Entrapment?
August 29, 2001 10:16 AM Subscribe
Luring people from foreign countries to arrest them and put them in prison for up to 15 years is kinda low.
posted by zavyman at 10:22 AM on August 29, 2001
posted by zavyman at 10:22 AM on August 29, 2001
Travelling from a foreign country to have sex with a minor is : warped/desperate/sick. They should not imprison him here though. Deport him, and let his own country foot the bill for his prison stay. Last thing we need to do is to start importing prisoners. I think we have enough.
posted by a3matrix at 10:33 AM on August 29, 2001
posted by a3matrix at 10:33 AM on August 29, 2001
if he does it often enough he might have had frequent flyer miles...send me your poor, your downtrodden, your hungry and your pedophiles etc
posted by Postroad at 10:36 AM on August 29, 2001
posted by Postroad at 10:36 AM on August 29, 2001
zavyman - under the circumstances would u say that if the guy was coming over to meet your daughter... i certainly know i wouldn't -
posted by monkeyJuice at 10:38 AM on August 29, 2001
posted by monkeyJuice at 10:38 AM on August 29, 2001
He should have immediately and loudly claimed that he was hoping to have sex with an undercover police officer.
posted by Skot at 10:44 AM on August 29, 2001
posted by Skot at 10:44 AM on August 29, 2001
monkeyJuice -- damn, I know I wouldn't either. But the concept of enticing someone to come to the US just to commit a crime just seems wrong. Do two wrongs make a right in this case?
posted by zavyman at 10:47 AM on August 29, 2001
posted by zavyman at 10:47 AM on August 29, 2001
The "what if it was your kid" argument is so bogus and shortsighted. We don't live under mob rules. This is a democracy. Besides, there was no daughter. The cops made her up.
posted by jpoulos at 10:47 AM on August 29, 2001
posted by jpoulos at 10:47 AM on August 29, 2001
i know someone [complicated, my ex-girlfriends former husband] flew to texas for a date with a "13-year-old" and did 2 years in prison. Thank you FBI. I hosted the garage sale to sell what was left of his belongings after a relative took one van-load. People were really suprised at the great prices. I gave stuff away.
not entrapment, just food for Ego. Guys who think they are so smart, so good at manipulating a young girl, etc...all the investigators have to do is make the connection and probably type :) faces every once in a while. Their ego does the rest.
posted by th3ph17 at 10:49 AM on August 29, 2001
not entrapment, just food for Ego. Guys who think they are so smart, so good at manipulating a young girl, etc...all the investigators have to do is make the connection and probably type :) faces every once in a while. Their ego does the rest.
posted by th3ph17 at 10:49 AM on August 29, 2001
"an undercover officer posing as a young girl arrived by cab to meet him."? A midwestern sheriff's deputy passed as a 14 year old? Either European pedophiles are as dumb as posts or the Cook County sheriff's department's undercover officers belong in the CIA.
posted by crake at 10:51 AM on August 29, 2001
posted by crake at 10:51 AM on August 29, 2001
"Deport him, and let his own country foot the bill for his prison stay."
That wouldn't work though, according to This...
"Sex between an adult and a young person between the ages of 12 and 16 is permitted by law, as long as the young person consents. It may only be prosecuted by complaint from the young person or the young person’s parents."
posted by Tenuki at 10:58 AM on August 29, 2001
That wouldn't work though, according to This...
"Sex between an adult and a young person between the ages of 12 and 16 is permitted by law, as long as the young person consents. It may only be prosecuted by complaint from the young person or the young person’s parents."
posted by Tenuki at 10:58 AM on August 29, 2001
Although the phrase "victimless crime" gets overused, in cases like this it is literally true. Presumably the crime is soliciting a minor for sex, but in these cases there is no minor (even though the individual thought there was). While I'm not at all sympathetic to the plight of these individuals (knowing that but for the cops they would have done what they intended), I do wonder whether we're a bit overzealous in our attempts to create crimes where only criminal intent exists.
posted by pardonyou? at 10:59 AM on August 29, 2001
posted by pardonyou? at 10:59 AM on August 29, 2001
Has anyone noticed the recent bogeyman-ification of pedophilia, especially in the online world? Sexual predators are real for sure, but i'm concerned that the pedophile bogeyman is being used as a battering ram to destroy any arguments about privacy, civil rights, etc, especially in the context of the net.
