Yeah most people I know stick to the, "If it's not 18 it's 9" Rule of thumb -- just helps avoid all sorts of problems.I don't think I know that one.
I do try to stick to the Age/2 + 7 rule, which, sadly, means 18 year-olds are no longer acceptable. Which this cop was clearly violating.
Yeah I'm still under 30 so I'll use mine for the time being.
It appears the age of consent in Indiana is 14 between minors, and 16 if the other party is over 18.
It's a peculiar distinction that a lot of states make.
Not knowing the particulars of the case, largely because identities are sealed and we can't get a straight story, I'd still say 15 years is pretty ridiculous.
You may be ok with 15 and think that law is wrong too. The line has to be drawn somewhere? 16? 14? 12?
14 with the caveat that the juvenile doesn't feal that he (she) finds that he's not too immature to grasp the consequences, or else the other partner is no older than 21.
16 with some special protection against coercion, prostitution and pornography.
Additionally, at 15, she's still a minor in both the law of Indiana and federal law, and not able to give consent.
Since we're talking about ridiculous laws, I was using numbers that make sense, not the local draconian customs.
The fact that a 15 year old having sex with an adult gets a "so?" begs the question, "how young do they need to be to get an, "ew, that's gross!"
Well that's not an easy question and not every person matures physically and emotionally at the same rate. I'd say sexual maturity is a good ABSOLUTE line to draw. I think 14-18 can be a big grey area. Not necessarily in this case, but it can be.
It's not so much of a "so?" as I'm not surprised that a young woman who is sexually mature would desire to be sexually active, nor am I surprised that a 34 year old man going through a divorce would be likely to exercise poor judgement about what is clearly both illegal and immoral. The fact that she was in that grey area makes me feel that 15 years is excessive.
Like I said, we don't and indeed can't know the gory details of the specific scenario, but I'm prepared to say that the fellow had exceedingly poor judgement but probably wasn't a habitual sexual predator. That said, I think he probably does deserve to do time and be put on a sex offender list FOR THE STATUTORY RAPE. Not for the child pornography charge. And not for 15 freaking years.
Yes.
If they can grasp operating a motor vehicle, and be trusted to do so at 16, I believe they can wrap their minds around pregnancy and venerial diseases. Hell, most of them are learning those things in school at 12 anyway.
How old is 15 really?
Hope whatever that links to can't be considered "indecent" -- otherwise everyone who clicks on it is apparently subject to 75 consecutive 10-year sentences. (No, I'm not clicking it, and I eliminated the link in my reply -- can't be too careful around 750 years in the slammer, mandatory.) This country has gone seriously off the deep end.
How old is 15 really?Hope whatever that links to can't be considered "indecent" -- otherwise everyone who clicks on it is apparently subject to 75 consecutive 10-year sentences. (No, I'm not clicking it, and I eliminated the link in my reply -- can't be too careful around 750 years in the slammer, mandatory.) This country has gone seriously off the deep end.
It's also a youtube link and probably safe.
They understand it fine.
The only thing they can't wrap their minds around are that it could happen to them.
They understand it fine.
The only thing they can't wrap their minds around are that it could happen to them.
So what makes them different from about 50%* of so called adults?
*rather optimistic estimate
They understand it fine.
The only thing they can't wrap their minds around are that it could happen to them.
So what makes them different from about 50%* of so called adults?
*rather optimistic estimate
Nothing, in that regard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what makes them different from about 50%* of so called adults?
There's a small chance they might get better.
I think its telling that history makes a lot more sense if you look at countries as if they were sociopathic 8 year olds than any sort of nationalist narrative.
That the initial charges include charges that he had sex with a 15-year-old, and that a plea agreement was reached to reduce the charges to the final result.I'm missing your point here, and I don't see what your link adds to the discussion.
Seriously what's your point?
The point of the articles is clearly not that the cop was a good guy for having sex with a minor.
Rather the larger point of all the links is that these laws are often irrational. For example people in possession of child pornography may receive far longer sentences than people who actually abuse children.
You're welcome to be contemptuous of Reason and libertarian ideas, but their agenda and mine are hardly hidden. There aren't a lot of people reporting on these irrational laws, but feel free to site your own sources. One should certainly consider the source of an article, and I'm a fan of being skeptical. Weather the source is Pro Publica, NORMAL, Amnesty International, or the ACLU I think the content and ideas matter the most.
Virtually no cases go to trail any more; maybe 9 out of 10 cases get plead out so the fact that a case is plead out means very little any more.
You don't seriously think I or Reason were defending the cops behavior do you?
So what makes them different from about 50%* of so called adults?There's a small chance they might get better.
