Outrageous Injustice

John · Post by **John** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:07 pm

PurpleMustReign wrote: One of the parts that bother me the most is how they were both under 18. They are, by all rights, kids. He didn't murder someone, he didn't rob a bank at gunpoint, he only did what 99.99% of boys would do in that situation. For him to be in prison when some convicted sex offenders are walking free is insane. Its just wrong.

I don't know that 99.9% of boys would have taken advantage of a drunk 15 year-old.

Demi · Post by **Demi** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:20 pm

John wrote: I don't know that 99.9% of boys would have taken advantage of a drunk 15 year-old.

"taken advantage of"

I'm assuming he just might have been drunk at the time also, and as the article states she approached, and started the contact. But as is often the case, it's always the male's fault.

John · Post by **John** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:08 pm

Demi wrote: "taken advantage of"

I'm assuming he just might have been drunk at the time also, and as the article states she approached, and started the contact. But as is often the case, it's always the male's fault.

Where did they get the liquor? If the fifteen year-old brought it and got the guy hammered I'd be inclined to agree with you... but somehow I doubt that's the case.

Since I was a kid the laws have always favored girls in cases like this, here in MN and elsewhere I guess. We (my friends and myself) knew that and never served a day of time as a result...

PurpleMustReign · Post by **PurpleMustReign** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:20 pm

John wrote:Since I was a kid the laws have always favored girls in cases like this, here in MN and elsewhere I guess. We (my friends and myself) knew that and never served a day of time as a result...

but there is no word of where the alcohol came from. Maybe someone else brought it.

The point of the story is how stupid it is for this kid to be in prison. I don't see any logical reason he should be there (other than underage drinking, but that shouldn't result in a prison sentence).

The "poor me" stunt that the girl pulled is even worse. She started it, yet he goes to prsion.

John · Post by **John** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:44 pm

PurpleMustReign wrote:
but there is no word of where the alcohol came from. Maybe someone else brought it.

The point of the story is how stupid it is for this kid to be in prison. I don't see any logical reason he should be there (other than underage drinking, but that shouldn't result in a prison sentence).

The "poor me" stunt that the girl pulled is even worse. She started it, yet he goes to prsion.

There might be more to the story than the ESPN sports reporter wrote

... I can't say what the situation was, you can't either, but for some reason you've elected to defend someone a jury found guilty. I don't understand where you're coming from. Look into it a little more - Google.

PurpleMustReign · Post by **PurpleMustReign** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:07 am

John wrote:but for some reason you've elected to defend someone a jury found guilty.

No, I'm not. I am arguing against a stupid law that has this kid in prison for 10 years for doing something very imnor and something that he didn't start.

Post by **Mothman** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:26 am

PurpleMustReign wrote:
No, I'm not. I am arguing against a stupid law that has this kid in prison for 10 years for doing something very imnor and something that he didn't start.

I agree that the sentence doesn't fit the crime in this case. However, defending him on the basis that the girl initiated the act in question seems like a flimsy justification to me. She may have approached him but he was under no obligation to accept her offer or engage in the act that eventually landed him in prison. I certainly don't think that 99% of the teenage male population would have done the same thing.

I sympathize with this kid because, as I said, the punishment in this case doesn't fit the crime. However, my sympathy for him has limits. He put himself in a very foolish situation.

Jim

Hunter Morrow · Post by **Hunter Morrow** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:44 pm

Isn't 15 old enough to decide if you want to be sexually active? A quarter of all kids have had sex by 15, and half by 17.
I'd take oral sex from a 15 year old and I'm nearly 20. Gasp!

Post by **Mothman** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 5:48 pm

Hunter Morrow wrote:Isn't 15 old enough to decide if you want to be sexually active? A quarter of all kids have had sex by 15, and half by 17.
I'd take oral sex from a 15 year old and I'm nearly 20. Gasp!

Hunter, you might want to reconsider that outlook. It could obviously get you into serious trouble!

Jim

wang_chi7 · Post by **wang_chi7** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 6:23 pm

Hunter Morrow wrote:Isn't 15 old enough to decide if you want to be sexually active? A quarter of all kids have had sex by 15, and half by 17.
I'd take oral sex from a 15 year old and I'm nearly 20. Gasp!

Yes and no. People mature at much different rates so 18 is a very conservative solution because everybody should be able to make decisions by 18. 15 is sketchy- at that age you think you are able to make big decisions but look back at that time and think of the dumb things you did.

At 18 you can buy porn, lotto tickets, cigarettes, etc. so it only makes sense to make that the age you are responsible for yourself. Personally I would say 16, but the other laws are 18 so it only fits. In a perfect world we wouldn't need these laws period, but there are many weirdoes out there and too many kids without guidance from adults to make good decisions.

John · Post by **John** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 6:25 pm

Hunter Morrow wrote:Isn't 15 old enough to decide if you want to be sexually active? A quarter of all kids have had sex by 15, and half by 17.
I'd take oral sex from a 15 year old and I'm nearly 20. Gasp!

You are either stupid or have some secret desire to spend years in a 8'x10' cell with a guy called Bubba... but in your case he'd let you call him Daddy.

Hunter Morrow · Post by **Hunter Morrow** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:17 am

Why can't it be both?

15 is plenty old enough, 18 is one of the highest age of consent years in the whole world and look what it has got us: High rates of teenage pregnancy, VD, and ludicrous prison sentences and laws.

Post by **Mothman** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:27 am

Hunter Morrow wrote:Why can't it be both?
15 is plenty old enough, 18 is one of the highest age of consent years in the whole world and look what it has got us: High rates of teenage pregnancy, VD, and ludicrous prison sentences and laws.

So lowering the age of consent is going to solve those problems?

IMHO, 15 isn't old enough. Maybe that's more difficult to see when you're 19 or 20 but I definitely think it's too young.

Jim

Hunter Morrow · Post by **Hunter Morrow** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 1:47 pm

Throughout most of history people were married by their mid teens so its not like it would be the end of the world or anything. Seemed to work out fine for most of Europe and even America for a few centuries.

Post by **Mothman** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:03 pm

Hunter Morrow wrote:Throughout most of history people were married by their mid teens so its not like it would be the end of the world or anything.

I don't think anybody is claiming it would be the end of the world but suspect we'd see more lives ruined.

Seemed to work out fine for most of Europe and even America for a few centuries.

Who can argue with reasoning like that? Perhaps you'd like more arranged marriages and marriages of convenience as well? Fathers, trade your daughters to your business partners! It worked for centuries...

Jim