Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should this guy have served time?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 61 of 112 (280212)
01-20-2006 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Nuggin
01-20-2006 1:34 AM


Re: Lurker Mode!
Is there really anyone who thinks otherwise?
Yeah, probably you. At what age do you think sex should be legal and not defined as statuatory rape? I assume you have some age in mind. My guess it is somewhere between 1-21, which means that you must disagree with some state or nation's definition and will disagree whether a statuatory rapist deserves jail time.
I don't agree that statuatory rape... as opposed to rape... is a "real" crime, it is a moral crime. There may be reasons to allow criminal prosecution of it, though not initiated by the state, and I am not certain that jail time is a solution. I'm not dead set against it depending on the case, but I don't see why rand's question is silly.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Nuggin, posted 01-20-2006 1:34 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 112 (280222)
01-20-2006 9:17 AM


Can someone remind me why it's supposed to be wrong for an male over the age of majority to have sex with a teenage male?

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 63 of 112 (280226)
01-20-2006 9:34 AM


Teens too broad a category
Teens seems an almost a uselessy broad categorisation covering as it does a range of 8 years. The upper range of Teens, i.e. 18-19, is presumably above the age of consent throughout the United states.
TTFN,
WK

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 64 of 112 (280232)
01-20-2006 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by randman
01-19-2006 10:41 PM


Re: she is pro-gay
I probably did not elaborate. She and another judge sat on cases about gay marriage with one of their friends that was at the same political rally.
But that wasn't the defendant, was it?
If you think you've made the conflict of interest clear, please try again.
On this case, I think it's legitimate considering the political activities of this judge to consider if biasness or the appearance of biasness is not a real concern.
So, what you're saying is, judges can't participate in politics? Judges leave their citizenships behind when they don the robes? Or is it just that you don't believe judges should be allowed to participate in politics you don't agree with?
There's a pretty high standard for demanding that a judge recuse themselves from a case; generally it requires proof of a highly prejudicial, personal relationship between the judge and either the defendant or the plaintif.
But on a different note, it appears many here think that it really is no big deal for adult homosexuals to have sex with teens.
Is that the case?
It's a big deal to me when a teacher has sex with a student, or when an adult has sex with a young teen; while these relationships aren't by definition coercive, sexual politics involved with disparities of power are always complicated, and what may appear to be consent is often coercion. So I do find the relationship troubling.
But being gay has nothing to do with it, that I can see. And your article hardly has all the facts, Like I said, it may simply be that the judge did not find the 15-year-old's story credible, or felt that the case for statutory rape was weak, or she may not even believe in the idea that you can prosecute rape without a complaining witness. But you don't give any indication that there's a real conflict of interest here, or that it has anything to do with homosexuality. You're just smearing the name of this judge on the Internet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by randman, posted 01-19-2006 10:41 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by randman, posted 01-20-2006 10:24 AM crashfrog has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 65 of 112 (280236)
01-20-2006 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Silent H
01-20-2006 7:57 AM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
Holmes, thanks for the response and kind words. I think the whole issue is something soceity has mixed feelings over, in terms of the age of consent. There is probably wide disagreement over the proper age for people to legally decide to have sex with whomever they want.
The guy though that molested the 7 year old girl only getting 60 days seems unjust to the victim's family. This leaves the impression, whether right or wrong, that more liberal states like Vermont and Massuchusetts that are pushing gay marriage are more likely to push for allowing or going light on child molestation as well, although perhaps a 15 year old is not just a child.
However, I also believe that parents have a right to raise their children according to their own customs, and so can and should have the ability to override the choice of their child to have sex.
This is interesting because it asserts the fundamental right of the family over the state, something I am for in general. However, if a parent were allowing their small children to have sex with a friend they have over for dinner, it still strikes me as, well, perverse and probably detrimental to the child.
In addition, there are issues when dealing with teachers and other professionals entrusted with the care of children by parents. They pretty much have a right to expect that they are not about to get "service" beyond the scope of why they sent their kid to the person, and certainly not for subjects against their will.
Agreed. I think one of the things whether it be the Catholic priests or teachers having sex with kids that is so upsetting is that these people are trusted with the kids in their care, and yet they choose to violate that trust.
Back to the issues in the OP, I do think and I am sure some will call me a bigot for saying this, that in the homosexual community, adult men going after underage but past puberty teens is more widespread and accepted than what is openly acknowledged. That was why I brought up the historical instances of this. I have heard homosexuals insist this is not the case, but at the same time, being an artist and somewhat familiar with the gay community as a result, I think it's way underplayed by homosexual advocates.
As homosexuality is normalized, there will be, imo, another big issue with the age of consent for homosexual sex, and I suspect in states with a strong gay lobby, that the age of consent will be lowered either legally or in practical terms in terms of enforcement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Silent H, posted 01-20-2006 7:57 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Chiroptera, posted 01-20-2006 12:16 PM randman has replied
 Message 75 by Silent H, posted 01-20-2006 1:40 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 66 of 112 (280238)
01-20-2006 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by crashfrog
01-20-2006 9:58 AM