I think its telling that history makes a lot more sense if you look at countries as if they were sociopathic 8 year olds than any sort of nationalist narrative.
:)
The circumstances surrounding the case are that the girl told her mother she was playing "butt doctor" with the boy, according to the Wisconsin State Journal....Dr. Mix-a-Lot declined to comment.O_O
I have no idea whether to be amused or offended.
I would go with informed. Dr. Mix-a-Lot knows his stuff.
Some crazy stories linkied in here...
The point of the articles is clearly not that the cop was a good guy for having sex with a minor.
Rather the larger point of all the links is that these laws are often irrational. For example people in possession of child pornography may receive far longer sentences than people who actually abuse children.
It's disingenuous to use an example where he was initially charged with abusing a child and plead out of it.
You're welcome to be contemptuous of Reason and libertarian ideasI didn't express any contempt for libertarian ideas (at least in this context; if you want to talk about the free market, we can have some spirited debate!), just reason.com's misleading editorialization in that article. I even agreed with the next two, sheesh.
I disagree that it's disingenuous. I really don't see where you get that from. The articles don't say he was a good guy. Personally I have no use for him, but that doesn't change the issue that the laws are FUBAR. This is one of the things that makes it difficult to have a reasonable conversation about this. No one wants to defend some one who consumes child porn, but that's hardly the same thing as pointing out that many folks who posses child porn get much longer sentences than actual child molesters.
We can solve this problem by increasing the number of prosecutors, judges, laws, and the size of government. Don't you know? Increasing government is the only way to achieve social justice!
(yes, I'm being sarcastic)
I'd actually argue that there is a certain amount of truth to the idea that these ideas can be solved by increasing the size of government. Furthermore it works in both directions. You can shrink the size of government through reversing this.
I'm going to bet that if we see something akin to western style democracy in Libya you will also immediately see a very impressive ballooning of the size of their bureaucracy and nowhere will that be more clear then in looking at how their their criminal justice system evolves.
I can be reasonably sure that this will take place because it pretty much always does. Western Democratic systems are underpinned by large bureaucratic apparatuses - especially when it comes to the justice system.
If your state is a basic dictatorship you can get away with a very streamlined justice system. You need police to arrest criminals and some one with the authority to pass judgment on them - that is pretty much it. Things get more complex and expencive if the judge is not deciding based on his or her whim but must interpret actual codified laws. In this case it takes the judge much longer so you need more judges to hear all the cases. In the West we generally use one of two systems of justice - either some version of the Napoleonic Code or a system derived from English Common Law.
While versions of the Napoleonic Code are smaller and cheaper both add layers to the justice system in the form of things like appeals as well as assigning people to specifically take the side of the prosecution and the accused and argue their side of the story. This of course increases government significantly beyond simply having one person with the power to pass judgment. Systems that are derived from English Common Law are even larger and more expensive as they go so far as to bring in the accused peers and then have these peers go through the motions of actually deciding guilt or innocence. Not only does this add more layers to the system but, of course, we now have to herd these 12 people around and the system takes even longer (so now we need even more judges etc.) because the accused peers are not trained in the law so they pretty much have to have a crash course in the legal system for every single case.
All in all the justice system used in the west, and especially systems using a jury of ones peers, are prime examples of why our government bureaucracies are so huge. A glance through where the governments of the west spend their money will show that our justice systems are pretty high up the food chain in terms of government expenditures.
Further things like mandatory sentencing can in fact work to shrink the size of the bureaucracy. Turning the judges into clerks with no discretionary power but simply people who cross index the crime with the punishment in the codex of laws saves time which allows there to be more cases heard. It also reduces the need for all sorts of specialized education so it may eventually be possible to seriously save on salaries. Obviously cutting out other fat in the system like juries and maybe even lawyers would allow one to save a great deal more taxpayer money while streamlining the system and shrinking government.
Don't use actual child molesters as examples, then!
Hereandhere both seem to indicate their ages are 16 and 17. NOt really sure at this point. Let's not conflate child molestation with statutory rape, let alone consensual sex. The line between 15 years old means 15 years in jail, and A-OK seems a bit harsh. And again, regardless of plea bargain, his actual sentence is for child pornography. Do you think that a 16 or 17 year old girl should be so protected by the law that SEEING her naked throws you in the slammer for a significant portion of your natural life?
I disagree that it's disingenuous. I really don't see where you get that from. The articles don't say he was a good guy. Personally I have no use for him, but that doesn't change the issue that the laws are FUBAR.No, but it does claim that it would be legal for him to be having sex with those girls, even in the title of the article, when that is absolutely not true at all. He simply wasn't convicted of statutory rape. In fact, it doesn't say anything about the initial charges of having sex with a 15-year-old; I had to go the original news stories, which I only knew about because I vaguely remembered the original story. Omitting facts because they damage your narrative makes for irresponsible writing, to put it mildly.
