Sex Crimes Trials

[mochinist]

I have just read through all the posts on this thread. I can relate to the father and the 24 year old women. I understand that the law is the law. But sometime the law does not allow for variables. You are all aware that there is always the exception. But that is all here nor there. What we think and what is said here does not matter. We are all intitled to our opinion. What matters is what is presented during trial and what the jury decides what is true and what is not. Until then we should just hope and pray that the truth is found and judgement is handed out justly.

[blueeagle]

I have just read through all the posts on this thread. I can relate to the father and the 24 year old women. I understand that the law is the law. But sometime the law does not allow for variables. You are all aware that there is always the exception. But that is all here nor there. What we think and what is said here does not matter. We are all intitled to our opinion. What matters is what is presented during trial and what the jury decides what is true and what is not. Until then we should just hope and pray that the truth is found and judgement is handed out justly.

Well said my friend. Very well said. Who are we to play jury?

[cdwjava]

Well said my friend. Very well said. Who are we to play jury?

But we're not playing the jury - at least I am not. But, I am placing any LEGAL blame for sexual activity between the two squarely on the lap of the adult female because that is where the law says it shall go. There are moral lapses aplenty here, but we do not prosecute moral offenses (too bad on that), we investigate and prosecute crimes ... especially when they are felony sex crimes.

- Carl

[blueeagle]

But we're not playing the jury - at least I am not. But, I am placing any LEGAL blame for sexual activity between the two squarely on the lap of the adult female because that is where the law says it shall go. There are moral lapses aplenty here, but we do not prosecute moral offenses (too bad on that), we investigate and prosecute crimes ... especially when they are felony sex crimes.

- Carl

Carl, that comment was not address towards you. You're probably one of the most civil people I've seen post here.

[cdwjava]

Carl, that comment was not address towards you. You're probably one of the most civil people I've seen post here.

Thank you for that.

No, I did not think it was directed to me, but I felt some need to comment on the thought that anyone here was acting as a jury. I ALMOST went back to some of your old posts to demonstrate where you have jumped to conclusions, too ...

- Carl

[blueeagle]

Thank you for that.

No, I did not think it was directed to me, but I felt some need to comment on the thought that anyone here was acting as a jury. I ALMOST went back to some of your old posts to demonstrate where you have jumped to conclusions, too ...

- Carl

I'll pardon you... this time.

[mochinist]

I would like to play devils advocate. What if the woman who witnessed the act saw the boy performing oral sex on the woman and then saw them having intercourse in the missionary or pardon the term doggie position. Now she is not seen as being in the dominate position as I believe was stated. How would this be to be percieved to everyone who posted. would everyone think that she was this big bad sex maniax that didn't care about the age of her partner.
I am just trying to show how what is seen is not always what it suggests.
I'm 99% sure in assuming that everyone that has sex doesnot only have it in the missionary position. And it not just the man who performs oral sex.
There are levels of severity in each crime and I would like to say again that we can only hope the the truth comes out in court and the sentance fits the crime.

[cdwjava]

Now she is not seen as being in the dominate position as I believe was stated.

She was the adult ... legally, she was in the position of authority and expected to be the responsible party. This has nothing to do with sexual positions and relative dominance.

Even if the boy directed the entire encounter, unless he held a gun to her head or otherwise FORCED her to have sex, she was the guilty party. Also note that given that the charge is effectively STATUTORY rape, it appears that the theory holds that both parties were otherwise consenting - in other words, no force was used by anyone.

- Carl

[panther10758]

I find it odd that a brand new member of this site (join date Feb 16) with only three post (all on this thread) shows up and creates a thread related to an earlier thread? It is my suspciion that the OP is one of the other posters who got flack for minimizing, justifying, making light of situation and, possibly condoning it! Hiding behind new ID to avoid further disdain from members. Some of these very threads were closed as the subject got off main topic and opinions took over. Facts are as Carl says nothing anyone posts will change the wrong this woman did to this young boy. Ther eis no justification or any means to mimimize the act. anyone doing so risks being called uncaring towards the safety of a minor IMHO

[gigirle]

Also note that given that the charge is effectively STATUTORY rape, it appears that the theory holds that both parties were otherwise consenting - in other words, no force was used by anyone.

Very nice of you to point out Carl. There was no force here....he consented. And I get that he is not legally old enough to give concent but IMHO, it removes the innocence of the victim and violence of what, I feel "rape" is really about.