Good. I hope the doors SLAM because this is NOT the place where someone can get rational advice on their issues. This is some kind of scab picking venus fly trap honey pot where you come hoping for help and you leave ready to blow your brains out. There is a difference between cold hard truth and pointless name calling and doom saying.
My experience has been that all this positivity for the person who's most likely goes away once he realizes that
there are plenty of young girls he hasn't impregnated yet. She'll be so upset by then, she'll be posting about whether or not she can get him on statutory charges. Let's be like the nature channel, ignore your urge to help. Sit back and watch the carnage instead.
Marry to cover a crime?
Honey, marriage takes two people to do. And a lot of LOVE, hard work, communication. Marrying to save his ass is not going to make things better.
15 and pregnant by an 18 year old. 18 year old is guilty of Statutory Rape. Plain and simple. Anyone knowing about it and not reporting can be guilty and charged as an accessory. And yes, the parents of the 15 year old can face charges - as they did not know where their kid was, they can face charges of child neglect.
Girlfriend needs to get to a doctor for proper pre-natal care.
Don't lie about who the father is. That kid has the right to know of any medical conditions that run in the family. He/she has the right to know his/her family.
Boyfriend is adult enough to have sex....he should also be adult enough to face the charges, and to provide for his kid.
When taken in context to what I was saying the Federal definition and subsequent laws can and should be considered when making a decision that would affect the lives of others. As the moral issue is what needs to be defined by the poster it would be relevant in trying to determine how they feel in regards to the minimal standards. As an example if a parent determines that their 13 year old is mature enough to have consensual sex with a person who is less than 4 years older then them. This would fall within the minimal standard and may help the parent decide what to do. If the 13 year old has consensual sex with someone who is more than 4 years their senior then this would be outside the minimal standard.
My personal opinion on this is not stated here. If the OP wants my personal opinion they can ask for it.
As for the argument about marriage I am not going to go there as the OP did not choose to discuss this point.
TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 151—CHILD PROTECTION AND SAFETY
SUBCHAPTER I—SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION
SUBCHAPTER II—CIVIL COMMITMENT OF DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDERS
SUBCHAPTER III—GRANTS AND OTHER PROVISIONSTITLE 42 > CHAPTER 151 > SUBCHAPTER I > Part A
Part A—Sex Offender Registration and NotificationThe law you cited is how the fed treats offenders for the purposes of establishing a sex offender registry. It does not limit nor impose requirements that the states require or except any age of person to be considered for a crime the state enacts.§ 16911. Relevant definitions, including Amie Zyla expansion of sex offender definition and expanded inclusion of child predators
So, regardless of what the federal law states as the definition of a child molester, by Florida law, the guy is a child molester:
Notice the title of the law? Molestation. That means, if the crime fits, he is a molester and since it was a child, he is a child molester.(5) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS MOLESTATION. --
(a) A person who intentionally touches in a lewd or lascivious manner the breasts, genitals, genital area, or buttocks, or the clothing covering them, of a person less than 16 years of age, or forces or entices a person under 16 years of age to so touch the perpetrator, commits lewd or lascivious molestation.
(b) An offender 18 years of age or older who commits lewd or lascivious molestation against a victim less than 12 years of age commits a life felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082(3)(a)4.
from the statute:The creation of the state law may not exceed the limitations set by the federal government. In this respect the state may not make the difference in age greater than the 4 years nor may the state make the minimum age of consent less than 13. Thus the minimum age can be any age from 13 up and the difference in age from 4 years down.
Notice: for the purposes of this chapter.(C) Offenses involving consensual sexual conduct
An offense involving consensual sexual conduct is not a sex offense for the purposes of this subchapter if the victim was an adult, unless the adult was under the custodial authority of the offender at the time of the offense, or if the victim was at least 13 years old and the offender was not more than 4 years older than the victim.
also note that that states: consensual sexual conduct. You need to realize that many states specifically state a child of a certain age cannot consent to sex. As such, that section of the law would not apply.
btw: I happen to know a guy that is on a sex offense registry. When the crime was committed, he was 16. The girl was 15. The sex, as far as each of the participants was concerned was consensual. Explain how your law prevents that from being considered a crime and prevents him from being listed on a sex offender registry.
You took one section of a statute and tried to apply it (improperly) to some claim the feds can somehow limit what a state can consider a crime. You are wrong.
I believe that I covered that subject well enough, however, I do sometimes tend to speak or write above others comprehension levels. If this is the case here let me know and I will try to explain in simpler terms.also note that that states: consensual sexual conduct. You need to realize that many states specifically state a child of a certain age cannot consent to sex. As such, that section of the law would not apply.
Now as for the argument that I misapplied the federal definition, I would be glad to help you understand the fundamental concepts of our system of government here in the US. I would recommend you start with The Federalist Papers. PM me and I will give you links to some great information.
I apologize to the OP if we have gotten "off the track" a bit.
what the Hell have you been smoking. I cited the law (at least one of them) that the guy has broken. It's an 18 yo guy and a 15 you girl. She's pregnant. It requires a criminal act to have gotten her pregnant.noprimenumbers;538151]The OP did not mention that the boy was suspected, charged, or convicted of a crime that would fit within the criteria needed to define him as any type of criminal.
Based on the information presented, damn straight.You however have already convicted him.
It is presumed innocence until proven otherwise. I'm accepting the OP's statements as factual. That means the guy is guilty.Remember it is innocence before guilt.
No need to be objective here. OP supplied the statements that would, if proven out, will prove the guys guilt.Objectivity is needed to give vital impartial information for one to base a decision on. Please work on this in the future.
You haven't covered anything. You cited an inapplicable federal statute suggesting it determined what crimes a state can enact and enforce. It had nothing to do with the actual criminal acts.I believe that I covered that subject well enough, however, I do sometimes tend to speak or write above others comprehension levels. If this is the case here let me know and I will try to explain in simpler terms.
If your knowledge is anything such as you have presented so far, I doubt you will understand the Federalist papers (which, btw, are not law but one of several sources referred to in determining Constitutional issues), you have nothing you can teach me. As to speaking above me; believe whatever you want to believe.Now as for the argument that I misapplied the federal definition, I would be glad to help you understand the fundamental concepts of our system of government here in the US. I would recommend you start with The Federalist Papers. PM me and I will give you links to some great information.