Re: she is pro-gay
There's a pretty high standard for demanding that a judge recuse themselves from a case; generally it requires proof of a highly prejudicial, personal relationship between the judge and either the defendant or the plaintif.
In the case argued for gay marriage, I think that a highly prejudicial, personal relationship between the judge (and more so for Judge Marshall) and her friend, the plaintif's attorney, and the cause of the plaintif was existing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 01-20-2006 9:58 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Wounded King, posted 01-20-2006 11:18 AM randman has replied
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 01-20-2006 11:36 AM randman has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 67 of 112 (280273)
01-20-2006 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by randman
01-20-2006 10:24 AM


Re: she is pro-gay
There isn't anything in that 'indictment' to suggest a less than professional realtionship existed. All the evidence seems to consist of is that these women attended a number of functions all connected with their professional work.
It seems ludicrous to claim that a judge should not be allowed to attend a Woman's Bar Association function on the grounds that it might be attended by politicians. Surely a Bar Association function is a legal rather than political function?
To characterise a speech given to a large gathering as some sort of personal and intimate encouragement to a particular attorney seems disingenuous to say the least as does categorising the attorney as a friend of the judge with the scant evidence presented.
About the 'indictment' of Justice Marshall, did this ever actually lead to anything or was it just a bit of grandstanding? The 3rd count seems completely non-sensical since presumably the Judge's opinion would be a matter of public record and when given would be the end of the case, and therefore the case could not have been pending or impending in any court.
Was there any actual indictment in a legal sense? Or indeed any actual legal or professional fallout? At the moment this indictment and the similar Pawlick complain simply seem to be a lot of noise thrown out by a group with a clear vested interest in overturning the decision rather than with upholding the ethical standards of the Massachusetts courts.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by randman, posted 01-20-2006 10:24 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by randman, posted 01-20-2006 12:01 PM Wounded King has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 68 of 112 (280275)
01-20-2006 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by randman
01-20-2006 10:24 AM


Re: she is pro-gay
In the case argued for gay marriage, I think that a highly prejudicial, personal relationship between the judge (and more so for Judge Marshall) and her friend, the plaintif's attorney, and the cause of the plaintif was existing.
That's not a conflict of interest. Attourneys, being officers of the court, regularly develop professional friendships with judges, and vice-versa.
If she were friends with the plaintif, that's one thing. Friends with counsel for the plaintif? Common.
And, the what of the plaintif? In what sense did the plaintif have a "cause"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by randman, posted 01-20-2006 10:24 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 69 of 112 (280280)
01-20-2006 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Wounded King
01-20-2006 11:18 AM


Re: she is pro-gay
So she appears at the Gay and Lesbian Bar Association and says essentially, hey, when are you guys going to bring a gay marriage suit like they did in Vermont; that we are behind and this is absurd that we don't allow gay marriage, etc,... and of course, she sits on the court, and plays a key role in deciding the law.
And that's professional conduct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Wounded King, posted 01-20-2006 11:18 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Wounded King, posted 01-20-2006 12:49 PM randman has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 112 (280287)
01-20-2006 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by randman
01-20-2006 10:21 AM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
quote:
This is interesting because it asserts the fundamental right of the family over the state, something I am for in general. However, if a parent were allowing their small children to have sex with a friend they have over for dinner, it still strikes me as, well, perverse and probably detrimental to the child.
This is interesting. You appear to be saying that families should have control over what goes on within the family, except when you disagree with it.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, it were conclusively shown that having sex with adults is good for children, would you be for it despite the wishes of the parents?
I'm just trying to figure out when you feel that families should have autonomy, and when the state should intervene despite the family's wishes.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by randman, posted 01-20-2006 10:21 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by randman, posted 01-20-2006 1:37 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 71 of 112 (280296)
01-20-2006 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by randman
01-20-2006 12:01 PM