It seems like you can get away with the most egregious privacy violations these days by simply raising the specter of "child pornography."
I discovered the massive cache of pirated Phil Collins songs on his harddrive and reported it immediately to the RIAA - Of course, I was searching for child pornography, which justifies my sticking my nose where i shouldn't...
posted by preguicoso at 11:04 AM on August 29, 2001
It seems like you can get away with the most egregious privacy violations these days by simply raising the specter of "child pornography."
I discovered the massive cache of pirated Phil Collins songs on his harddrive and reported it immediately to the RIAA - Of course, I was searching for child pornography, which justifies my sticking my nose where i shouldn't...
posted by preguicoso at 11:04 AM on August 29, 2001
If it's not illegal in the Netherlands to have sex with a consenting 14-year-old, that makes the situation even more shady... maybe the guy didn't even know what the laws were in the U.S. regarding age of consent.
Maybe not technically entrapment but I agree, pretty damn low.
posted by mjane at 11:34 AM on August 29, 2001
Maybe not technically entrapment but I agree, pretty damn low.
posted by mjane at 11:34 AM on August 29, 2001
Talk about opening a can of beans.
Say a small conservative county in a State in which Sodomy is illegal sets up a similar sting. Just instead of using a minor they use an officer posing as a homosexual.
They lure the individual to a motel and then promptly arrest them.
Normally I would say thats a pretty far fetched scenario, after reading the linked article, maybe not.
posted by Grok09 at 11:37 AM on August 29, 2001
Say a small conservative county in a State in which Sodomy is illegal sets up a similar sting. Just instead of using a minor they use an officer posing as a homosexual.
They lure the individual to a motel and then promptly arrest them.
Normally I would say thats a pretty far fetched scenario, after reading the linked article, maybe not.
posted by Grok09 at 11:37 AM on August 29, 2001
my reading of the netherlands age of consent laws seems to indicate the age of consent is 16. (read the the actual articles, not the top section for details)
posted by lescour at 11:50 AM on August 29, 2001
posted by lescour at 11:50 AM on August 29, 2001
Whatever the laws are in Holland, he was here. Most Americans operate under the delusion that whatever the laws are in foreign countries, they can act as though they're in America and the embassy will bail them out. Now versa vicey that and ask the question again.
Entrapment is a tricky legal area in any event. The US case law has developed that it is a prosecutable offense to simply come to a state with the intent of having sex with a minor. If the minor is played by a police officer (something the arrestee often only realizes at the last minute, when it's too late), it's still a good bust. Entrapment is not a defense here, essentially, because the individual has voluntarily made the trek. MOst of the stings that operate like this have found it stunningly easy to simply troll the chat rooms and respond to the a/s/l requests they get appropriately. Most are scared off. Those that do, they work on with some pretty standard stories (e.g. "I hate my parents, they won't let me do anything"). These tactics have largely been upheld over the last 20 years.
There was a major Supreme Court case about 1988 where a man was harassed for years because he'd subscribed to/written for perfectly legal information, and postal inspectors (known to be rabid in this department) simply wouldn't leave him alone until he subscribed (he says to get rid of them). The USSC ruled he was entrapped. But it takes a flagrant case like that to show that generally what the public considers "entrapment" isn't.
I'd rather a world where victimless crimes were treated in a libertarian manner, but that's not, currently, the world we live in.
Finally, a pragmatic reading of these cases indicates that most often, there is no jail time (e.g. suspended sentence). Most are first-time offenders (perhaps they won't be so dumb and trusting next time). There's an inside chance that the arrestee will also be found (broken-windows policing) to have outstanding warrants, probation violations, even possess child porn or something else they can add to the charges, but none of that is guaranteed. Aside from that, the purpose of these prosecutions is deterrence, and the secondary effects of being charged are punishment enough for a "non"-crime: loss of job, loss of community respect, even loss of spouse and/or custody of children. Karmic balancing? Maybe. Just as with this one, the cops love to invite TV cameras and reporters, so that the humiliation will occur on the evening news -- acting as the aforementioned deterrent.
posted by dhartung at 12:26 PM on August 29, 2001
Entrapment is a tricky legal area in any event. The US case law has developed that it is a prosecutable offense to simply come to a state with the intent of having sex with a minor. If the minor is played by a police officer (something the arrestee often only realizes at the last minute, when it's too late), it's still a good bust. Entrapment is not a defense here, essentially, because the individual has voluntarily made the trek. MOst of the stings that operate like this have found it stunningly easy to simply troll the chat rooms and respond to the a/s/l requests they get appropriately. Most are scared off. Those that do, they work on with some pretty standard stories (e.g. "I hate my parents, they won't let me do anything"). These tactics have largely been upheld over the last 20 years.
