OUTRAGEOUS INJUSTICE: ON ESPN FRONT PAGE

[jrowe]

Age of consent has been around forever. Based on age and maturity, children lack the ability to knowingly consent to many things. For example, contracts aren't legally enforceable if signed by a minor. Why? Under the law, they lack the ability to truly understand the nature of their actions and the obligations that follow. Age of consent laws dealing with sex do the same thing. Save kids from themselves that don't know better. So, the whole "she initiated it/volunteered it" line doesn't work. Where would you then draw the next line. If not at 15 or 16 then what. How old should children be before they can legally consent to sex? You have to draw the line somewhere, and it seems to be reasonable where they drew the line.

Also, look at the facts of the case. Weed, booze, orgy, camera 15 y/o. Clearly guilty under the law. Offfered a plea after conviction. Would already be out now.

Yes, his punishment is onerous and excessive, but he is not the victim he is portrayed as. He is an individual that made poor choices in the first place and continues to do so.

[Silock]

Originally Posted by jrowe

Age of consent has been around forever. Based on age and maturity, children lack the ability to knowingly consent to many things. For example, contracts aren't legally enforceable if signed by a minor. Why? Under the law, they lack the ability to truly understand the nature of their actions and the obligations that follow. Age of consent laws dealing with sex do the same thing. Save kids from themselves that don't know better. So, the whole "she initiated it/volunteered it" line doesn't work. Where would you then draw the next line. If not at 15 or 16 then what. How old should children be before they can legally consent to sex? You have to draw the line somewhere, and it seems to be reasonable where they drew the line.

Also, look at the facts of the case. Weed, booze, orgy, camera 15 y/o. Clearly guilty under the law. Offfered a plea after conviction. Would already be out now.

Yes, his punishment is onerous and excessive, but he is not the victim he is portrayed as. He is an individual that made poor choices in the first place and continues to do so.

They're both minors. You must not have gotten any action in high school, because every single minute of every single day, some high school kids, somewhere, are ****ing each other. It's naive to think that passing laws is going to regulate it among minors.

[jrowe]

Originally Posted by Silock

They're both minors. You must not have gotten any action in high school, because every single minute of every single day, some high school kids, somewhere, are ****ing each other. It's naive to think that passing laws is going to regulate it among minors.

So an 8 and 10 year old can vidotape themselves engaging in sex acts? If they do it voluntarily, they might as well sell it too and make some money. Just because both are minors and consent does not make it right or legal. Under your logic child porn could easily be legalized too.

[Lono]

Originally Posted by jrowe

So an 8 and 10 year old can vidotape themselves engaging in sex acts? If they do it voluntarily, they might as well sell it too and make some money. Just because both are minors and consent does not make it right or legal. Under your logic child porn could easily be legalized too.

Dont be another reerun. You have to display some common sense. A 15 yr old has the common sense to know if they want to get layed or not. Why not put the girl in jail too. He is in prison for screwing a girl under age. Isnt he under age too? Why isnt she in jail? She initiated it.

Btw no where in the article it states the boys supplied the booze and drugs. It actually says some girls came over and bourbon and marijuana were consumed.

[Swanman]

Originally Posted by Lono

He is in prison for screwing a girl under age. Isnt he under age too? Why isnt she in jail? She initiated it.

That's where the story got real crazy for me. If he had actually screwed her, he wouldn't be in jail because that's considered just a misdemeanor. However, since it was oral sex, it's considered a felony in Georgia. The prosecutor should be thrown in prison for enforcing that reeruned law to the letter and not exercising one iota of common sense.

I believe we have a law, or at least used to, here in Illinois that stated oral sex was illegal, even among consenting adults. But it's never become an issue because people realize the law is too stupid to be enforced, so it's just a silly trivia question, not a means to lock up somebody for 10 years.