[QUOTE=Mr2001]
Of course it was a crime. But my point, which you have failed to address, is that it’s a far different crime from nonconsensual contact. There’s a huge difference between flattering a 14 year old girl and convincing her to have sex with you, and physically holding her down and raping her. If you hand out the same sentence for both, you insult the real rape victims.
[/QUOTE]
Sexual relations with a person who does not have the intellectual or emotional ability to make appropriate decisions is rape. If the person is underage it is called statutory rape. If the victim is mentally impaired or has psychological disorders that prevent them from making logical choices or foreseeing the consequences of their actions, then the perpetrator has taken advantage and is committing rape.
[QUOTE=Mr2001]
That’s not what I said at all. Get a grip. .
[/QUOTE]
You referred to consensual sex with a minor. Since we cannot scan everyone’s brain to determine their chronological, intellectual and emotional age the law has to provide a default value of what is the chronological age of consent, not a maturity level. The law says you are too young to be held accountable for signing a contract, you cannot be held accountable. If the law says the 14 year old is too young to have sex whether they agree to it or not then you have broken the law. No questions asked. End of discussion Game over, You are now going to PMITA prison.
[QUOTE=Mr2001]
You want to outlaw thoughts, huh? Good luck with that.
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t that what “hate crime” legislation is about? Also, what about the person whose license is revoked for DUIs or has a Breathalyzer lock put on his car? He has served his sentence but he is still being “punished” for a crime he might or might not commit. Gee, let’s just let them off the hook. Give the drunk back his license and put him behind the wheel of his Buick. I’ll feel so much better knowing that he is free to drive again.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
You’ve repeatedly missed the point here, erie. I know what’s legal and what isn’t. We’re talking about whether or not the law is right, because you’re saying that anyone who violates the law should be jailed for life. If you’re going to start jailing people for life for breaking the law, the law had better be right.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
I think 17 and 18 is ridiculous, myself.
[/QUOTE]
I agree. 16 is marginal.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
…which is so biased that it calls into question the judgment of everybody making these laws.
[/QUOTE]
Totally agree. One age only.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
…I don’t want to explain this to the father of a sex assault victim, but there’s such a thing as overkill. Is this really a good use of police resources? I think it’d be hard to justify.
[/QUOTE]
This is currently done in Florida as part of the Jessica Lundsford law. It is a passive monitoring system, similar to the electronic ankle monitors parolees wear for house arrest. It would only go off if they get too close to a “hot zone” (school, park, etc.) for an extended time. So if they are just driving past the elementary school, it wouldn’t alarm. If they stop for 5 minutes, it would. The police can look at a history if they need to but don’t have to watch it at all times. It would provide a sense of security for the neighborhood and keep the parolee from slipping. It is not infallible, but it is better than trusting a felon to be honest.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Again, this comes across as overkill. Like it or not, these people have to be allowed to live somewhere. As I said in my first post, the system we have has become totally illogical: either keep these people in jail or don’t. Letting them out and then putting their names out to the public, keeping them in registries and restricting them where they can live does not make sense to me.
[/QUOTE]
We have halfway house for other parolees and restrictions on where they can live. We do the same for rehab people. Why does the idea of limiting where sexual offenders live cause such difficulty?
[QUOTE=Marley23]
As that article notes, the laws are ceremonial and unconstitutional. In this country, the death penalty is only allowed in cases of murder. Execution for rape was thrown out decades ago.
[/QUOTE]
It was ruled unconstitutional in cases of adult rape. SCOTUS decline to hear the appeals and the LA supreme court ruled it constitutional.
[QUOTE=PBear42]
Out of curiosity, erie774, what would you say should be the rule if you were Tommy’s father? Remember, Tommy is just a child, with underdeveloped sexual judgment, as you yourself have argued. Yes, what he did was wrong and, moreover, he knew it was wrong. The question is what society should do with teenagers who do wrong. You say throw away the key. Would you say that were you Tommy’s father?
FWIW, I think I know what your answer will be - and it features as a crucial plot element of a great book of American fiction. But I’d like to hear it from you.
[/QUOTE]
Originally I had stated throw away the key. This was really anger talking. Realistically, I believe they should serve the maximum sentence allowable for the crime. And then continuous monitoring as I stated above. I would not let my son out of my sight and get him the best psychiatric help I could because there is obviously something wrong with him. I would not be letting him wander the neighborhood. And I would not be making the parents of his victim out to be bad guys. What Tommy did has forever changed the lives of himself, his parents, his brothers, my family and his neighbors. If my son had done this, I would move away. The police and school districts would know what he did, but he wouldn’t be facing the continuous stigma of the neighbors.
[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley]
Erie, have you called the probation officer? I don’t know where you live, but in my state a probation officer would be able to do something about this situation. In the situation you describe we could put the kid on electronic monitoring, even if he hasn’t been convicted yet. And around here, the probation officer’s recommendation can carry a lot of weight when it comes to the sentence, so the PO should know that the parents and the kid can’t be trusted to do what the court says on their own, and therefore they need closer supervision.
[/QUOTE]
W told the PO. They said we need proof so we have told the friends and neighbors to keep an eye out for him. They are to write down dates and times. If they have digital cameras with date stamps they should take pictures. We will give that to the PO. The PO said that if they receive evidence that he is going around unsupervised, he can be removed from the home.