Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by themoonisdown09, Jun 4, 2009.
Too bad I don't live in Seattle!
If this was a male teacher that had raped a female student as a child (I assume?), I can't see this nightclub going along with it.
It wasn't actual rape. It's classified as statutory rape because the boy was under the age of consent (16 I believe). If he had actually been raped by her, I can't see them marrying each other years later
I realise that. Never the less, when an adult man "rapes" an under age girl (no matter the circumstance), that man will never be seen in the same way again, and will likely be a complete social outcast. Especially after serving 7 1/2 years inside for the "crime".
Absolutely agree. There was a discussion about this maybe a year ago, (I think psychiatric nurse that time). Lots of strong opinions were expressed!
Regardless of their adoration for each other, it remains 'actual' rape because society has decided that below that age such decisions are not valid - i.e. it's an abuse of power (even more so considering teacher/authority etc.). Worth pointing out here that a defence of 'but it wasn't actual rape, she wanted it' doesn't exist for good reason.
I know your intention was good, but it came across all wrong!
Though the age gap between these two is obviously intolerable. There are definite flaws in these laws.
My former roommates cousin received a six year sentence for statutory rape. He was 19 and the girl was 17. They had been dating for over a year. Her parents found out they were having sex and had charges pressed. So far he has served four of six years and will be a registered sex offender for the rest of his life. Wherever he moves to he will need to let the neighbors know that he is a sex offender.
She has been to court after she became an adult on his behalf and has visited him at jail. Yet he still has to serve the remainder of his sentence.
If you're saying your friend should have been let of because they really really like each-other, then that’s fair enough - I see where you're coming from (and it seems like you would be a good friend to have). It also sounds like the after-sentence obligations are as worse, if not moreso, than the prison time. But the line has to be drawn somewhere. Not agreeing with the law doesn't mean you can go ahead and break it regardless. I will say however that having an age of consent above 16 is, in my opinion, wholly unrealistic.
The idea, at least in the UK, is that although it's illegal for two children even to kiss you wouldn't charge them because it's not in the public interest. It's more there as a 'reservoir of power' just in case there is an abusive young relationship. However your friend was well past 18.
You hit it right on.
An extreme lack of absolutes is ruining not only our society but the entire global society. BAD HUMANS! BAD!
Agreed. Most of Europe is between 14 and 17 with the exception of Spain (13), Turkey and Malta (both 18).
Mind you, this woman would still have been breaking the law in the UK since it is illegal for a person to have sex with an under 18 year old if they are in a position of trust in their relationship (i.e. teacher, guardian, social worker etc.)
Seattle's nightlife promoters just jumped the shark.
You are lucky you haven't seen the poster yet.
This is absolutely absurd. Like a modern day witch hunt... teens having sex? Burn them!
Many of us have grandparents that were married at that age (60 years ago, nobody was waiting until they were 25 or 30 to get married).
I think the flaw in these laws are a) no "close age" clause, and b) allowing parents to press charges without the minor's consent.
In Canada, the age of consent is 16, but there is a flexible clause in the law that allows for, say, a 15 year old to have sex with a 17 year old. I'm not sure if there's a set-in-stone age difference in place, but in a case like your friend's, chances are charges would not have led to a conviction. And with good reason!
And I think it's entirely foolish that a minor's parents can press charges without the "victim"'s consent. I get the feeling that even if the "victim" testified in court that it was consensual, a statutory rape conviction could still be laid. That's extremely silly.
Which is not to say statutory rape should not exist as a legal crime. If a teacher has sex with a student, consensual or not, there should be some legal mechanism to respond. But a couple, one of whom happens to be under the age, should not be punished. Especially not when the "victim" is not the one pressing charges.
That would be quite sexy if it weren't so offensive...
Is that supposed to be the student or the teacher?
I'm just amazed that these two people are still married with children. Odd.
Goes to show anything can happen.
Not really. People have premarital sex all the time. Actually, I'm engaged to my "rapist" if we are using these guidelines to set the terms.
Whatever with their relationship, to each his own, but the 'Hot for Teacher' thing puts me off.
Agreed there needs to be a closed age clause put in. I figure 3 years is enough close enough.
3 years is pushing it the limits I feel it falls into the range. It allows for cases where some one 19 been dating some one 17 for a while and they start having sex.
Age of consent varies state to state
He was 12 years old when their relationship began. She was in her 30s.
I'm also amazed that they're still together.
The law is even more retarded here in Ireland. If a girl gets into an over 21s or 23s clubbed, dances with a guy and ends ups having sex with him, and turns out to be 16, the guy can be charged with statutory rape. This is despite the fact that an underage girl passed bouncers with a fake ID, even if it's a passport or drivers license!
Might as well post the UK position for everyone to criticize...
- Age of consent here is 16. If an 18+ adult has sex with a child between 13 and 16, the court considers whether they had a 'reasonable belief' V was over 16 (including steps taken to obtain that belief). The older they are, the less likely they are to be successful.
- If they have sex with someone under 13, it's strict liability. Belief in age, consent etc. all go out the window - no defence.
There are equivalent offences where D is also under 18, an area that I thought would have been far more controversial.
What would you suggest as an improvement to the current law?
I always felt that the UK law was, for the most part, commonsensical. In most cases I've heard of the judge was pretty reasonable if it ever came that far. The case mentioned here about a 19 year old and a 17 year old seems entirely unjust to me.
I can't fathom how a person in their 30s could fall for a teen or a pre-teen. I have to wonder if there was really something consensual between them or if the guy is just totally brainwashed.
Allowance for genuine mistake/circumstance? It's hardly fair as it is.
Yeah, well if a teacher who looked like that LaFave woman had wanted to do me when I was 15, I think I would have immediately started believing in a benevolent deity.
I can't speak for the ladies, but any guy who wouldn't like the idea is probably playing for the other team.
He was 12 when it began. Some boys don't start that early.