Bruunwald wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote:
Regardless of how much an underage male may think he wants sex, the fact is that he is not able to give legal consent. Anyone able to give consent who takes advantage of this (that is, any one having sex with a person under the age of 18 with at least three years difference in their ages) is ethically and morally guilty of rape. They should be legally guilty of it as well.
No. If proven they did it, they are ethically and LEGALLY guilty of rape. Morality is an entirely different bag of tricks.
Morality should NEVER be confused with the law. It was a law that you had to turn Jews in, in Nazi Germany, and an order to have them put to death. Neither that law, nor that order, was moral.
I could call myself the president and make a law that every second Thursday, I get to shoot some random guy in the foot. Moral? Just because it's a law? No.
Despite the law, despite the fact that under that law, the average heterosexual boy of 16 cannot lawfully give consent, I guaran-damn-tee ya he's likely to give his full enthusiastic and moral support for the event. I tried to get into an older woman's pants when I was fourteen. I didn't know a single guy my age, except for a couple gay friends, who didn't try like idiot baboons when the opportunity came up. Difference for Beiber is, he's rich and famous and it could potentially work.
None of that changes the law. But you ought to be careful how you throw the work morality around. Remember your own ancestors likely thought it was a good idea to marry their daughters off at 13, sometimes to old men, sometimes to boys their own age. It was normal to them, their tradition (another thing sometimes confused with morality). Maybe those people even loved each other. In any event, those unions worked out well enough that you are here today. Objective morality is a joke. The fact is that the moral code is socially constructed and what is "good" varies from culture to culture.
At one time, slavery was "good". Hell, even the Bible tells slaves to obey their masters. Now, we in 21st century America think that slavery is not "good". But, some in this thread think that statutory rape is a joke - that kids are able to make mature decisions about sex (including decisions which lead to decades of raising or providing financial support to the care of another child). Perhaps in the future, noone in America will think that that is "good" either. Or, perhaps everyone will think it is. The moral code is socially constructed and society can and does and will continue to change. Just as the legal code does. And having said all of that, I never said that the moral code and the legal code are the same. I find it curious to be accussed of such a thing.
DM Wellard wrote: I can't help but notice in all the furore about this that the fact that Bieber has a supposedly ongoing relationship with 19 year old Selena Gomez has been totally ignored.
Still one good thing that might come from this is that she'll dump him.
Do you have evidence that Selena Gomez and Bieber are sexually active?
Urizen wrote: Just wondering ... can we talk about whether a paladin is capable of rape and skating by with the deity? I figure that if a paladin tries to rape his or her deity, he'll be in serious trouble.
You need to be a fighter/rogue/cleric/wizard to sex up a deity.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
I'm regularly amazed at the age of consent laws in the US. In Europe, it's at 16 or lower, and many (including my country) have it at 14 … (with some leeway for close-in-age relationships on the one hand, and abusing a younger person's lack of experience/wisdom on the other hand).
Lukas Klausner wrote: I'm regularly amazed at the age of consent laws in the US. In Europe, it's at 16 or lower, and many (including my country) have it at 14 … (with some leeway for close-in-age relationships on the one hand, and abusing a younger person's lack of experience/wisdom on the other hand). I find this curious. So, in your country, if an adult woman has sex with a 14 year old boy and a child results from it, does the 14 year old boy have to pay child support for the next 20 or so years? In the US, a 14 year old boy would get a minimum wage job (assuming he could get a job at all - child labor laws would drastically limit even the minimum wage jobs available to him)which would mean, to provide for the baby, he'd have to give up college and likely not be able to complete high school.
And then there are the sexually transmitted diseases the 14 year old boy is exposed to, many of which are permanent or potentially fatal (HIV, for example).
Also, in your country, is the age of consent 14 only for sexual acts or is it 14, also, for other legal issues (such as signing a contract)?
