| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bassexpander
Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Location: Someplace you'd rather be.
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:59 pm Post subject: Is this going overboard? You decide. |
 |
|
Do you think this is out-of-hand?
The woman had been ordered not to talk to any minor... at all. Even female minors. Now, given the fact that she's a sex offender, isn't it pretty much impossible to go through life without talking to a minor? Especially if you're trying to work? The constitution says people should be protected from cruel and unusual punishment... wouldn't this constitute that?
http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/0,4644,54,00.html#8_0
She got to the end of her sentence, and she was busted... for what? Talking to a female minor. That's right... talking.
Police: Sure, you had a spotless record since we busted you, but we caught you talking to someone, so now we've got to extend your sentence.
You decide. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sounds like it was a condition of probation.
A condition of probation is a contract, an agreement between you and the
court. You agree to conditions such as no contact with minors, so long as
you conform to the agreement the state will defer your incarceration.
The punishment is incarceration.
The deferment is granted with the agreement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keysbottles
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Location: AnJung
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't have much sympathy for sex offenders, period,,even a female as hot as this one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| Sounds like it was a condition of probation. |
Then the contract was ridiculous.
The whole thing is farcical.
Also, I find it strange that Americans aren't supposed to have sex until they're 18. That's madness, it defies nature.
Last edited by Big_Bird on Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:34 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Also, I find it strange that Americans aren't supposed to have sex until they're 18. That's madness, it defies nature. |
 I wasn't aware of that. I know the age in Illinois is 17, but that is for consensual sex between adults. An adult can go to jail for having sex with minor aged 17 or under. Though I know of no law where two minors having sex is actually illegal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Also, I find it strange that Americans aren't supposed to have sex until they're 18. That's madness, it defies nature. |
I wasn't aware of that. I know the age in Illinois is 17, but that is for consensual sex between adults. An adult can go to jail for having sex with minor aged 17 or under. Though I know of no law where two minors having sex is actually illegal. |
Do different states have different laws?
In the UK you can legally shag at 16. That seems reasonable to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Did you mean to provide this link?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315052,00.html
It sounds as if it was more than just the kind of talking that would be necessary for her to live her life and hold down a job ... I guess the court is concerned that the two women were forming a relationship that could eventually become inappropriate. Without more information it's hard to say whether the punishment was excessive or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Then the contract was ridiculous.
The whole thing is farcical.
Also, I find it strange that Americans aren't supposed to have sex until they're 18. That's madness, it defies nature. |
Ha.
Continuing to get your info about America from the Guardian, I see?
First of all, Big Bird, America is a union of fifty states. The statutory rape laws vary from state to state.
The maximum is 18, but in the bulk of jurisdictions age of consent is somewhere between 14-16. Part of the idea is that when sex occurs between an older person and a young person, there should be a presumption of rape. In practice, if the parents consent to the relationship, there usually is not prosecution.
The laws themselves vary. Look at Maryland's:
| Quote: |
| Second-degree rape to have vaginal intercourse with a person under age 14 if the actor is at least four years older |
So there is no prosecution if both are under-aged. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Then the contract was ridiculous.
The whole thing is farcical.
Also, I find it strange that Americans aren't supposed to have sex until they're 18. That's madness, it defies nature. |
Ha.
Continuing to get your info about America from the Guardian, I see?
First of all, Big Bird, America is a union of fifty states. The statutory rape laws vary from state to state.
The maximum is 18, but in the bulk of jurisdictions age of consent is somewhere between 14-16. Part of the idea is that when sex occurs between an older person and a young person, there should be a presumption of rape. In practice, if the parents consent to the relationship, there usually is not prosecution.
The laws themselves vary. Look at Maryland's:
| Quote: |
| Second-degree rape to have vaginal intercourse with a person under age 14 if the actor is at least four years older |
So there is no prosecution if both are under-aged. |
Firstly I've never seen an article in The Guardian that discussed the age of consent in America.
Secondly, if you bother to read my second post you'll see I did ask if the law was different in different states.
In the UK, once you hit 16 you can sleep with anyone else over 16. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Secondly, if you bother to read my second post you'll see I did ask if the law was different in different states.
In the UK, once you hit 16 you can sleep with anyone else over 16. |
Right. But I was writing my post as you posted that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| Sounds like it was a condition of probation. |
Then the contract was ridiculous.
The whole thing is farcical.
Also, I find it strange that Americans aren't supposed to have sex until they're 18. That's madness, it defies nature. |
Age of consent and contact with minors are two different issues.
The age of consent in Vermont was 14 last time I checked, but I heard
somewhere that they may have changed it.
She could have not accepted the terms of probation and submitted to
incarceration, there are people that find probation terms too confining.
Some people don't like the chaffing of the ankle bracelet.
Terms of probation are universal and not an American Phenomenon.
I saw a guy get locked up for violating a court order, he was ordered to
have no contact with his wife, his wife called him and he didn't hang up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:29 pm Post subject: Re: Is this going overboard? You decide. |
|
|
| bassexpander wrote: |
Do you think this is out-of-hand?
The woman had been ordered not to talk to any minor... at all. Even female minors. Now, given the fact that she's a sex offender, isn't it pretty much impossible to go through life without talking to a minor? Especially if you're trying to work? The constitution says people should be protected from cruel and unusual punishment... wouldn't this constitute that?
http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/0,4644,54,00.html#8_0
She got to the end of her sentence, and she was busted... for what? Talking to a female minor. That's right... talking.
Police: Sure, you had a spotless record since we busted you, but we caught you talking to someone, so now we've got to extend your sentence.
You decide. |
It's an interesting question. I don't think the imposition that she should have no contact with minors is cruel and unusual punishment. I think what makes the prohibition cruel and unusual is that it's practically/technically impossible to follow to the letter. Suppose a child has been attacked by a dog, and cries for help to the woman? What is she supposed to do...ignore the child?
On the other hand, if she can't demonstrate to a court that she made her best efforts to follow the restriction, despite its technical difficulty... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Then the contract was ridiculous.
The whole thing is farcical.
Also, I find it strange that Americans aren't supposed to have sex until they're 18. That's madness, it defies nature. |
It is especially absurd considering that the average age of first intercourse is less than the average age of consent, i.e. your average American is a child molester. 
| Kuros wrote: |
| The maximum is 18, but in the bulk of jurisdictions age of consent is somewhere between 14-16. |
That is not quite accurate. Most are between 16-18, and the largest, California and New York, they are 18 and 17, respectively.
| Kuros wrote: |
So there is no prosecution if both are under-aged. |
This is not quite accurate either, and here is an article about a 13-year-old girl being charged as both offender and victim in the same crime involving her 12-year-old boyfriend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Crikey! That is indeed farcical.
| Quote: |
Randall Richards, the girl's attorney, argued that prosecuting children under a law meant to protect them is illogical.
"A child (victim) cannot also be a perpetrator in the exact same act," Richards said. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Crikey! That is indeed farcical. |
It would be if the consequences were not so serious. This witchhunt has gotten so out of hand now that we have judges approving plans for sex offenders to live under bridges because entire towns have been made off-limits to them.
The OP situation is way out of line. Probationers do not really have much choice in their conditions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
