Ponce arrested

Being a Colorado resident I agree that jail time was warranted, however 10 years to life seems a little extreme from the accounts I have read. Just to clarify, the victim at the time the relationship started was 15 years old and it continued on until the age of 17. I am pretty sure in most states 15 years old is below the age of consent.

Whatever the details of the Oscar Ponce case are, we do not have an idea. We can speculate all we like, but we just don't know. By his actions he insinuates guilt and most likely has moved on.

. By his actions he insinuates guilt and most likely has moved on.

Absconded.

Damn. I thought this was a Hogan Family-related thread about TV-actor Danny Ponce:

http://www.allstarpics.net/0374365/015828309/danny-ponce-pic.html

Sorry..proceed with the discussion.

Masse is a predator. He was trying to entice another victim with friendship and texts. This is someone that is serial. It's rare a a 15-16-17 or even an 18 year old girl is mentally mature enough to sense/understand the manipulation. They are still children that believe they are in a safe environment called high school. They have been taught that they are supposed to be safe in school from the time the enter at 6 years old. They are groomed.

About Masse:

"Another of the girls, who was struggling with family issues, including a recent death, started receiving text messages that turned sexual in nature from Masse a day after he named her wrestling team manager. He asked her to send a nude photo, which she refused, but she eventually relented, sending him a picture of her in her sports bra and "boy shorts," according to the lawsuit. Masse allegedly sent the girl 362 text messages during a three-day period."

I've seen 13 year old girls that look and dress like an 18 year old. Do you think Masse would/could stop himself? He needs to be in jail and going to rehab classes for many many years.

This man is a predator. He is up for parole after 10 years. Maybe he gets parole with good behavior and proof that he understands he's a predator and can't be around children. If he doesn't, he is serving time that is deserved.

I'd be careful with the "obviously pretty damn guilty". Don't know any of the details, but I think its fair to assume that his choice to run could be based on just as much on staring at 10 to life as actual guilt. 10 to life would scare the hell out of anyone, guilty, completely innocent or anything in between.

If he is found guilty, I do hope he gets help and serves time IF its warranted AFTER the trial.

I do find it troubling that we don't even blink when music, film, "beauty" & fashion industries spend billions advertising sex to kids from 10 to 15 years old. Then we sit back and scratch our heads refusing to make any connection between those dollars and sad cases like this one.

Don't get me wrong, I in no way absolve Ponce or anyone else in his situation from the consequences of what may have happened because, I, like most everyone else, have NO REAL IDEA what happened. That is what a trial SHOULD be for.

I have coached and had HS girls act flirty. Brother, THAT is the appropriate time to run...to the parents, coaches and administrators and inform them immediately.

I have a friend who is a teacher. He had a student failing his class tell him she would do ANYTHING to pass. He replied, "Great. Do this make-up assignment, get caught up on your homework, stop ditching class etc etc..." She stopped him, looked him in the eye and said directly, "No, I mean I'll do ANYTHING to pass..."

Can we prosecute her? her parents? Does she risk 10 to life by her actions?

Any thoughts?

That's exactly it. I had a friend teacher who had 17 year old girls coming over to his apartment and trying to flirt with him. One girl even said she wanted to have sex with him. That's ok. But should he act on it, then, "OH MY LORD!!! THE POOR GIRL!!!"

Please, in this society girls know exactly what the hell they are doing. In his case I'd even argue that the girl he was with knew exactly what the hell she was doing. It takes two to tango.

Quit blaming the coach or teacher when you haven't even examined where the parents were. Just dump 'em off at school and if anything bad happens, they suddenly care.

running makes sense wrote:

I have a friend who is a teacher. He had a student failing his class tell him she would do ANYTHING to pass. He replied, "Great. Do this make-up assignment, get caught up on your homework, stop ditching class etc etc..." She stopped him, looked him in the eye and said directly, "No, I mean I'll do ANYTHING to pass..."

Can we prosecute her? her parents? Does she risk 10 to life by her actions?