Re: she is pro-gay
I see, so judges aren't allowed to have personal opinions, that seems to be a new concept, I hadn't come across it before.
I can understand that they shouldn't air personal opinions relevant to a case which is sub judice and should endeavour to seperate them from their professional opinions as a judge when they are in court, But surely they are still allowed to actually have opinions?
Do you know if this actually resulted in anything because if it is a case of professional misconduct then why haven't the guilty parties been subjected to professional censure?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by randman, posted 01-20-2006 12:01 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Chiroptera, posted 01-20-2006 1:16 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 112 (280305)
01-20-2006 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Wounded King
01-20-2006 12:49 PM


Re: she is pro-gay
quote:
I see, so judges aren't allowed to have personal opinions....
I wonder how many conservative judges who are members of the activist Federalist Society would need to recuse themselves from various cases involving , say, property rights.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Wounded King, posted 01-20-2006 12:49 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by jar, posted 01-20-2006 1:29 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 73 of 112 (280312)
01-20-2006 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Chiroptera
01-20-2006 1:16 PM


Re: she is pro-gay
Sure hope the judge has an opinion on Human Rights and Justice. LOL

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Chiroptera, posted 01-20-2006 1:16 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 74 of 112 (280314)
01-20-2006 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Chiroptera
01-20-2006 12:16 PM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
You appear to be saying that families should have control over what goes on within the family, except when you disagree with it.
Can you clarify your stance, please? Are you saying parents should be allowed to invite people over to have sex with their small children, or not?
I think I expressed a fairly mainstream view of something considered broadly detrimental to a child, and not merely something I personally disagree with. You, on the other hand, by suggesting I am asserting personal beliefs, seem to be saying you think such behaviour is something the state should never intervene in.
The issue of what constitutes child abuse is a serious one. For me, I probably err more on the side of protecting familial and parental rights than the safety and well-being of the child. Nevertheless, I think encouraging pedophilia is over the line and grounds for state action to intervene.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Chiroptera, posted 01-20-2006 12:16 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Silent H, posted 01-20-2006 1:50 PM randman has replied
 Message 77 by Chiroptera, posted 01-20-2006 1:57 PM randman has replied
 Message 80 by Chiroptera, posted 01-20-2006 2:11 PM randman has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 75 of 112 (280316)
01-20-2006 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by randman
01-20-2006 10:21 AM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
The guy though that molested the 7 year old girl only getting 60 days seems unjust to the victim's family.
Without more to go on, I really can't say what I think is just or unjust. Was the guy violently forcing her to do things, or did she want to do things he asked? I have no idea and that would make a lot of difference from my perspective. The mother said the girl could not be with the family which left me wondering what happened.
That said, the judge explained his position which was not that he felt that such conduct should not be criminalized, rather that he didn't believe in punishment for crimes at all. That is a completely different question and it just happened to impact on that specific kind of case. His rationale was that the state is better off attempting to rehabilitate, and backed up the short sentence with life imprisonment should he fail to go through rehab.
Maybe that made sense? I don't know, though I could see where a family might not be happy with such a sentence.
more liberal states like Vermont and Massuchusetts that are pushing gay marriage are more likely to push for allowing or going light on child molestation as well
I don't think one thing will naturally lead to another but it is possible that those predisposed to questioning morals laws will question all and not just specific ones. I would ask what would be the problem if this did occur? Or maybe I should ask, how would that not be any more a concern than those states against gay marriage promoting other restrictive legislation?
In the end change happens and different states will move at different rates (and sometimes in opposite directions). There are members of the SC who support less restrictive laws regarding sex, and note differences between the states as well as laws in other nations.
However, if a parent were allowing their small children to have sex with a friend they have over for dinner, it still strikes me as, well, perverse and probably detrimental to the child.
Well I won't argue with what you should or shouldn't find perverse. Given that we allow children to be circumcized, spanked, yelled at, instructed that they are born evil/worthless, and forced through potentially degrading public events by strangers I think the question of "detrimental to the child" is not so clear cut.
But its not like I'm working a double standard. I also support the rights of parents to withhold medical treatment on religious grounds... and I think we can agree that that would be clearly "detrimental".
adult men going after underage but past puberty teens is more widespread and accepted than what is openly acknowledged.
I'm not sure what the percentages are but it seems to me there are also plenty of straight people interested in those currently classified as underage. It may be that those within a persecuted sexual minority are more comfortable and open about discussing or pursuing other unpopular sexual activities.
As homosexuality is normalized... the age of consent will be lowered either legally or in practical terms in terms of enforcement.
It is possible, just as was the idea that homosexuality might be normalized after interracial sex was allowed. All I can say is that this possibility does not concern me, and in fact I believe such advancements in freedom would be better off for all involved.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by randman, posted 01-20-2006 10:21 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 01-20-2006 3:47 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 101 by nator, posted 01-22-2006 5:56 PM Silent H has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024