This is one of the things that makes it difficult to have a reasonable conversation about this. No one wants to defend some one who consumes child porn, but that's hardly the same thing as pointing out that many folks who posses child porn get much longer sentences than actual child molesters.Don't use actual child molesters as examples, then! Honestly. It would be perfectly reasonable to just compare these laws in the abstract. There's no need to twist a real story to spice up an editorial. I'm not opposed to the idea of reforming poorly-formed minimum sentencing laws, but this sort of manipulative nonsense is why reason.com is not a trustworthy publication.
That's the point. He wasn't prosecuted for having sex with a 15 year old; he was prosecuted for the images. That's the point of the title.
I find no evidence that he was ever even charged with having sex with a 15 year old, and the federal court documents say the girls were 16 and 17 when he had sex with them.
See pages 3 and 4 here
You say Reason is untrustworthy because of an AP story. Where is the AP story's evidence? The federal court documents say exactly what the Reason article does.
Don't use actual child molesters as examples, then!Hereandhere both seem to indicate their ages are 16 and 17. NOt really sure at this point. Let's not conflate child molestation with statutory rape, let alone consensual sex. The line between 15 years old means 15 years in jail, and A-OK seems a bit harsh. And again, regardless of plea bargain, his actual sentence is for child pornography. Do you think that a 16 or 17 year old girl should be so protected by the law that SEEING her naked throws you in the slammer for a significant portion of your natural life?
This case did not involve statutory rape, since everyone involved was over the age of consent. The problem with the laws is that there is the window of a few years depending on jurisdiction where one law but not the other applies. Combine this with the entire shitstorm of stupid concerning minimum sentencing guidelines.
Also I am fairly certain that possession of child pornography is a strict liability offence, which means that mitigating circumstances (such as what is happening in this situation) cannot apply. It all adds up to the laws having virtually no bearing on reality when taken together.
AMIB, did you not read what Bitter Thorn linked? The girls were of the age of consent.
Regardless, whether or not this man is guilty of sexual misconduct with a minor isn't being debated (he's guilty), what is being debated is whether a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 is appropriate for home recordings of sexual acts with a LEGAL PARTNER. He could not have been charged of statutory rape since they were of the age of consent.
I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp. The sentencing statement, issued by the presiding judge David Hamilton, refers to the two girls as being of age repeatedly. The presiding judge, in his sentencing statement, practically personally asks for executive clemency.
So I'm going to go with the original AP article got the facts wrong.
I remembered the story from when it was actually in the news, so I went back to contemporary articles to check. reason.com has omitted the fact that he had been charged for having sex with one of them while she was 15 and just didn't end up pleading guilty to it, due to incomplete research or because it didn't fit their narrative or because they just didn't think it mattered. Well, it does matter, because it means that he had no business having sex with these girls. That he continued his sexual relationship with them after they were legally able to give sexual consent does not suddenly make this a healthy, non-predatory relationship, and does not make him a man unjustly wronged by a technicality!
You linked one very short AP article that mentions the age of the victim as being 15. Can you cite anything else that backs up what you've claimed here? In other words, citation needed.
The way I see it I'm reading articles from about 5-6 different sources, some in Indiana and some from activist websites like reason.com, but other than your AP article NONE of them mention the victim being 15. Even in the AP article it mentions allegations of sex with a girl of 15 but that he was only charged with sexual misconduct with a minor, not statutory rape, which suggests that the DA and investigators knew that the girl/girls were 16 and over when whatever crime happened happened. It seems more likely to me that the AP article got it wrong than EVERYONE ELSE IS LYING about it. Considering that the AP article gets his age wrong and fails to mention Jane Doe 2, it just seems like marginally sloppy reporting.
I'm also trying to figure out your stance here is it. Even though he was neither charged with nor tried of statutory rape that he deserves 15 years in federal prison because you know what happened somehow. I mean that's not how the justice system is meant to work.
I'd also like to point out that your logic works backwards as well. The stroke of midnight on some night in the summer time may herald the legality of their sexual liaison, but it doesn't change its morality. If it's legally permissible on one side of that meridian, why not a few days, weeks, months on the other? While I think the relationship was inappropriate, that doesn't mean it was predatory, and everyone seems to agree that the defendant had no prior problems with the law or proclivities in this direction.
It's incomplete.
The sentencing statement from the presiding judge in the case portrays events inaccurately? I'm not talking about reason.com, I'm talking about the sentencing statement.
So juvenile pornography (not child pornography, mind you) is punished by at least 15 years of jail over there?
