|
|
Post by preraph on May 6, 2010 8:57:33 GMT -5
Danisty, I agree with you about putting teen on teen sex perpetrators on the sex offender registry, and judiciary and law enforcement are aware of the problem but no one has figured out how to deal with it. I just don't think they should go on the registry. It's fine with me if they in some way prosecute someone for having sex with a minor, though I don't think if that's their boyfriend or within their social circle and within a certain age range, it shouldn't be anything to ruin their reputation the rest of their lives. When I was a sophomore, it was considered out of the question to date a sophomore boy and dating college boys in high school instead of the young immature high school boys (who everyone knows mature less at that age than girls) was the norm. There's a big difference between a pedophile and a teenage or young adult boy who dates teen girls! They need to clarify the law and then enforce it. Until they get rid of this ambiguity, it is harder for there to be public support for tougher sentences for genuine pathological sex offenders, which we badly need.
|
|
|
|
Post by danisty on May 7, 2010 3:52:20 GMT -5
Danisty, I agree with you about putting teen on teen sex perpetrators on the sex offender registry, and judiciary and law enforcement are aware of the problem but no one has figured out how to deal with it. I just don't think they should go on the registry. It's fine with me if they in some way prosecute someone for having sex with a minor, though I don't think if that's their boyfriend or within their social circle and within a certain age range, it shouldn't be anything to ruin their reputation the rest of their lives. When I was a sophomore, it was considered out of the question to date a sophomore boy and dating college boys in high school instead of the young immature high school boys (who everyone knows mature less at that age than girls) was the norm. There's a big difference between a pedophile and a teenage or young adult boy who dates teen girls! They need to clarify the law and then enforce it. Until they get rid of this ambiguity, it is harder for there to be public support for tougher sentences for genuine pathological sex offenders, which we badly need. Removing the ambiguity will be hard. There's also the problem that age of consent varies from state to state. It's an awful lot to expect young people to keep up with, honestly. I know when it was relevant to me, the law in GA was that the age of consent was 16 and the person you were having sex with could be no more than 4 years older than you. I thought that was pretty reasonable because 4 years includes anyone you might have been in high school with and I think that's a fair way to determine that the kids in question were peers. Am I the only one here that really doesn't understand state's rights? I can see why states have the right to manage their own budgets, etc. because they, in theory, have a better understanding of what the state needs, but there are certain things that I can not figure out why a state has a right to determine. Age of consent and marriage are two of those things. I'm sure there are others I'm not thinking of right now. I just think state's rights interfere with the very reasonable expectation that you know the laws in your own country. It seems really stupid to me that you can be arrested and prosecuted in one state for something that's totally legal in another state. |
|
|
|
Post by preraph on May 7, 2010 12:28:58 GMT -5
I am confused about states rights all the time, too, particularly right now in light of the federal government refusing to enforce immigration laws and then stopping states from doing what they don't want to do for political reasons. I do wish it was standardized, especially in this age of internet, when people meet people from literally everywhere! Generally, the age of consent has gone up, and I don't think that is smart. it simply criminalizes the more independent older teens. I think 18 is good. I think parents should have the right to approve a dating situation with someone older up to a point. My main issue is that you cannot classify a person as being a pedophile if they are not attracted to children. If they are 19 and like 16-year-old-girls, and most of them do, but when they're 25, now they mainly like girls 20 and over, that is not a pedophile. The pedophile likes 16 year old girls (or whatever young age they're fixated on, which will be the age they became emotionally stunted) his entire life because he is arrested in a major facet of development. The hysteria about all this is what keeps the laws from getting tweaked properly.