Vinland Forever wrote:
NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY! Furthermore, I grew up in Cali, and I have never heard of a 19 year old getting arresting for SR. Your source is wrong. Here is the California Criminal Code. It states in section 261.5 b
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.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Tiny Coffee Golem wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Citation? This looks one of your "unique" interpretations.
This looks like one of your "jumping to conclusions before doing any critical reading" interpretations.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-11-04/bieber-allegati on-statutory-rape-california/51075408/1 Where do you see a conclusion I drew? Also, defensive much? You accuse me of routinely making "unique" interpretations (ie. routinely making things up) and didn't expect me to be defensive?
And did you even read the article? It makes it really clear when it says
"In California, someone more than three years older than a sexual partner who is under the age of consent can be charged with a felony. In this case, Yeater's attorney insists that she was within three years of Bieber's age — making her crime only a misdemeanor"
That the three year difference is only for determining "felonies vs. misdemeaners", not "crimes vs. not crimes".
[reality check] You posted the article after I asked for citation. Hence I was not able to read it until after you got defensive and snippy. [/reality check]
Darkwing Duck wrote: Vinland Forever wrote:
NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY! Furthermore, I grew up in Cali, and I have never heard of a 19 year old getting arresting for SR. Your source is wrong. Here is the California Criminal Code. It states in section 261.5 b
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.
The arguement appears to be based on a misunderstanding of what misdemeanor means.
Misdemeanors are not criminal offenses and do not get trial by jury.
http://www.criminalinfonetwork.com/misdemeanor.htm
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Tiny Coffee Golem wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Citation? This looks one of your "unique" interpretations.
This looks like one of your "jumping to conclusions before doing any critical reading" interpretations.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-11-04/bieber-allegati on-statutory-rape-california/51075408/1 Where do you see a conclusion I drew? Also, defensive much? You accuse me of routinely making "unique" interpretations (ie. routinely making things up) and didn't expect me to be defensive?
And did you even read the article? It makes it really clear when it says
"In California, someone more than three years older than a sexual partner who is under the age of consent can be charged with a felony. In this case, Yeater's attorney insists that she was within three years of Bieber's age — making her crime only a misdemeanor"
That the three year difference is only for determining "felonies vs. misdemeaners", not "crimes vs. not crimes".
[reality check] You posted the article after I asked for citation. Hence I was not able to read it until after you got defensive and snippy. [/reality check] You made the "This looks one of your "unique" interpretations" snipe before asking and giving me a chance to provide the source (as well as before you bothered to look yourself - the California criminal code wasn't hard to find).
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Vinland Forever wrote:
NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY! Furthermore, I grew up in Cali, and I have never heard of a 19 year old getting arresting for SR. Your source is wrong. Here is the California Criminal Code. It states in section 261.5 b
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.
The arguement appears to be based on a misunderstanding of what misdemeanor means.
Misdemeanors are not criminal offenses and do not get trial by jury.
http://www.criminalinfonetwork.com/misdemeanor.htm Your source doesn't agree with you regarding whether misdemeaners are criminal offenses. It states, Since misdemeanors are “lesser” crimes, the punishment is usually less severe than more deplorable felony crimes. Punishment may include imprisonment up to one year, fines, restitution, community service, probation or a combination of these. In other words, misdemeaners are crimes, but lesser crimes than felonies.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Your source doesn't agree with you regarding whether misdemeaners are criminal offenses. It states, Since misdemeanors are “lesser” crimes, the punishment is usually less severe than more deplorable felony crimes. Punishment may include imprisonment up to one year, fines, restitution, community service, probation or a combination of these. In other words, misdemeaners are crimes, but lesser crimes than felonies.
As an American you have a right to trial by jury for criminal offenses (it's in the constitution). As misdemeanors are not subject to trial by jury, they are not criminal offenses. Though they do go on your official record.
You'll do much better in life by paying attention to the facts as opposed to try and prove someone else wrong/ make you look "right."
I'm done feeding you.
