Finally, JUSTICE: - Page 3

somerfrost · #41 06-11-2007, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Well, I think you're pretty naive so we disagree. What I said was that there is no hard fast rule that a particular 17 year old boy is necessarily more mature than a particular 15 yo girl...both are kids. It's interesting to me how people like to challenge me and when I answer a question and pose one in return they duck rather than answer. Again...the girl is now 17, according to your view (the boy at 17 was mature enough to be held responsible), why isn't she now mature enough to make sexual decisions? She continues to say she intiated it, she was experienced previously, and she enjoyed it and doesn't feel the slightest bit like a victim, why is she wrong and you right? Do you know more about her, her emotions, wants, needs and desires than she does?

Nice duck again...actually a very superficial attempt but I'm trying to be nice...for the third time, see above question.

somerfrost · #42 06-11-2007, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SentToStud

That can mean different things to different people but in my opinion it always includes knowing what can get you arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to 10 years.

so "responsible" in the context of this thread means "legal"? If the girl was celebrating her 16th birthday and it was done in private that would be OK?

SentToStud · #43 06-11-2007, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Nice duck again...actually a very superficial attempt but I'm trying to be nice...for the third time, see above question.

Ok, I see this one (and GFY for the "duck" comment). Obviously 17 is different than 15. But it's asinine to say a 17 yo can say what she did years before was right, wrong, or whatever.

And, yes, ABSOLUTELY, I think if you or your 17 year old son is going to have sex with a 15 year old, whether or not she wants it or begs for it, you owe it to yourself and your 17 year old son to know if it's legal. YES, ABSOLUTELY, knowing what is legal is important. How in the world is that a difficult concept to grasp? I do not agree with every law there is. But if choose to break one, I'm certainly liable for the consequences.

SentToStud · #44 06-11-2007, 08:34 PM

[quote=somerfrost]so "responsible" in the context of this thread means "legal"? If the girl was celebrating her 16th birthday and it was done in private that would be OK?[/QUOTE]

Legally, if that's the law, yes. Morally, your call.

Any more questions?

I think I covered them all and you answered none of mine. I love how you do that. All your righteous indignation sh1t and now you will disappear.

The Bid · #45 06-11-2007, 08:36 PM

Men should learn to turn down sex beggers early in life. I still havent figured out how to tell a girl no when they beg

GPK · #46 06-11-2007, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I agree...sex is a "normal" part of life, having sex means being responsible (if the girl gets pregnant then the guy is a daddy) but to expect teenage boys (who studies say think about sex every 7-10 minutes) to avoid temptation is naive...same with girls imo!

them boys got some catching up to do....

somerfrost · #47 06-11-2007, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Ok, I see this one (and GFY for the "duck" comment). Obviously 17 is different than 15. But it's asinine to say a 17 yo can say what she did years before was right, wrong, or whatever.

And, yes, ABSOLUTELY, I think if you or your 17 year old son is going to have sex with a 15 year old, whether or not she wants it or begs for it, you owe it to yourself and your 17 year old son to know if it's legal. YES, ABSOLUTELY, knowing what is legal is important. How in the world is that a difficult concept to grasp? I do not agree with every law there is. But if choose to break one, I'm certainly liable for the consequences.

Explain to me why it is asinine? On the one hand, you say the boy at 17 is responsible and capable of knowing right from wrong and making decisions about his life, now you are saying that the girl, now 17, isn't capable of the same??? Of course, using your criteria for the boy, she has to be...and she says, she wasn't a victim, she initiated it, she wanted to do it and she enjoyed it...so again, where is the victim? And woa there fellow, when did I ever imply that I would have sex with a 15 year old??? I simply was asking for a clarification on what that means to you.

somerfrost · #48 06-11-2007, 08:55 PM

[quote=SentToStud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by somerfrost

so "responsible" in the context of this thread means "legal"? If the girl was celebrating her 16th birthday and it was done in private that would be OK?[/QUOTE]

Legally, if that's the law, yes. Morally, your call.

Any more questions?

I think I covered them all and you answered none of mine. I love how you do that. All your righteous indignation sh1t and now you will disappear.

What questions of your's haven't I answered? Of course legally it would be Ok (at least in Ga) but I was asking if in your opinion it would be "responsible" if it was her 16th birthday?

GenuineRisk · #49 06-12-2007, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

also, she's immature--yet most states would allow her to make the oh so adult decision to have an abortion--

Actually, 31 states have parental notification laws- 16 of those states require parental consent, and 15 require notification. On top of that, 10 states enacted laws that are currently blocked by the courts from taking effect, so that's 41 states with some sort of parental involvement law in the books. Only 2 states and the District of Columbia have laws affirming a minor's right to make the decision to abort a pregnancy on her own.

Just wanted to clear that up.

GenuineRisk · #50 06-12-2007, 09:49 PM

This case is, I think, an excellent example of why legislators need to look at the laws on the books every few years and update them. The judge didn't want to sentence the kid to ten years; he was pretty clear about that, but the law left him no choice- it was very clear about penalties for oral sex. The jury who found the kid guilty were horrified when they found out what their decision meant. I think the law, due in part to this case, was changed, but it was after the verdict and the kid could not be grandfathered in (again, due to the laws on the books). Whether or not the girl consented doesn't matter in the eyes of the law.

It's a horrific outcome, no question, and I can't believe the state is continuing to pursue this when it could let it go, but the kids happened to break an archaic law that happened to have very stiff penalties. Hey, in Georgia up until 1998, oral sex even between a husband and a wife was punishable by up to 20 years in prison. Can you imagine THAT pillow talk, "Sorry honey; I don't want to go to jail."

Here's the Wikipedia entry on the Wilson case- it gives a good summary of how it came to pass:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genarlow_Wilson

GenuineRisk · #51 06-13-2007, 08:24 AM

The attorney general, in his own words:

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/opin...12edbaker.html

(Not condoning or criticizing; just posting the link)