Girl 17 Gets Life Sex Offender Status for Sex with Boy 15

Welcome to the Fascist States of America

Turned in by an uneducated , now regretful mom.

http://www.postcrescent.com/apps/pbc...0451/0/WRT0101

Quote:

---

Quoting kist

---

Welcome to the Fascist States of America

Turned in by an uneducated , now regretful mom.

http://www.postcrescent.com/apps/pbc...0451/0/WRT0101

---

Did you have a question? Or are you just here to rant?

- Carl

No sir I do not have a question but rather a statement. Which I felt, maybe incorrectly, that might interest some involved in the topic or searching for information.

Adding teens to the offenders list helps no one and waters gown the effectiveness of the list, worse then that teens don't understand the dangers. A full one half of teenagers have sex before legal age. I thought I'd try to warn a few teens now so that we don't end up with one half of all teenages on that list. They got a lot going against them all ready. However i think I overdid it with my political comment and out of respect to you I will remove that.

EDIT I see I can't remove it. However, people will each decide if I'm being overly critical or using hyperbole to make a point. I assure you no one will change their opinion on our country based on my remark.

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
Thomas Jefferson

Quote:

---

Quoting kist

---

No sir I do not have a question but rather a statement. Which I felt, maybe incorrectly, that might interest some involved in the topic or searching for information.

Adding teens to the offenders list helps no one and waters gown the effectiveness of the list, worse then that teens don't understand the dangers. A full one half of teenagers have sex before legal age. I thought I'd try to warn a few teens now so that we don't end up with one half of all teenagers on that list. They got a lot going against them all ready. However i think I overdid it with my political comment and out of respect to you I will remove that.

EDIT I see I can't remove it. However, people will each decide if I'm being overly critical or using hyperbole to make a point. I assure you no one will change their opinion on our country based on my remark.

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
Thomas Jefferson

---

This site is geared towards the discussion of legal topics as they are and not generally about political utopias. Not every state has a "Romeo and Juliet" exception law - nor should they. The age has to be set somewhere ... in some states, that age is very low. We are not always going to agree with the age so long as it is not a national age of consent. And, as is the way of our legal system, it is currently the states that make these decisions. You can disagree with it all you want. But, if you want to disagree with the law as posted, there are two threads at the bottom of the forums page where you can voice those opinions, wishes and desires. These boards are ostensibly for the discussion of the laws as it stands, and for people to ask questions about the law and not to make statements.

I have no problem with you taking a position that two minors above 14 and within two or three years of each other should not have to register as sex offenders for a consensual sex act (provided that IS what you are advocating), but this is not the law everywhere.

- Carl

The problem would be that she entered a guilty plea to this statute:

Quote:

---

Quoting Wisconsin Statutes, 948.05 Sexual exploitation of a child.

---

(1) Whoever does any of the following with knowledge of the character and content of the sexually explicit conduct involving the child may be penalized under sub. (2p):

(a) Employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any child to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of recording or displaying in any way the conduct.

(b) Records or displays in any way a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

(1m) Whoever produces, performs in, profits from, promotes, imports into the state, reproduces, advertises, sells, distributes, or possesses with intent to sell or distribute, any recording of a child engaging in sexually explicit conduct may be penalized under sub. (2p) if the person knows the character and content of the sexually explicit conduct involving the child and if the person knows or reasonably should know that the child engaging in the sexually explicit conduct has not attained the age of 18 years.

(2) A person responsible for a child's welfare who knowingly permits, allows or encourages the child to engage in sexually explicit conduct for a purpose proscribed in sub. (1) (a) or (b) or (1m) may be penalized under sub. (2p).

(2p)

(a) Except as provided in par. (b), a person who violates sub. (1), (1m), or (2) is guilty of a Class C felony.

(b) A person who violates sub. (1), (1m), or (2) is guilty of a Class F felony if the person is under 18 years of age when the offense occurs.

(3) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for violation of sub. (1) (a) or (b) or (2) if the defendant had reasonable cause to believe that the child had attained the age of 18 years. A defendant who raises this affirmative defense has the burden of proving this defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

---

It's not unreasonable to expect that a person convicted under that statute would be deserving of registration as a sex offender.

The article makes clear that she faces fifteen years of registration, not life:

Quote:

---

Waupaca County Circuit Judge John Hoffmann, who heard her case, sentenced Simons to four years of probation and ordered her on the registry, where she must remain for 15 years.

"For what she was convicted of, it was mandatory sex offender registration, which I had to impose," Hoffmann said.

---

The best solution here would probably be to give judges more flexibility to decide who should or should not be on the sex offender registry.

I checked the registry and did not find her name.

Jenna Simons, 19, of Waupaca was convicted of a sex crime when she was 17, after a consensual sexual encounter with a 15-year-old girl and 20-year-old man. She had no idea her plea would land her on the Wisconsin Sex Offender Registry.


I find that last sentence a tad hard to believe.

