OT- Governor Palin will resign July 25, 2009.

[an]

[quote=flu]
Teens are getting slapped as a sex offender for “sexting” pictures through their cell phone.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008845324_sexting12.html

Some people just think teens are more innocent than they really are….[/quote]
Linky

This is the case I’m talking about. I was off by 1 year regarding to the age. The girl was 13 and the boy was 12. They both were marked as sex offender and as victim for the same act. That mark would be with them for all of their lives. Would be hard to get a job if you have that mark under your name.

[briansd1]

[quote=Ricechex]
If it was a 35 year old and a 17 year old, once again, the 35 year old would be a sex offender. There are some very big differences in development.
[/quote]

I agree with you.

But I don’t believe the law makes that distinction.

Do you adhere by the letter of law? Or do you let the judge make the determination as to the gravity of the crime?

If an adult (over 18) had sex with a minor, even if consensual, the adult could be arrested and tried for
statutory rape, if the parents of the minor made a big stink about it. The argument would be that the minor is not mature enough to give consent.

If your 18 year-old son had sex with his 17 year-old girlfriend, and her parents did not like your family and pressed charges, what type of judge would rather have at sentencing? A “judicial activist” who looks at the context of the “crime” or a judge who is required to strictly adhere to sentencing guidelines?

The
age of consent is 16 in Alaska and 18 in California.

Parents who can’t control their kids have only themselves to blame.

[briansd1]

[quote=Ricechex]
If it was a 35 year old and a 17 year old, once again, the 35 year old would be a sex offender. There are some very big differences in development.
[/quote]

I agree with you.

But I don’t believe the law makes that distinction.

Do you adhere by the letter of law? Or do you let the judge make the determination as to the gravity of the crime?

If an adult (over 18) had sex with a minor, even if consensual, the adult could be arrested and tried for
statutory rape, if the parents of the minor made a big stink about it. The argument would be that the minor is not mature enough to give consent.

If your 18 year-old son had sex with his 17 year-old girlfriend, and her parents did not like your family and pressed charges, what type of judge would rather have at sentencing? A “judicial activist” who looks at the context of the “crime” or a judge who is required to strictly adhere to sentencing guidelines?

The
age of consent is 16 in Alaska and 18 in California.

Parents who can’t control their kids have only themselves to blame.

[briansd1]

[quote=Ricechex]
If it was a 35 year old and a 17 year old, once again, the 35 year old would be a sex offender. There are some very big differences in development.
[/quote]

I agree with you.

But I don’t believe the law makes that distinction.

Do you adhere by the letter of law? Or do you let the judge make the determination as to the gravity of the crime?

If an adult (over 18) had sex with a minor, even if consensual, the adult could be arrested and tried for
statutory rape, if the parents of the minor made a big stink about it. The argument would be that the minor is not mature enough to give consent.

If your 18 year-old son had sex with his 17 year-old girlfriend, and her parents did not like your family and pressed charges, what type of judge would rather have at sentencing? A “judicial activist” who looks at the context of the “crime” or a judge who is required to strictly adhere to sentencing guidelines?

The
age of consent is 16 in Alaska and 18 in California.

Parents who can’t control their kids have only themselves to blame.

[briansd1]

[quote=Ricechex]
If it was a 35 year old and a 17 year old, once again, the 35 year old would be a sex offender. There are some very big differences in development.
[/quote]

I agree with you.

But I don’t believe the law makes that distinction.

Do you adhere by the letter of law? Or do you let the judge make the determination as to the gravity of the crime?

If an adult (over 18) had sex with a minor, even if consensual, the adult could be arrested and tried for
statutory rape, if the parents of the minor made a big stink about it. The argument would be that the minor is not mature enough to give consent.

If your 18 year-old son had sex with his 17 year-old girlfriend, and her parents did not like your family and pressed charges, what type of judge would rather have at sentencing? A “judicial activist” who looks at the context of the “crime” or a judge who is required to strictly adhere to sentencing guidelines?

The
age of consent is 16 in Alaska and 18 in California.

Parents who can’t control their kids have only themselves to blame.

[briansd1]

[quote=Ricechex]
If it was a 35 year old and a 17 year old, once again, the 35 year old would be a sex offender. There are some very big differences in development.
[/quote]

I agree with you.

But I don’t believe the law makes that distinction.

Do you adhere by the letter of law? Or do you let the judge make the determination as to the gravity of the crime?

If an adult (over 18) had sex with a minor, even if consensual, the adult could be arrested and tried for
statutory rape, if the parents of the minor made a big stink about it. The argument would be that the minor is not mature enough to give consent.

If your 18 year-old son had sex with his 17 year-old girlfriend, and her parents did not like your family and pressed charges, what type of judge would rather have at sentencing? A “judicial activist” who looks at the context of the “crime” or a judge who is required to strictly adhere to sentencing guidelines?

The
age of consent is 16 in Alaska and 18 in California.

Parents who can’t control their kids have only themselves to blame.

[briansd1]

BTW, I believe that legally, Bill Clinton did not have
sex with that woman. 😉

[briansd1]

BTW, I believe that legally, Bill Clinton did not have
sex with that woman. 😉

[briansd1]

BTW, I believe that legally, Bill Clinton did not have
sex with that woman. 😉

[briansd1]

BTW, I believe that legally, Bill Clinton did not have
sex with that woman. 😉

[briansd1]

BTW, I believe that legally, Bill Clinton did not have
sex with that woman. 😉

[briansd1]

Below is the
law in California concerning statutory rape.

There seems to be lots of posters concerned about the welfare of their kids on Piggington.

*

Anyone who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under age 18 and the actor is not more than three years older or three years younger, is guilty of a misdemeanor

Anyone who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under age 18 who is more than three years younger than the actor is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony

Any person 21 years of age or older who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony

[briansd1]

Below is the
law in California concerning statutory rape.

There seems to be lots of posters concerned about the welfare of their kids on Piggington.

*

Anyone who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under age 18 and the actor is not more than three years older or three years younger, is guilty of a misdemeanor

Anyone who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under age 18 who is more than three years younger than the actor is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony

Any person 21 years of age or older who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony

[briansd1]

Below is the
law in California concerning statutory rape.

There seems to be lots of posters concerned about the welfare of their kids on Piggington.

*

Anyone who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under age 18 and the actor is not more than three years older or three years younger, is guilty of a misdemeanor

Anyone who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under age 18 who is more than three years younger than the actor is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony

Any person 21 years of age or older who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony

[briansd1]

Below is the
law in California concerning statutory rape.

There seems to be lots of posters concerned about the welfare of their kids on Piggington.

*

Anyone who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under age 18 and the actor is not more than three years older or three years younger, is guilty of a misdemeanor

Anyone who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under age 18 who is more than three years younger than the actor is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony

Any person 21 years of age or older who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony

[Author]

Posts