Any thoughts?

this is stupid. a girl like that should have no protection from statutory rape. she would have strongly initiated the whole thing. i'm in favor of bringing back the "promiscuity clauses" in the statutory rape laws that exist in some states.

furthermore, i don't know why people act so stuck up about being attracted to teenagers. it's not always predatory. if you like pretty females, then you will at some point be just as attracted to a teenager as you are to a 20-something.

In a lot of cases, they don't even physically look different from each other. I bet most of us would fail to be able to significantly guess ages based on looks alone. so what exactly is the big deal if both parties are only there to hit it & quit it?

The issue is that the line has to be drawn somewhere, assuming we care about protecting minors from adults. Unfortunately the law is not good at capturing all the shades of gray in every situation. I think thats where the Judge's good sense should come into play in the sentencing phase. But suffice it to say, 10 years to life for what Masse did is not good sense.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. So if you are attracted to a teenager that looks like a 20 something you are still culpable...get ID! As for promiscuous teens, that don't matter either. That is off limits bro. Just ask Lawrence Taylor, who got nailed for picking up a teen prostitute.

highly doubt it wrote:

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. So if you are attracted to a teenager that looks like a 20 something you are still culpable...get ID! As for promiscuous teens, that don't matter either. That is off limits bro. Just ask Lawrence Taylor, who got nailed for picking up a teen prostitute.

everything in your post is irrelevant to what i said. what point were you TRYING to make?

law needs some revision wrote:

highly doubt it wrote:

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. So if you are attracted to a teenager that looks like a 20 something you are still culpable...get ID! As for promiscuous teens, that don't matter either. That is off limits bro. Just ask Lawrence Taylor, who got nailed for picking up a teen prostitute.

everything in your post is irrelevant to what i said. what point were you TRYING to make?

My point is don't try to make excuses for wanting to nail a horny teenager. Yeah its normal to be attracted, but acting on the attraction is another story. Thats the point of the law. Your idea for "promiscuity clauses" is a bit silly because what are we gonna do, put the teeneager's sex life on trial to determine if she "deserved" protection of the law? Should we just say that the teenager must be a virgin for the law to be enforced?

highly doubt it wrote:

law needs some revision wrote:

everything in your post is irrelevant to what i said. what point were you TRYING to make?

My point is don't try to make excuses for wanting to nail a horny teenager. Yeah its normal to be attracted, but acting on the attraction is another story. Thats the point of the law. Your idea for "promiscuity clauses" is a bit silly because what are we gonna do, put the teeneager's sex life on trial to determine if she "deserved" protection of the law? Should we just say that the teenager must be a virgin for the law to be enforced?

jesus christ.

my handle is "law needs some revision".

my idea for promiscuity clauses is NOT silly because they might still exist in some states and certainly did exist on a larger scale a few decades ago.

one of the main reasons for the implementation of statutory rape law in the first place was to preserve virginity. so again its not silly.

and how can you say that it's silly to put someone's sex life on trial in a sexual case? that is 100% appropriate. both party's backgrounds most certainly need to be considered and are (which is why not all cases have the same punishment).

in addition: end or reform the jury system. "highly doubt it" being the prime example of why.

You are off the mark on a number of fronts. First, the reason promiscuity clauses have been phased out is society has come to realize that even a prostitute can be raped. Similarly, we have done away with the law that a husband can not rape his wife. I don't believe that the promiscuity clauses you speak of have anything to do with statutory rape. It was never thought that if a 14-year old was promiscuous then statutory rape is A-OK. In fact it might be just the opposite. Such a girl might have mental issues and she may be exactly the type of minor the law is meant to protect.

As for putting the victim's sexual history at issue in trial, that is not allowed these days either unless it is directly relevant to the encounter (so for example, the victim had a sexual history with the defendant). And the victim's sexual history certain has no bearing on the punishment phase of the trial. Are you suggesting that if the victim is a slut then the rapist gets a lighter sentence? Thats ridiculous. If there is any reason to reform the jury system, its you not me.