Quote:

---

Quoting seniorjudge

---

I find that last sentence a tad hard to believe.

---

Exactly. How could she have not?

Quote:

---

Quoting zedex

---

I checked the registry and did not find her name.

---

Oh really??? Huh. This is probably just some shit-ass story dreamed up by the liberal media for the sole purpose of selling news papers.

“Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.”

Mark Twain

While searching for details about a nine year old placed on the SOR and in a fit of moral outrage after reading a bunch of these cases, some of which I found at this blog: http://hummingbunny.wordpress.com/20...1/teenage-sex/ some of which I already knew, and some I couldn't find. -A Chicago man is driving down the street when a teenager ran into his path. Narrowly missing hitting the child he jumps from his car angrily shouting and shoving the lad and as a result is placed on the SOR- I can't find it any longer so he might have won an appeal.

15 years not life, I am sorry I missed that detail. Thank you for pointing it out.

There is also this jewel in Utah 13 year old with 12 year old http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/ZC071707.pdf

And cdwjava am I to understand you support the criminalization of teenage sex? Shall we make it retroactive and remove all references of it from literature and movies art and music? Maybe kick off the festivities with a good old fashioned book burning?

Quote:

---

Quoting kist

---

And cdwjava am I to understand you support the criminalization of teenage sex?

---

I support the enforcement of laws regarding unlawful sexual activity, yes.

I suppose you believe that it's okay if 13 year olds go flop on their back and get poked by whomever they wish?

The line has to be drawn somewhere, and each state gets to draw their own lines as they see fit based upon the standards and beliefs in that state.

Quote:

---

Shall we make it retroactive and remove all references of it from literature and movies art and music?

---

What?? :confused: Where did that come from? Many criminal and deviant acts are referenced in literature and in contemporary art and music. Is it always proper? Certainly not. Is it unlawful? Generally, no.

Quote:

---

Maybe kick off the festivities with a good old fashioned book burning?

---

Okay ... you got me with that one ... just WHAT are you rambling about?

Now, if you are attempting to take ridicule what you believe my religious beliefs are on the matter, I will make my position perfectly clear - relations outside of the covenant of marriage are sinful acts and should not be condoned. That being said, this is NOT the state of any law in the USA, so my belief in that regard is not relevant to the legal issues.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting kist

---

A Chicago man is driving down the street when a teenager ran into his path. Narrowly missing hitting the child he jumps from his car angrily shouting and shoving the lad and as a result is placed on the SOR- I can't find it any longer so he might have won an appeal.

---

Or it could be a bovine byproduct. Obviously, there would have to be more to the story.

It's pretty stupid, though, to get wrapped up in road rage and assault a child.

Age of consent laws have some very real purposes outside of "the man" wanting to control children's sexuality.

The age of consent, simply put, is the age at which a person is deemed able to weigh the possible consequences of sex and, if a child results, be able to care for it.

This has as much to do with the sexual functioning of children as it has to do with the height of oak trees.

Below a given age, children may be able to have sex... but don't understand that there is a long term set of consequences.

I don't know about you... but my taxes are high enough, thank you.

The obvious fix of course is to simply sterilize all persons at birth, repeal all age of consent laws so that we're not answering the same question 400 times a day, let those whom nature has seen fit to bless/curse with hormonal turmoil hump whoever they wish like gorillas, and then later offer up the "antidote" to those persons who have reached some predetermined set of circumstances encompassing age, maturity level threshold, financial ability to support offspring, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

However, even THAT solution, while it might stop the creation of children by parents who are in NO way ready or able to care for those children - won't stop related problems like STD's, teen dating violence, etc. etc.

The rather unfortunate fact is that while the human body might be ready, willing, and able at say age 12, our societal and nuclear-family structure is NOT ready (not to mention the emotional readyness of the youngster in question). Now if we were a tribal family society, where we all lived with extended family under one roof, grew or shepherded our own food, didn't need things like education, jobs, etc., then it wouldn't matter if we were grandparents at 25, great grandparents by 36 and so on.

In fact, research has shown that in just the last 300 years, the age of fertility has plumeted, in great part thanks to better nutrition. So anthropoligically, we're a successful species, and part of the side effect of that success is that our kids are ready to procreate earlier and earlier; but sociologically, we're not ready or able to support the success we've created. Things that make you go...hmmmmmmm.

Let's look at it this way, alright?

Teenage sex isn't some new social "problem". It's been going on since the dawn of time. My great-grandpa was 19 when he started dating my grandma. At the time, she was 16 years old. Was he a pedophile? HELL NO!! I'll whip anybody's ass who says otherwise!!

Did you know it's actually LESS of a problem today than it was 100 years ago? Back in the "good-ol-days" you had 25 year olds having sex with 14 year olds!!!! And worse, NOBODY gave a damn! But today it's a moral "outrage" for a 18 year old to date a 17 year old only a month younger than him. Okay, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but you get my point.