Neither Bieber nor this conversation are a sufficient to keep my interest.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
I find this curious. So, in your country, if an adult woman has sex with a 14 year old boy and a child results from it, does the 14 year old boy have to pay child support for the next 20 or so years? In the US, a 14 year old boy would get a minimum wage job (assuming he could get a job at all - child labor laws would drastically limit even the minimum wage jobs available to him)which would mean, to provide for the baby, he'd have to give up college and likely not be able to complete high school.
I'm pretty sure child support is usually a percentage of income, not a flat fee. The boy wouldn't have to get a job or drop out of school, though he might have to pay out of whatever part-time work he does get, which might make college harder.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Vinland Forever wrote:
NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY! Furthermore, I grew up in Cali, and I have never heard of a 19 year old getting arresting for SR.
Your source is wrong. Here is the California Criminal Code. It states in section 261.5 b
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.
The arguement appears to be based on a misunderstanding of what misdemeanor means.
Misdemeanors are not criminal offenses and do not get trial by jury.
http://www.criminalinfonetwork.com/misdemeanor.htm I'm confused.
It appears the link directly above is listed as supporting that misdemeanors are not criminal offenses but the link states that a misdemeanor is a crime (making it a criminal offense) and that the trial by jury right does not apply.
link wrote:
Since misdemeanors are a less serious type of crime with less severe penalties, people charged with a misdemeanor generally do not have the right to trial by jury and must pay a fee if they would like their case to be heard before a jury.
So, I'm trying to figure out where the idea that a misdemeanor is not a criminal offense is coming from.
Any help on this?
Note: Tried fixing tags so something may still be "misallocated"...
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
As an American you have a right to trial by jury for criminal offenses (it's in the constitution). As misdemeanors are not subject to trial by jury, they are not criminal offenses. Though they do go on your official record.
Again, you're wrong.
A Jury has never been required in all criminal cases
See
Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972)
District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U.S. 617 (1937)
Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66 (1970)
Lewis v. United States, 518 U.S. 322 (1996)
Misdemeanors are crimes. They are defined as crimes which carry a punishment not to exceed one year in the county jail. You do have an absolute right to a jury trial in a misdemeanor. However most states have statutes or court rules which require a formal request be timely made in writing. This is because otherwise court dockets would be unmanageable. The constitutionality of such measures has been upheld.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion of Mr. Beiber's sex life.
Darkwing Duck wrote: DM Wellard wrote: I can't help but notice in all the furore about this that the fact that Bieber has a supposedly ongoing relationship with 19 year old Selena Gomez has been totally ignored.
Still one good thing that might come from this is that she'll dump him.
Do you have evidence that Selena Gomez and Bieber are sexually active? I'd like to think she has more taste.
Besides she works for Disney and they probably have an no sex outside marriage clause written into her contract.
To be honest I think this is a PR 'Relationship'
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Darkwing Duck wrote: I find this curious. So, in your country, if an adult woman has sex with a 14 year old boy and a child results from it, does the 14 year old boy have to pay child support for the next 20 or so years? In the US, a 14 year old boy would get a minimum wage job (assuming he could get a job at all - child labor laws would drastically limit even the minimum wage jobs available to him)which would mean, to provide for the baby, he'd have to give up college and likely not be able to complete high school.
And then there are the sexually transmitted diseases the 14 year old boy is exposed to, many of which are permanent or potentially fatal (HIV, for example).
Also, in your country, is the age of consent 14 only for sexual acts or is it 14, also, for other legal issues (such as signing a contract)?
IANAL, but AFAIK in the area between 10 and 18 (or between 12 or 18, or something like that) you have limited ability to enter contracts (restricted by what is considered a normal kind of transaction for someone of that age).
Child support is, of course, relative to your income, and also dependent on a judge's decision, I think. In that case, I'm fairly sure that the judge would not insist too strongly on any kind of contribution until the boy in question has finished his school education; I've got no idea what the usual verdict would foresee once the boy turns 18, though (i. e., whether he can go to university or has to take up a full-time job).
|