|
|
|
|
Post by danisty on May 7, 2010 13:55:10 GMT -5
I think 18 is too old for age of consent, honestly. It's so far past puberty it's almost useless. It won't help the situation anyway because people under 18 will lie about their age and a lot of them look old enough to pull it off. I think it's perfectly normal for teenagers to have sex. It's part of development. Another problem I have with these cases is that it is always assumed that the younger party is the victim. I can't tell you how many girls I knew in high school that would target older guys just for sex. These laws give girls an awful lot of power to hurt somebody.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiddinla on May 7, 2010 16:37:40 GMT -5
I agree with you about the younger party not being the victim. When i was a senior, my girlfriend was in 10th grade. There was so much that i didn't know about her, but later found out. It was shocking. I was such a fool, i knew nothing, until someone told me that the whole city knew her, heh heh. I later found out that she slept with my brother, took a bath with a friend, and when she told me she was going to see her sick grandfather, she went to a prom with her boyfriend in that city (her hometown). So that's why people were giggling at me:)
|
|
|
|
Post by happy2bchildfree on May 7, 2010 18:19:41 GMT -5
I know when it was relevant to me, the law in GA was that the age of consent was 16 and the person you were having sex with could be no more than 4 years older than you. I thought that was pretty reasonable because 4 years includes anyone you might have been in high school with and I think that's a fair way to determine that the kids in question were peers. The law is similar in CA, but the age of consent is 18. The age of consent needs to be dropped. It doesn't make any sense that a teenage girl can legally give consent to have an abortion but can't legally give consent to have sex.  |
|
|
|
Post by danisty on May 8, 2010 1:34:03 GMT -5
I know when it was relevant to me, the law in GA was that the age of consent was 16 and the person you were having sex with could be no more than 4 years older than you. I thought that was pretty reasonable because 4 years includes anyone you might have been in high school with and I think that's a fair way to determine that the kids in question were peers. The law is similar in CA, but the age of consent is 18. The age of consent needs to be dropped. It doesn't make any sense that a teenage girl can legally give consent to have an abortion but can't legally give consent to have sex. If the age of consent is 18, why would they need an additional rule about 4 years? Once you're 18 you're not a minor anymore and you'd be able to have sex with anyone else that isn't a minor. That doesn't make any sense at all. |
|
|
|
Post by happy2bchildfree on May 8, 2010 4:00:26 GMT -5
The law is similar in CA, but the age of consent is 18. The age of consent needs to be dropped. It doesn't make any sense that a teenage girl can legally give consent to have an abortion but can't legally give consent to have sex. If the age of consent is 18, why would they need an additional rule about 4 years? Once you're 18 you're not a minor anymore and you'd be able to have sex with anyone else that isn't a minor. That doesn't make any sense at all. This is in the case of someone over 18 having sex with someone who is underage but when the parties involved are within 4 years of age of each other. For example, a 19-year-old young man having consensual sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend. Technically it is illegal because she is below the legal age of consent, but it is not viewed or treated the same as, say, a 25-year-old man having sex with a 12-year-old. If the legal-age and underage parties are within 4 years of age of each other, it is treated as a minor infraction and not as a full-blown sex crime, even though one party is underage. It's kind of a gray area in the law. Does that make sense? |
|
|
|
Post by preraph on May 8, 2010 12:21:23 GMT -5
Yes, it makes sense. What should be illegal is parents who won't educate their children about birth control. Gloria Steinham was on a talk show this week and said that since the trend toward preaching abstinence only in school, a majority of high school girls don't even know there IS sucha thing as birth control and that teen pregnancy has gone WAY up. Morons.
|
|
|
|
Post by happy2bchildfree on May 8, 2010 14:56:48 GMT -5
What should be illegal is parents who won't educate their children about birth control. Gloria Steinham was on a talk show this week and said that since the trend toward preaching abstinence only in school, a majority of high school girls don't even know there IS sucha thing as birth control and that teen pregnancy has gone WAY up. Morons. Yes. Failing to teach teens about birth control should be a crime. It's been proven over and over that abstinence-only "education"--if you want to call it that--DOES NOT WORK. It's hard to believe that such backwards ideas still exist in this day and age. |
|
|
|
Post by kiddinla on May 10, 2010 14:45:16 GMT -5
i think katherine gets kicked off today. Dr. Phil said if anyone walks away from me again, that's it.
|
|
|
|
Post by preraph on May 10, 2010 21:57:25 GMT -5
Happy, Gloria Steinham listed all the European countries who teach birth control. U.S. sticks out among them as backward, clearly.
Kidd, yeah, she got kicked, but I do NOT understand why no one has given Alex the polygraph. Alex is by far the most deceptive on there. He is no doubt covering up for some things she has done or not done and that may be why he's coming up guilty. What makes me throw up is how eager Erin is to blame Alex's men for Alex's stupid decisions and make them the scapegoat. I guess there's not a mother alive who can face reality when it's THEIR kid who is the bad one.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiddinla on May 11, 2010 6:30:09 GMT -5
Alex was acting sick yesterday. I've seen Erin go off on her daughters and the guys. I mean they're all messed up and don't seem to want to take advantage of the help dr. phil is offering. You can see the road ahead for them, they just don't make good decisions. I'm not sure what the final 3 shows means; does that mean forever? I think dr. phil is getting tired of this circus too, but he may be torn because of the ratings. Also, I'm sure there is a backlog of families who want the help and will take advantage of it. It's time for a success story i guess.
|
|