I can understand age of consent laws, but they have gotten ridiculous. Why does each state have different view points on when an individual can "do their business"? Texas (YEE HAW!) it's 17 (about right), Mississippi it's like 14, Missouri it's 16. Why the gap? Are Texas teenagers any different than Missouri teenagers? We need a national age of consent.

And finally, at 16 I had intercourse (three times) with a BEAUTIFUL 25 year old woman!! Did I consent? YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT!!!! I wish she was here now.... *dreams about her extreme hotness a bit* Anywho, I never have considered what she did to me as rape. I loved it! She didn't hurt me at all! I have a good job (yep, I'm back!), a house, and a decent bank account. I turned out just fine.

That said, I'm not krit's biggest fan. :D

A little more than 30 years ago I was molested at the tender age of 16 by a 31yr-old redhead divorcee that I did lawncare/yardwork for.......twas the best 47seconds of my life up to that point....but I digress!

I like Catherine's theory....in about 300 more years humans are gonna be boppin' like bunnies around age 7!;)

It's one thing to pass laws that govern the way we live, quite another to impose your idea of morality on everyone else. I think teen sex is normal but undesirable. I always taught my kids the dangers and pitfalls and made them go to youth every Wednesday. (It worked on the girl not so much on the boy) But for the state to get involved? This is the creeping tyranny our forefathers warned us about.

On what level can you connect, a government that makes normal human behavior a crime, with our founding fathers dream of democracy?

Quote:

---

"All people have a moral obligation to disobey an unjust law" Henry David Thoreau

---

I know some say it doesn't matter what the forefathers might have thought and that the constitution has outlived it's purpose - but I disagree. That's like the foolish puppet who managed to cut the puppet masters strings.

Human nature will rise above any restraint no matter what the threat, even fear of death. You cannot control teenagers with fear, it can't be done because they don't possess the mental capacities to control their hormones- as long as there are teens there will be teen sex.

One has to wonder after we've made teen sex a crime and it's had time to settle in, what will happen if a teen develops an STD? Likely the lucky will go to Mexico or Canada and get treated but many will die in misery. But even that won't stop teen sex. And the big one. What will pregnant teens do? If the state finds out they will be arrested jailed, and probably, given the nature of paradigm shifts, sterilized. It makes me wonder if this whole thing isn't about abortion.

Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide. John Adams

PS the church never burned books I was talking about Nazi's

Quote:

---

Quoting kist

---

It's one thing to pass laws that govern the way we live, quite another to impose your idea of morality on everyone else. I think teen sex is normal but undesirable. I always taught my kids the dangers and pitfalls and made them go to youth every Wednesday. (It worked on the girl not so much on the boy) But for the state to get involved? This is the creeping tyranny our forefathers warned us about.

---

So ... you are okay with kids and adults having relations then? Would you put ANY limit on the ages? If you wish to remain consistent, you would have to answer, "No". Frankly, I believe that most everyone would find that thought - unrestricted sexual access to children - to be repulsive.

Quote:

---

On what level can you connect, a government that makes normal human behavior a crime, with our founding fathers dream of democracy?

---

I have in front of me a copy of the Federalist papers and the US Constitution ... please cite me the passage that indicates the founding fathers would be offended at a law establishing an appropriate age for sexual relations.

There are many "normal" behaviors that can be a crime. We all have to discharge waste from our bodies, but you do not have a right to do it on the street. A normal behavior can be tempered by reasoned thought - this is why we have a brain and the ability to override biological desires through the use of God-given reasoning.

Quote:

---

Human nature will rise above any restraint no matter what the threat, even fear of death. You cannot control teenagers with fear, it can't be done because they don't possess the mental capacities to control their hormones- as long as there are teens there will be teen sex.

---

Can you be clear on this ... are you saying that you believe any child should be able to have sexual relations?

This sounds very reminiscent of NAMBLA's ideology.

Quote:

---

PS the church never burned books I was talking about Nazi's

---

Okay ... still made no sense. Nothing about laws concerning age of consent smack of a "Nazi" state, either.

As a note, we have many laws concerning age in this country (and, indeed, in most every country on the planet). Among them are the age to enter into contracts, age to vote, the age at which one can be charged criminally, the age at which one can join the military, be emancipated, buy cigarettes, buy alcohol, age limits on hiring and firing, retirement, health plans, etc. - it goes on and on ...

Laws concerning age limitations are everywhere. certainly you are not saying that all these attorneys and judges for 200 years have missed the boat on this, are you?

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting aardvarc

---

In fact, research has shown that in just the last 300 years, the age of fertility has plumeted, in great part thanks to better nutrition. So anthropoligically, we're a successful species, and part of the side effect of that success is that our kids are ready to procreate earlier and earlier; but sociologically, we're not ready or able to support the success we've created. Things that make you go...hmmmmmmm.

---

On a side note, the legal doctrine of the "fertile octogenarian" presumes, that any woman, as long as she is alive, is capable of reproducing.