So juvenile pornography (not child pornography, mind you) is punished by at least 15 years of jail over there?
Yup.
It's things like this that make me believe the human race is stupid.Hey, watch out who you're accusing. It's not the whole human race. It's only a certain country. And not even that. It's the braindead idiots who are allowed to make laws for that country.
And they're certainly not human.
What's that old saying? "One bad apple spoils the barrel" or something like that?
So juvenile pornography (not child pornography, mind you) is punished by at least 15 years of jail over there?
Often much much more, even if you're 16 and your girlfriend is 17 or even if your married in some cases. Video is worse because it counts as many images and many counts.
I guess that guy didn't realize that "Pics or it didn't happen!" was just a joke...
So juvenile pornography (not child pornography, mind you) is punished by at least 15 years of jail over there?Often much much more, even if you're 16 and your girlfriend is 17 or even if your married in some cases. Video is worse because it counts as many images and many counts.In theory video could be worse, but none of the examples show that. Nor am I aware of anyone convicted on thousands of counts for a single movie.
It's not even clear multiple still images get you multiple counts.The cop in the linked story was convicted of two counts of producing pornography that showed minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, despite having made multiple images and at least one video. 2 counts because there were 2 minors involved.
Let me repost one of my other examples.
Perverted Justice
Sex offender laws represent the triumph of outrage over reason.
This is AZ state law, and I don't believe it involves video, but I think it's relevant to your point.
Please see "Looking vs. Touching" for more context.
'State penalties for possessing child pornography can be even harsher. In Arizona, one count of possessing child pornography carries a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence, each image qualifies as a separate count, and the sentences must be served consecutively. That’s how Morton Berger, a former high school teacher with no criminal record, ended up with a 200-year sentence in 2003.
In 2006 the Arizona Supreme Court upheld Berger’s sentence, rejecting his argument that it violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Writing in dissent, Vice Chief Justice Rebecca Berch noted that “Arizona’s sentence for this crime is by far the longest in the nation and is more severe than sentences imposed in Arizona for arguably more serious and violent crimes.” For example, “the minimum sentence for possession of an image of child pornography is longer than the presumptive sentence for rape or aggravated assault. A presumptive sentence for possession of two images of child pornography…is harsher than the sentences for second degree murder or sexual assault of a child under twelve.…For molesting a child, one might receive the same sentence that Berger has received for possessing one picture.”'
Someone should write an updated Romeo and Juliet where instead of committing suicide at the end they both get 15 years of hard time for producing child pornography by sexting each other.
But as the resulting film would have ADULT actors DEPICTING children, and we are meant to believe the actors are indeed underage, everyone viewing such a film would also receive a mandatory sentence of 15 years.
Someone should write an updated Romeo and Juliet where instead of committing suicide at the end they both get 15 years of hard time for producing child pornography by sexting each other.But as the resulting film would have ADULT actors DEPICTING children, and we are meant to believe the actors are indeed underage, everyone viewing such a film would also receive a mandatory sentence of 15 years.
Please. You need to be at least 35 to play 15 these days or you won't get believed.
|
Someone should write an updated Romeo and Juliet where instead of committing suicide at the end they both get 15 years of hard time for producing child pornography by sexting each other.But as the resulting film would have ADULT actors DEPICTING children, and we are meant to believe the actors are indeed underage, everyone viewing such a film would also receive a mandatory sentence of 15 years.
Send it to everyone in Congress?
Someone should write an updated Romeo and Juliet where instead of committing suicide at the end they both get 15 years of hard time for producing child pornography by sexting each other.But as the resulting film would have ADULT actors DEPICTING children, and we are meant to believe the actors are indeed underage, everyone viewing such a film would also receive a mandatory sentence of 15 years.
Please. You need to be at least 35 to play 15 these days or you won't get believed.
Ahh yes, the Andrea effect. Named after Andrea on 90210 who was like 29 when playing a high school junior.
Methinks quotes are borked. I didn't muck with the quote tags on that last post but that's how it comes out. F'ed up.
I have a somewhat silly constitutional law question to submit : did SCOTUS validate mandatory sentences?
It could be argued that they enable the legislative power to hold the pen for the judiciary, which isn't exactly the purest form of separation of powers.
Setting minimas in matter of criminal law isn't the same thing in terms of public liberties as setting maximas. The later are meant to protect the people from excess of the judges' arbitrary power. The former, by robbing the judges of some of their prerogatives, seems to accomplish just the opposite, exposing the people to legislator made arbitrary sentencing.
I understand that it's quicker, easier, and probably cheaper, but it does have a price in terms of quality. Justice shouldn't be driven by economic issues.
Was it supposed to be also more of a deterrent?