Well, assuming Miachael Jackson wins his latest court case…
<<With murder, the question is the ability to plan it. You don’t need to be able to legally consent to anything to do that. Sometimes, there’s also the issue of remorse. And lastly, a kid who has sex is not (under normal circumstances) going to be a danger to society. Somebody who commits murder might be, which is why the possibility of real jail time is sometimes made available.
>>
NOT true. Teenagers have been charged as adults for murders and rapes WITHOUT premeditation. Brutality is just as a much of a deciding factor as premeditation in charging juveniles as adults.
Here is the issue to me at core: If you kill someone brutally at 14, you can be charged as an adult. You are RESPONSIBLE for your crime as an adult. Your actions are deemed to be deserving the punishment an adult would receive. They are a perpetrator and deserve punishment. Yet if that same 14 year old decides he wants to have sex with a 20 year old man, it’s child rape. HOW DOES THAT WORK OUT? I don’t CARE who is punished or about being a danger to society, you are treating a 14 year old like a child in one instance and an adult in another, depending on how much their act pisses society off. If they have sex, they’re the victim. If the kill someone, they’re evil and should be prosecuted as an adult. It’s picking and choosing and I don’t understand it.
And you’re right about California… Two sixteen year olds have sex, both are committing a crime.
There might be a window of opportunity for criminal prosecution under RICO (“Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations”) – or Title IX of a 1970 law written to crack down on The Mob. There’s a lengthening history of the feds’ success in being granted the power by the courts to prosecute various organizations under the rubric of RICO; e.g., in this recent lawsuit against Tyson Foods.
From the wording of the statute it doesn’t appear to be limited to "business"es per se; the statute refers to “any association” and to “organizations” as subject to the law, and pointedly includes “labor unions” as being under its purview. Presumably, then, all sorts of NGOs, advocacy groups, and whatnot could fall under RICO’s shadow. Additionally, two of the many categories of criminal activity indictable under the RICO statute are “kidnapping” and “white slavery”; many acts of pedophilic rape, molestation, and pornographic exploitation of children have aspects of one or both of those felony categories. IANAL, but I bet the feds would have a case if it could be established that many or most of the higher officers of NAMBLA were systematically involved in, say, the creation or distribution of (or perhaps even assisting pedophiles in finding sources of, as in over the Internet) child pornography.
One of the founding members of NAMBLA has been in the news quite a bit, recently – the recently convicted pedophile and defrocked priest Shanley, he who preyed on so many boys in the Boston diocese. I’d be very surprised if there were any members of NAMBLA who had never broken any pedophilia-related laws (even if many have “limited” themselves to the possession of kiddie porn), but “knowing” that to be the case and proving it in a lawful manner are two very different things.
[quote]
“white slavery”[/uote]
Any kind of slavery. I assure you, RICO was written well after all slavery was outlawed. IIRC, it does refer to kidnapping and enslavement in a variety of fashion, however, which does include the white-slavery market.
Which gets back to the other point I raised: locking up people who are dangerous.
I get it, I get it, I get it. You don’t have to agree with me. The reason they’re treated differently is the question of being dangerous to someone else. A kid who has sex with an adult, whether it’s consensual or forced, is not a danger to someone else. One who kills another person might be. I’m not saying you have to buy the logic, but it’s not the most irrational thing I’ve ever heard.
Wrong.
It’s a misdemeanor, but that’s still a crime.
Unless I’m misreading this, a 16-year-old having sex with someone his/her own age would definitely be exempt.
I believe the guy was on parole and it was his probation officer who discovered his writings. As part of his parole, he was ordered not to possess or obtain any pornography, especially child porn. However, the judged ruled that his writing out of his experiences and/or his fantasies constituted obtain pornography or some such nonsense. :dubious: :dubious: :dubious: :dubious: :dubious: :dubious: :dubious: :dubious: :dubious:
You must be misreading it:
Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years older or three years younger than the perpetrator, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Take two 16 year olds, Adam and Eve. Adam is “any person”, and he is engaging in sexual intercourse with “a minor”, Eve. Eve is not more than three years older than “the perpetrator”, Adam, nor is she more than three years younger - she’s the same age. Adam is therefore “guilty of a misdemeanor”. The same logic applies to Eve, so they’re both guilty.
This doesn’t make sense. So is it ok for a 20 year old to have sex with a 16 year old, but and 18 year old would be a criminal? :dubious:
The 20 year old just isn’t covered by that part of the law. He’s covered by the next paragraph:
(c) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual
intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than
the perpetrator is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and
shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one
year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.