Quote:

---

So ... you are okay with kids and adults having relations then? Would you put ANY limit on the ages? If you wish to remain consistent, you would have to answer, "No". Frankly, I believe that most everyone would find that thought - unrestricted sexual access to children - to be repulsive.

---

Sorry it took so long to reply but I've been out of town. You see my supply of little girls was running low . . . who said anything about adults having sex with children?? I find that interesting since everything I quoted was about teens being arrested for having sex with other teens. This points out a big problem with some police, not most and not you; but many have a prurient interest. Cops who work 5-6 hours, off the clock, to search a suspects PC for porn, destroying the chain of evidence in the process. Sex is more interesting then burglary

Quote:

---

I have in front of me a copy of the Federalist papers and the US Constitution ... please cite me the passage that indicates the founding fathers would be offended at a law establishing an appropriate age for sexual relations.

---

The age of consent was 10

Quote:

---

There are many "normal" behaviors that can be a crime. We all have to discharge waste from our bodies, but you do not have a right to do it on the street. A normal behavior can be tempered by reasoned thought - this is why we have a brain and the ability to override biological desires through the use of God-given reasoning.

---

There's a difference between doing it in the street and holding it until you're 18

Quote:

---

Can you be clear on this ... are you saying that you believe any child should be able to have sexual relations?

---

They're already able.

I'm saying in a democracy the state does not have the right to squash personal freedom and trample over the rights of parents in the name of the state. That form of government is called fascism

Quote:

---

This sounds very reminiscent of NAMBLA's ideology.

---

This is the third time you've changed the topic from teens having sex with teens to adults having sex with children

Quote:

---

As a note, we have many laws concerning age in this country (and, indeed, in most every country on the planet). Among them are the age to enter into contracts, age to vote, the age at which one can be charged criminally, the age at which one can join the military, be emancipated, buy cigarettes, buy alcohol, age limits on hiring and firing, retirement, health plans, etc. - it goes on and on ...

---

Can you produce the name of a country that criminalizes teens having sex with other teens? Besides Iran I mean.

Quote:

---

Laws concerning age limitations are everywhere. certainly you are not saying that all these attorneys and judges for 200 years have missed the boat on this, are you?

---

4th time

Quote:

---

Quoting kist

---

Can you produce the name of a country that criminalizes teens having sex with other teens? Besides Iran I mean.

---

I can. Almost every nation has an age of consent.

Oh yeah, can you PLEASE show me where the founding fathers decreed our age of consent to be 10 years old??? I don't believe a word of it!

And there is NOTHING "fascist" or unconstitutional about establishing age requirements for activity - even activity driven by biology and hormones. With such an age limit, we confer on minors the right to make life altering decisions of all kinds - or the right to be bamboozled into making decisions by adults of scurrilous morals. If the ONLY limitation is a lack of objection, then we might as well say hello to Sodom and Gomorra.

Like it or not, the states can and do restrict many activities by age (smoking, drinking, driving, voting, etc.). While the age level for sex differs by state and circumstance, the states have that right and the Constitution does not speak against that. If you want, advocate for a "Romeo and Juliet" law in your state and have done with it. Not all states will go for that, but many already have that - if not by statute, then de facto by practice (i.e. not filing on cases between willing 16 and 17 year old partners, for instance).

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

And there is NOTHING "fascist" or unconstitutional about establishing age requirements for activity - even activity driven by biology and hormones. With such an age limit, we confer on minors the right to make life altering decisions of all kinds - or the right to be bamboozled into making decisions by adults of scurrilous morals. If the ONLY limitation is a lack of objection, then we might as well say hello to Sodom and Gomorra.

Like it or not, the states can and do restrict many activities by age (smoking, drinking, driving, voting, etc.). While the age level for sex differs by state and circumstance, the states have that right and the Constitution does not speak against that. If you want, advocate for a "Romeo and Juliet" law in your state and have done with it. Not all states will go for that, but many already have that - if not by statute, then de facto by practice (i.e. not filing on cases between willing 16 and 17 year old partners, for instance).

- Carl

---

Can't you just arrest kist? Who needs a valid reason, evidence, probable cause, and a warrant? Never stopped ya before, huh Carl? *wink, wink; nudge, nudge* :p

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

I can. Almost every nation has an age of consent.

Oh yeah, can you PLEASE show me where the founding fathers decreed our age of consent to be 10 years old??? I don't believe a word of it!

---

The common law, from which America gets much of its precedents in the legal field, set the age of consent at age ten. In other words, participating in sexual activity with someone above the age of ten did not result in the crime of "statutory" rape or child molesting. The activity may have come under other statutory or informal social regulations, but anyone over the age of ten could consent to a sexual activity.

http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberone.htm

Again, where does it say that they can NOT set an age of consent? Your argument would seem to conclude that the state CAN do so ... then, of course, there is that little problem that we in the USA do not adhere entirely to the common law.

