make sure you are locked away for a while fighting for your freedom, or they can let you walk tomorrow. We typically have extreme and harsh punishments, and this gives prosecutors fuel to make threats in order to get guilty pleas for cases they otherwise could not win. They don't always, but they can convict innocent people. Its part of their job. Maybe that isn't what it says on the books, but getting convictions is their job not making sure innocent people aren't punished. Its strictly to get convictions. The defense job is to keep innocent people from getting convicted, but they don't make the deals.
*************************
Related digression: Can a child be religious? I don't think so. I think they can be trained religiously. They can learn the lessons and recite them. They can benefit from wise advice. I don't think they can decide things like whether to convert, whether prayer is for them, whether they want to dedicate their lives. They don't understand the value of their lives until they get older. I don't think a child's belief is the same as an adult's, because a child only slowly develops a separate identity of their own.
Digression: I also think children should not court, except formally for learning purposes only. They should be formally introduced, and there should be protocols such as dances, hand shakes, proper greetings and absolute taboos. Dating should be for those within 3 years of age of one another until everyone involved is at least 18. But I have no children. Its just how I think things ought to be. Its not as if the population is going to wane if we aren't gettin bizzy by age 13. That used to be the case, but now it isn't. We have modern medicines and amazing birthing technology. Keep all dating within 3 years difference until everyone involved is at least 18.
Digression: I also think we should stop talking about chastity and virginity like they matter. They used to matter. These are useless concepts these days, because a DNA test can always reveal who is or isn't your offspring. I bring it up, here, because its a needless concern that parents pass on to children. It doesn't matter these days. Maybe someday it will again, but right now its simply does not matter where medicine can determine offspring.
Curious George
Veteran Member
I don’t see how this could not actually be rape if we agree that children by default cannot consent to sex with an adult.
'Actually' is one thing. 'Consent' is another.
Legal rape may not overlap with the reality of what rape is, so we cannot simply presume they are the same. Purchasing wives was recently legal, however it was a form of rape. If all gynecologists are rapists by law, then are they actually rapists? No. The laws in that case would be ridiculous. A law cannot create reality. It must conform to reality and steer human behavior. Laws can be ridiculous and cannot change reality.
Consent is a usable test but is not a viable foundation for the law. "Because they can't give consent" is not a reason, since lots of things happen that we don't consent to. "We shouldn't have sex with them because its wrong." is a reason, or "Because it isn't appropriate for our society," or "Because it hurts them perhaps," etc. Reasons are why we apply the test of consent not the other way around. Its not a reason. It can't be the foundation for the law.
But we do agree that children should not have sex with adults. That is not good. I just don't think its because they can't consent. Its for very good reasons. If they had to consent to everything we did to them they'd never grow up.
Curious George
Veteran Member
I disagree on several issues here. Rape is a legally defined term. When we discuss rape outside of that legally defined meaning we don’t ignore the legal definition completely. So, while our definition may not be ruled by the legal definition, which can vary by jurisdiction, the general usage of the word rape means sex without consent. I am not twisting, stretching, or taking the word to an extreme as to suggest that all gynecologists are rapists.
You bring up how the legal definition of rape does not necessarily define rape outside of that legal arena, then, in the same breath, you leap back to what necessarily creates a viable foundation under law. This makes no sense to me. Further, consent is absolutely a viable foundation if by viable foundation you mean a basis on which actions can be reliably judged.
As far as our reasoning for the law in the first place, consent is one of many reasons. We shouldn’t have sex with them, because it is wrong is every bit as valid as we shouldn’t have sex with someone without consent because it is wrong. So I am not sure what you are driving at here.
Lastly, requiring consent in one instance does not then entail consent need be required in every instance. So, requiring consent for sexual intercourse does not then entail that we need to require consent for vaccination.