The point of punishment is to change behavior. Is it necessary to put Ponce in prison for 10 years or more? Absolutely not. 2-3 years seems more appropriate and useful to everyone involved. 10 years just doesn't do anything helpful. Colorado's punishment here doesn't fit the crime. In most states you can commit forcible rape and get less than 10 years. In Ohio for instance, rape is 3-10 years. What Ponce did may be morally wrong, but he didn't rape anyone and he didn't hurt anyone. I'm sure this girl knew exactly what she was doing too. If you don't think she did, you're just a ideological, ignorant idiot.

balanced approach wrote:

The point of punishment is to change behavior. Is it necessary to put Ponce in prison for 10 years or more? Absolutely not. 2-3 years seems more appropriate and useful to everyone involved. 10 years just doesn't do anything helpful. Colorado's punishment here doesn't fit the crime. In most states you can commit forcible rape and get less than 10 years. In Ohio for instance, rape is 3-10 years. What Ponce did may be morally wrong, but he didn't rape anyone and he didn't hurt anyone. I'm sure this girl knew exactly what she was doing too. If you don't think she did, you're just a ideological, ignorant idiot.

I basically agree with you, except for the part that he didn't hurt anyone. Hard to say that without knowing all the facts. If he is in a position of authority over the girl and uses that to seduce her then in some sense he did hurt her...especially if she was only 14 or 15. The reason satutory rape laws exist is children aren't emotionally mature enough to be in sexual relationships with adults.

No no no.

I never said anything about the why the law has been phased out or rape laws for marriage. Why did you bring those up?

From the Model Penal Code:

~1980, I think.

"Under some subsections of the “corruption of minors and sexual assault” provisions, the Code provides a defense “that the alleged victim had, prior to the time of the offense charged, engaged promiscuously in sexual relations with others.” The Commentaries explain that “proof of prior sexual promiscuity rebuts the presumption of naiveté and inexperience that supports the imposition of criminal liability.”

A primary example is “the underage prostitute” for whom “imposition of felony sanctions designed to protect the young and inexperienced seems manifestly inappropriate."

Yes, the statutory rape law(s) exists to protect the naive and inexperienced. If the person is a slut, then the person is definitely less naive and inexperienced than a virgin or non-promiscuous person. So does not deserve the full or any level of protection by the statutory rape laws.

Why these clauses are not in full existence...I don't know. Any lawyer guys out there care to chime in?

highly doubt it wrote:

The reason satutory rape laws exist is children aren't emotionally mature enough to be in sexual relationships with adults.

Also, what is the difference in being in a sexual relationship with an adult (not in a position of power) and with a minor? Meaningless sex is meaningless sex. An emotional relationship might be a trickier subject, but "hit it & quit it" casual-type sex (yes, even "hit it and quit it" can go on for years)?

I brought those up because you brought up putting the victim's sex life on trial. I stand corrected on the promiscuity clauses in the statutory rape law then. My guess is that it was taken out because how do you define promiscuous. Must they be a prostitute, or must they merely be sexually active. And if a teen is sexually active then does that mean its open season for dirty old men? After the sexual revolution of the 60s, people became a lot less up tight about teenagers having sex to begin with. However, not so much so that they did away with statutory rape laws. Another reason might be that such laws may deter the victims from coming forward to begin with because they will be put on trial.

law needs some revision wrote:

highly doubt it wrote:

The reason satutory rape laws exist is children aren't emotionally mature enough to be in sexual relationships with adults.

Also, what is the difference in being in a sexual relationship with an adult (not in a position of power) and with a minor? Meaningless sex is meaningless sex. An emotional relationship might be a trickier subject, but "hit it & quit it" casual-type sex (yes, even "hit it and quit it" can go on for years)?

I agree there isn't a difference. as I mentioned before, however, there is a good chance a slutty 15 year old has some mental issues and perhaps should be protected from dirty old men. In other words, perhaps it makes sense for the law not to incentivize old men to go hunting for teen sluts.