In any event, it is neither unconstitutional or fascist to establish age minimums to activity.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Again, where does it say that they can NOT set an age of consent? Your argument would seem to conclude that the state CAN do so ... then, of course, there is that little problem that we in the USA do not adhere entirely to the common law.

---

I have no problems with an age of consent. But NEVER in human history has a society tried to use the age of consent as justification for arresting teens for having sex with other teens, the age of consent has always been meant to stop adults from having sex with teens/children


On limiting activities based on age (voting driving etc)

All valid points and ones I agree with, but none of those are normal biological activities. children dropped on a remote island as babies would be unlikely to start smoking or drinking but every last one of them would engage in some form of sexual activity after puberty because that's human nature. My sole point in this debate is that sex should not be criminalized. Criminalize adults having sex with children or older children forcing their will on younger children, (in the OP that started this whole tread the 12 year old ultimately obeyed the seven year old's will and never used physical force which is why I pleaded with the OP not to turn him in, she did and he's now an official sex offender a mark that will haunt him the rest of his life.)

But if two 14 year old's want to have sex that's the parents business and societies business it's not police business.
-------end of public post

------start of post to Carl

The Sodom and Gomorrah reference is out of place. The bible is the main justification of pedophiles where marriage was established by sexual intercourse with children as young as 3. Remember there is the bowdlerized version of Judaism as believed by Christians and the modern Jewish view of Judaism which includes the warts.

Jesus fulfilled the old Testament law, and the major problems the church has is because they try and incorporate the old testament law into the law of grace.

The old testament is morally repulsive and utterly barbaric. Consider as Lot tries to pimp his daughters off on the sodomites. Or this scripture: Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

There are people today who use this scripture to justify Hiroshima and American bombings in various countries. The problem is Jesus' rules are just too simple for us to accept. It all comes down to "love your neighbor" and that's just too hard to do.

Cop: So I caught this 16 YO and 15 YO having sex in their car what should I do?
Jesus: Go thy way and sin no more.
Cop: What's that mean? Oh I get it arrest them and add their names to a list of other perverts, one they will never escape?
Jesus: No, no! Love thy neighbor as thyself.
Cop: Try to get jail time too? Wow what a great idea. Thanks Jesus

Quote:

---

Quoting kist

---

I have no problems with an age of consent. But NEVER in human history has a society tried to use the age of consent as justification for arresting teens for having sex with other teens, the age of consent has always been meant to stop adults from having sex with teens/children

---

Then ... why are there age of consent laws in most every country?

Quote:

---

All valid points and ones I agree with, but none of those are normal biological activities.

---

Normal biology has nothing to do with the legal environment. We are not rutting beasts, we are human beings with brains and consciences for pete's sake.

Quote:

---

But if two 14 year old's want to have sex that's the parents business and societies business it's not police business.

---

If the state law holds that such activity is unlawful, then it IS the state's business ... and thus, the business of the police.

Quote:

---

The Sodom and Gomorrah reference is out of place.

---

Hardly. the reference was to illustrate a point, not to cite as support for any particular argument or legal issue.

Bottom line remains - establishing age of consent laws are constitutional. Since you oppose them, begin your movement to remove them or add those "Romeo and Juliet" exceptions.

Good luck.

- carl

I'm all for consent laws, never said I was against them.

I am for consent laws that protect teens from adults. I am against the perversion of those laws in an effort to criminalize teens for having sex with other teens.

You have no kids I guess, I do. Could you take your teen to jail, knowing he will be marked the rest of his life and will spend years in prison because he and his teen date let things get out of hand in the back of the family car? A society that allows that is way past doomed, it's already imploding.



http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp...nav=menu73_2_5

Quote:

---

Quoting kist

---

I'm all for consent laws, never said I was against them.

I am for consent laws that protect teens from adults. I am against the perversion of those laws in an effort to criminalize teens for having sex with other teens.

---

An adult is age 18 in most states ... but, isn't that also a teen? Doesn't that kind fly against what you argue?

And saying that 18 is an adult, isn't that also arbitrary in your view?

So, where should the cutoff be? 13 and 10? 16 and 14? What's okay, and why?

Quote:

---

You have no kids I guess, I do.

---

I got a group of 'em. Including foster kids.

Quote:

---

Could you take your teen to jail, knowing he will be marked the rest of his life and will spend years in prison because he and his teen date let things get out of hand in the back of the family car?

---

In my state that wouldn't happen unless he was diddling a small child. In any event, I wouldn't be taking my child to jail - if one of 'em gets in trouble like that, someone else will be taking care of it.

And on a side note, I have been on duty and had to transport and file a report for two of my boys trespassing at the school, and have had to arrest one of my foster daughters on two separate occasions - once for theft of a cell phone and once for trespassing in a residence (she was looking for stuff to steal). So, yeah, they are held accountable.

Quote:

---

A society that allows that is way past doomed, it's already imploding.

---

As a virtually valueless society that holds to little or no moral standard, we already ARE imploding. The parallels to Rome are ominous.

