I understand the law aspect.
But consider my thought example, what would you do? Would you divorce/break up?
I understand the law aspect.
But consider my thought example, what would you do? Would you divorce/break up?
bearer of bad news wrote:
Thought experiment:
What would you do if you found out tomorrow that your wife/gf/love-of-your-life was really 15yo? Through some bizarre turn of events or human cloning or something.
What a stupid post, congratulations!
What if the love-of-your-life was actually 9? Or a dog? Or your little brother? ... __> Yay, you see my point now?
Just trying to see if you are more perv than dumb, or just sexually frustrated.
oh boy, noooooo wrote:
bearer of bad news wrote:Thought experiment:
What would you do if you found out tomorrow that your wife/gf/love-of-your-life was really 15yo? Through some bizarre turn of events or human cloning or something.
What a stupid post, congratulations!
What if the love-of-your-life was actually 9? Or a dog? Or your little brother? ... __> Yay, you see my point now?
Just trying to see if you are more perv than dumb, or just sexually frustrated.
Actually, those are good additions to my point. What would you do if it turned out that way? And what exactly is your point?
Cheap Loans wrote:
We're going in circles here, we have been for sometime but I enjoy a good debate.
In short it doesn't matter whether the predator thinks that the prey is an equal or whether the prey thinks it's ok, when you're that young you don't have a say. The law decides for you, the law has decided that this is wrong.
I'm not a lawyer but I think there's a thing called jury nullification? whereby if the person is guilty of a crime in the eyes of the law but the jury think it's morally ok for example, very, very extreme example, tracking down a child rapist and killing him after the event, i.e. not self defense, protecting, they can acquit even when under the law that would be murder; Not 100% on that but I think I've kind of got the idea.
So even if Ponce was guilty in the eyes of the law, he would still have a chance to be acquitted but again he's got to get 12 like minded deviants that think this behavior is acceptable and as we've said decent society has deemed it wrong for adults to have sex with children.
But this is bullshit if our legal system works the way it is supposed to. The law is pretty cut and dry. You can't drive a car at a BAC of .08 even if you are capable of functioning at your best. That's 2-3 beers.
The law says you can't do it. Its indefensible at that point.
The jury system has lost all credibility at this point. Look at OJ Simpson.
Its a quandry. The elected judges or prosecuters have an agenda to win any case. And I've been on grand jury's to see how they try to influence jurors, even though they aren't supposed to.
The bottom line is you need an educated populace for this to work the best and this country has a majority of people that get dumber and more illogical every single year.
I guess Oscar got away to another country.
or Colorado might still have a promiscuity clause in their statutory rape law
"...From this "exaltation of female chastity," a statutory rape victim being unchaste, promiscuous, or not a virgin evolved into a defense that was soon "codified in every state..."
[quote]You Give Sweden a bad name wrote:
The judge will usually issue stipulations with bail. Surrendering a passport is usually a given.
smuggled into mexico !
how hard can that be ?
The topic is ironically "running related"
Google news turns up nothing new about him. Anyone know for sure if he missed or attended his 12/28 court hearing?
Someone posted it in a new thread, but Oscar is digging a deeper hole for himself. Still on the run.
Everyone keeps saying that the victim is 14 or 15, but it looks like she was 17 based on that last link. Still illegal, but she could have been days away from 18.
How does that work? I mean, if you are having sex with a girl who is 17 but turns 18 the next day, can you really get locked up for being a child predator?
I am not defending him, just asking.
Any news on the Ponce search?
While this may not mean much,I participated in a mock trial of essentially this exact situation, and the consensus from precedent and everywhere was 'yes, you are f-ed'
Just an Observer wrote:
Everyone keeps saying that the victim is 14 or 15, but it looks like she was 17 based on that last link. Still illegal, but she could have been days away from 18.
How does that work? I mean, if you are having sex with a girl who is 17 but turns 18 the next day, can you really get locked up for being a child predator?
I am not defending him, just asking.
That Ponce article is from December 29th. That is old news. I see Ponce every Sunday running Mags at 6:00 pace. I seriously doubt if he is hiding from the cops. Maybe he made a plea deal, who knows.
apparently still on the lam. $2000 reward for finding him
adubadubaduba wrote:
While this may not mean much,
I participated in a mock trial of essentially this exact situation, and the consensus from precedent and everywhere was 'yes, you are f-ed'
Man.
I am not one of the guys on LRC who thinks sleeping with kids is okay - seems like we have a lot of them - but this just seems screwed up. I mean, shouldn't there be some kind of common sense in the law that says if she/he is days away from being "legal," the "child predator" label shouldn't be affixed to you for life?
Just An Observer wrote:
adubadubaduba wrote:While this may not mean much,
I participated in a mock trial of essentially this exact situation, and the consensus from precedent and everywhere was 'yes, you are f-ed'
Man.
I am not one of the guys on LRC who thinks sleeping with kids is okay - seems like we have a lot of them - but this just seems screwed up. I mean, shouldn't there be some kind of common sense in the law that says if she/he is days away from being "legal," the "child predator" label shouldn't be affixed to you for life?
"Common sense in the law"? What country are you from?
18 means 18. You can say that 17 and half is close to 18, but 17 is close to 17 and a half, and 16 is close to 17, and 15 is close to 16, and so on. There must be some definative cutoff. Funny story, I had friend get arrested for alchohol possesion 2 hours before midnight on his 21st birthday.
I'm not sure how it works in Colorado (and this wouldn't apply in this particular case anyway), but in my state if the offender is something like less than 3 years older than the victim (i.e. 19 year old guy and 17 year old girl), they are a "sex offender" but not a "sex predator", with different sentances and probabtion restrictions.
Why is the younger participant not charged with anything in these cases? If we've decided that it should be illegal for people under a certain age to have sex with people over a certain age, isn't the younger person just as guilty as the older person? We've decided that people under 21 should not drink. It is the minor who gets in trouble if they are caught drinking underage. Why is sex different?
Anybody else getting the penn state ad banner?? Awesome.
they should both get in troubl wrote:
Why is the younger participant not charged with anything in these cases? If we've decided that it should be illegal for people under a certain age to have sex with people over a certain age, isn't the younger person just as guilty as the older person? We've decided that people under 21 should not drink. It is the minor who gets in trouble if they are caught drinking underage. Why is sex different?
It is not illegal to have sex under the age of 18. It is not illegal to have sex with someone OVER the age of 18. It IS illegal to have sex with someone under the age of 18.
That is why.