If you do not like the age of consent laws, advocate to change them in your state.

- Carl

It's not so much the sex between teenagers that age of consent laws are intended to address, but rather the all too common side effects of that sex - including pregnancies where the teens involved are in no way prepared to care or provide for those children (emotionally, financially, or otherwise), the STDs, and other long term consequences of such actions. At the most basic level, the reason is that teens have vastly under-developed capabilities to predict or appreciate the consequences of their actions on themselves, and on others (including any resulting children, the grandparents who end up defacto raising the child, and the rest of us in society who end up chipping in when the single parent goes on the public dole and the other half can't/won't pay support). The girl looking for a little male affection is focused on doing what it takes to GET that affection, often erronerously believing (as we hear so often) that putting out means the momentarily happy couple will be together forever; while the guys (sorry guys) are often blinded by one eye, rather than guided by two, throwing caution to the wind until a the hormonal tide has receeded.

Of course it's a valid arguement that many adults suffer from these same issues, and they too create unintended children, pass STD's, etc. - but the big difference is that the law to a much greater degree expects adults to be accountable for their actions - and has varying levels of sanctions applicable to "encourage" such adults to be able to support children that they create, be held accountable for STDs the knowlingly pass, etc.

I'm in personal agreement with you that putting sex offender labels and registration and other requirements on those who themselves are minors and engaging in what might otherwise be consentual sex can be ludicrous. I think in cases like these that such sanctions tend to be more punative than protective and thus provide little "helpful" impetus - BUT, if those are the legislated statutes and are part of mandated sentences in the jurisdiction in question, then the answer rests, as Carl has suggested, in getting that part of "the system" changed. The difficulty is in suggesting, and supporting with vast amounts of data testified to by experts, a means whereby some replacement system or procedure can:

1) Function as a preventative or deterrent (remember, not having clear appreciation about consequences of actions is a major factor in ALL age-related laws - so putting the law in writing and giving specific ages and consequences is important)

2) Function to punish those who violate such laws to deter re-offending and serve as a warning to others - unless you plan to find someone else to punish for teens having sex, like the parents of both teens (let the Constitutional challenges begin!). When your dog gets out of your yard, invades my yard and impregnates my dog, I have grounds to sue you for damages. If our dogs are BOTH running loose and hump in the alleyway, we're both at fault, but only one of us gets the puppies, the vet bills, etc.

3) Function to provide support and/or a sense of justice for the "victims" of such crimes, even when those victims are willing participants (again, willing because at the time, they fail to see long term consequences, or have romantic ideals about what they're getting into, rather than a sense of reality about the whole situation). Unlike many other crimes, crimes of a sexual nature between teens usually lack elements of intent, and maybe that's where a fresh look at legislation should begin. Yet, intent aside, the negative consequences of such teen sex are still on the table and must be addressed.

Spot on as always. The big things in American life are always forced on society through the courts or through legislation.

The topic of criminalizing teen sex was advanced in Germany and the country turned on their legislators like mad dogs. We don't get that opportunity in America. We get to vote for different colored politicians who are virtually identical except appearance.

It's not advantages to have 50 different versions of a law in todays world. When I was a kid meeting someone from another state was a big deal. Seeing an out of state plate made us stare. Now who even notices?

We have the largest prison population of any country in history - even China. And prison conditions are deplorable. Because there is a color TV in the day room (like you can buy a black and white anymore) that no one ever gets to watch, because they're locked in their cells 23 hours per day, people keep perpetuating the myth of country club prisons. I've been in a fair share of state prisons and they are terrible.

Any day now non-violent offenders will exceed violent offenders. All bureaucracy must feed and grow to remain alive. What we're seeing is a class of new laws that will increase the prison population for no net gain to society, and indeed a huge net loss.

[quote]An adult is age 18 in most states ... but, isn't that also a teen? Doesn't that kind fly against what you argue?

And saying that 18 is an adult, isn't that also arbitrary in your view?

So, where should the cutoff be? 13 and 10? 16 and 14? What's okay, and why?
[quote]

The age of adulthood is a mess. And to tell the truth I don't even know what it is officially 18 or 21. I think 21 should be the age of adulthood.

In Japan it's age 20 and everyone makes a big deal on your "coming of age" day. It's a major moment in your life and you understand that you've crossed a threshold.

The vote was lowered because of all the 18 year olds dieing in Vietnam. But instead of lowering the voting age they should have raised the draft/enlistment age. 18 is too young to send a kid to war.

Our country, above all others, faces multi-faceted difficulties in these matters because more than anyone else, we are a blend of cultures.

In some African tribes, a male is considered an adult at 12, ready to marry, own land, sire children, and care for them (with the help from extended family in a tribal structure, a world away from OUR "every man for himself" society). Some of them also encourage young men to "practice" having sex on their younger male siblings in preparation for marriage (endurance exercises, if you will) - with no social stigma whatsoever associated. The younger sibling isn't emotionally traumatized because the tribe as a whole consents that such practice is for the good of the couple to be, and thus there is no negative shadow cast on what our culture would consider to be the "victim" (a key facet of victimology is that many victims don't feel they are victims until they are told they are, or, more often are treated like they are - especially treated as "damaged goods" in the case of sexually related activities). And, as the practicing parties are siblings, there is generally a modicum of care and carefullness involved - the whole point being about the ablity to "do it right" and develop skills for the benefit of the soon-to-be bride - so it's not just an older sibling having at a younger sibling for immediate self gratification without regard to the younger.

Similarly, Jewish culture with the Bas and Bat Mitzvahs - signaling adulthood and a call to self-responsibility at a much younger age than for your typical American teen - BUT, again, with the benefit of much greater extent of community involvement and long term formal instruction on what it MEANS to be an adult, and what is expected of an adult (a responsibility our culture too often relegates to schools, media, courts, law enforcement, etc.).

So I would argue that generally, age in an of itself is probably the least effective manner of determining readyness for sexual interludes. Yet one must draw the line somewhere, and until or unless we as American society can agree on some other measureable standard to determine that an individual teen meets some other criteria for adulthood, or we as a society as a whole have some epiphany and decide to hold ourselves to some higher standard where good old fashioned talks and discussions and "what-if" scenarios are more valuable use of time than some overtime to be able to provide an Xbox, I don't see the random age selection method changing.

Going back to my previous post, it's very easy to want to hold individual parents responsible when unsupervised teens hook up for a successful baby-making session. Some would want to crucify the parents, whip them with a stick, for not having an eye on their child 24/7/365. Some cultures do that, and it works for them. But American culture is all about freedoms; sometimes even detrimentally so. Who as a parent hasn't had their child call them "dictator", "Hitler", etc. - and at some level, even if just for a moment, had a negative knee-jerk emotional reaction to it? That's the deep, psychological value of freedom talking. Most of us don't want to be perceived as "freedom takers", even when we're doing it for the good of the individual (child) in question.

How many of us have sat in a courtroom where one parent wants to tell the court that the other parent shouldn't EVER be allowed to be around the child they created together, because they are an evil, criminal, jobless, diseased, addicted, uneducated, immature, loser? And what does the judge say? "Well, you CHOSE them to be a parent." Wow - do we SUCK at making choices sometimes or what? BUT, most of us would fight to the death, or let our friends, family, neighbors fight to the death on our behalf, to PROTECT our ability to make those choices.

So long as the people (people including parents who want to parent in their OWN style) get to vote, and the people want to have the ability to make choices that injure society in the long run for the benefit the individual today, that won't change - and I'm not necessarily argueing that it should, just pointing out that change in our social structure really can't come from the top down (government), it has to come from the bottom, up (individuals).

It would be so much easier if we had an all powerful monarch or dictator to set the standard and impose prevention or sanctions for the greater good (remember, write in "AARDVARC for President" this November!), yet I have this vague recollection of Ms. Reisling, my second grade teacher, telling us about how we used to have that and we had this whole revolution thing happen ....something about tea....


Sorry everyone for the literary vomit above, I just haven't had my coffee yet!

I have always thought laws should be uniform across the country, be it voting, military, sexual, criminal....etc.

Having so many variables from state to state, county to county makes things complex for anyone to figure out and it creates too many loopholes for criminals to use.

I kinda understand where Kist is coming from, but I don't agree with all the theories presented. Teen on teen sex is one thing and if there are two 15 year olds playing with each other, who should be charged for the crime? Both are willing participants, however, the law being slanted in the woman's favor makes the boy the criminal and the girl go free to do another boy. Not fair. In this case, both should be charged equally and sentenced equally, without bias. But it just ain't so.

The age of consent was designed for adults to keep their hands off kids, but it also makes kids criminals. Therefore, if we had uniform laws and they were punishable equally, there should be no problem.

I also understand that as animals first, humans second, hormones take control and those too young to understand the consequences often indulge in adult activities without the ability to reason right from wrong, good from bad, or lifetime of raising kids. It has been said before that what seperates us from animals is the ability to reason. Hormornes and reasoning just don't go together in the same sentence.

Now, I was 9 when the girl in our neighborhood wanted to show me "something" and I did not resist. I actually enjoyed it. Very much, even. So much so, she showed me alot of "somethings". That isn't to say I feel my daughter should expirience what I did. I have the ability to reason whereas before I did not. Animal instinct is intact and undamaged by time, but human reasoning has come of age.

If there were "across the board" laws, clear and consise, many of today's problems within society would either go away or fester into other issues. But, the laws would be easy to read, easy to understand, and penalties would be equal. And that is where I take issue with current laws.

Why is that the male is viewed as the predator and the girl is always the victim? I knew one girl when I was growing up that went down the line, one boy after another. She misrepresented her age and slept with many boys at the age of 13, she was branded for life as it was common knowledge she had been with over 50 boys. Out of the known 50 or so, there were, at one time, 16 in the county jail. But.. SHE was the victim.

Solution: uniformity in laws and penal codes. Kids in New York are no better than those anywhere else.

Quote:

---

Quoting zedex

---

t laws.

Solution: uniformity in laws and penal codes. Kids in New York are no better than those anywhere else.

---

To date there is not uniform laws on such. The Commissioners on Uniform state laws have passed comprehensive legislation that many/most states have adopted, in part or in full, but none address sex crimes, as you can see from the list:

http://www.nccusl.org/Update/Desktop...dex=2&tabid=60

As far as the Model Penal Code from the American Law Institute, who also publishes the Restatement of the Law of Torts:

Use:

The MPC is not law in any jurisdiction of the United States; however, it served and continues to serve as a basis for the replacement of existing criminal codes in over two-thirds of US states.[2] Though many states only adopt portions of the MPC, states such as New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Oregon have enacted almost all of the provisions.

On rare occasions the courts will turn to the MPC for its commentary on the law and use it to seek guidance in interpreting non-code criminal statutes. It is also used frequently as a tool for comparison.



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


On a side note, I have had the need at times in the past to read through the Restatement at the law library doing Tort resarch. I found it to be a very resourceful legal encyclopedia.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

And there is NOTHING "fascist" or unconstitutional about establishing age requirements for activity - even activity driven by biology and hormones. With such an age limit, we confer on minors the right to make life altering decisions of all kinds - or the right to be bamboozled into making decisions by adults of scurrilous morals. If the ONLY limitation is a lack of objection, then we might as well say hello to Sodom and Gomorra.

Like it or not, the states can and do restrict many activities by age (smoking, drinking, driving, voting, etc.). While the age level for sex differs by state and circumstance, the states have that right and the Constitution does not speak against that. If you want, advocate for a "Romeo and Juliet" law in your state and have done with it. Not all states will go for that, but many already have that - if not by statute, then de facto by practice (i.e. not filing on cases between willing 16 and 17 year old partners, for instance).

- Carl

---

It would seem that in all your God-fearing-must-do-everything-the-state-says-and-read-my-bible-(all 20 lines of it you agree with anyway), you missed one important thing about your Sodom and Gomorra [sic] analogue. Despite the common myth (read lie) that the whack-job fundies successful pawn off as truth to the weaker minded folks, nothing in Sodom and Gomorra [sic] had to do with sex. They were smited merely for how they received a messenger of God. I know that actually having read the bible isn't relevant to being a Christian - I know this because revelations specifically tells you that you aren't - but at least make your analogues biblically accurate, if not relevant.

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

I can. Almost every nation has an age of consent.

Oh yeah, can you PLEASE show me where the founding fathers decreed our age of consent to be 10 years old??? I don't believe a word of it!

---

Limiting the statement to be read that the FF's specifically decried it as such is as good a view as history as saying they invented speaking. As you might have noticed, the litmus test routinely announced in the highest courts in the land deals not with what the founding fathers expressly said in all circumstances, but rather what they would have understood something mean as based on their traditions to that point. This would involve tracing their history (sorry, Carl, but reading the Federalist Papers is a poor attempt at doing so considering that other papers were written in that time and before it which bear on the topic at hand.)

Oh yeah, curiously enough, women were frequently married off and bearing children by the age of 13 back in those days. So, there's at least anecdotal evidence that the age of consent, which was a legal doctrine back then, was younger than it is now in any tainted-by-the-christian-morals States in this extremely conservative Nation.

[QUOTE=kist;241549][quote]An adult is age 18 in most states ... but, isn't that also a teen? Doesn't that kind fly against what you argue?

And saying that 18 is an adult, isn't that also arbitrary in your view?

So, where should the cutoff be? 13 and 10? 16 and 14? What's okay, and why?

Quote:

---

The age of adulthood is a mess. And to tell the truth I don't even know what it is officially 18 or 21. I think 21 should be the age of adulthood.

In Japan it's age 20 and everyone makes a big deal on your "coming of age" day. It's a major moment in your life and you understand that you've crossed a threshold.

The vote was lowered because of all the 18 year olds dieing in Vietnam. But instead of lowering the voting age they should have raised the draft/enlistment age. 18 is too young to send a kid to war.

---

Also consider that one's age in most Asian countries is calculated to be roughly 1 year older than we consider it in the States. It's from conception, not birth.

The fundies want to argue that life starts at conception, so abortion is murder, but refuse to acknowledge that if that's when life starts, then the 15 year old in this case is actually 16 making the point moot. I digress.

You are certainly free to move to those countries and boink all the teens you wish. However here we dont!

Quote:

---

Quoting panther10758

---

You are certainly free to move to those countries and boink all the teens you wish. However here we dont!

---

I don't think I mentioned anything about my wishes... Since this thread is about debate and not about legal advice, my question is: How is it that european teens can boink each other freely, while in the US are ragarded as raping each other? Are they a different species? Or what...?