There was a major Supreme Court case about 1988 where a man was harassed for years because he'd subscribed to/written for perfectly legal information, and postal inspectors (known to be rabid in this department) simply wouldn't leave him alone until he subscribed (he says to get rid of them). The USSC ruled he was entrapped. But it takes a flagrant case like that to show that generally what the public considers "entrapment" isn't.
I'd rather a world where victimless crimes were treated in a libertarian manner, but that's not, currently, the world we live in.
Finally, a pragmatic reading of these cases indicates that most often, there is no jail time (e.g. suspended sentence). Most are first-time offenders (perhaps they won't be so dumb and trusting next time). There's an inside chance that the arrestee will also be found (broken-windows policing) to have outstanding warrants, probation violations, even possess child porn or something else they can add to the charges, but none of that is guaranteed. Aside from that, the purpose of these prosecutions is deterrence, and the secondary effects of being charged are punishment enough for a "non"-crime: loss of job, loss of community respect, even loss of spouse and/or custody of children. Karmic balancing? Maybe. Just as with this one, the cops love to invite TV cameras and reporters, so that the humiliation will occur on the evening news -- acting as the aforementioned deterrent.
posted by dhartung at 12:26 PM on August 29, 2001
> A midwestern sheriff's deputy passed as a 14 year old?
> Either European pedophiles are as dumb as posts or the
> Cook County sheriff's department's undercover officers
> belong in the CIA.
"Hi. My name is Kerry, I'm almost 13 and I'm looking for a father figure willing to cross state lines." (SatireWire)
posted by jfuller at 12:37 PM on August 29, 2001
> Either European pedophiles are as dumb as posts or the
> Cook County sheriff's department's undercover officers
> belong in the CIA.
"Hi. My name is Kerry, I'm almost 13 and I'm looking for a father figure willing to cross state lines." (SatireWire)
posted by jfuller at 12:37 PM on August 29, 2001
You can't entrap an honest man. If the guy wasn't interested in committing what he knew to be a crime, he should have skipped the trip. Can't *anybody* keep it in their pants anymore? WTF, people, just WAIT UNTIL THEY'RE 18. Is that so difficult?
Everybody, listen up: please stop fucking children. There are plenty of people to fuck that are adults, leave the children alone. IF you have the desire to fuck children, keep it yourself and go see a shrink. Do not - I repeat DO NOT - actually fuck children. They are people - small, yes, but people just the same. They are not ready to be fucked, OK? If you fuck them, it will just mess them up and, while you don't care about that, the rest of us do. Just because you are a sick piece of shit does not make it OK to fuck children, regardless of what your shrivelled little toad brain thinks. Fucking? Perfectly OK. Fucking children? NOT OK. Got it?
posted by UncleFes at 1:56 PM on August 29, 2001
Everybody, listen up: please stop fucking children. There are plenty of people to fuck that are adults, leave the children alone. IF you have the desire to fuck children, keep it yourself and go see a shrink. Do not - I repeat DO NOT - actually fuck children. They are people - small, yes, but people just the same. They are not ready to be fucked, OK? If you fuck them, it will just mess them up and, while you don't care about that, the rest of us do. Just because you are a sick piece of shit does not make it OK to fuck children, regardless of what your shrivelled little toad brain thinks. Fucking? Perfectly OK. Fucking children? NOT OK. Got it?
posted by UncleFes at 1:56 PM on August 29, 2001
Has anyone noticed the recent bogeyman-ification of pedophilia
I was going to post a link to Chris Morris's satire of this (shown on Channel 4 TV here in the UK a few weeks ago and available on the 'net), but the site's been shut down...
posted by andrew cooke at 2:06 PM on August 29, 2001
I was going to post a link to Chris Morris's satire of this (shown on Channel 4 TV here in the UK a few weeks ago and available on the 'net), but the site's been shut down...
posted by andrew cooke at 2:06 PM on August 29, 2001
UncleFes - as someone quoted earlier, this guy came from a country where sex with someone that age is considered legal (and presumably normal).
posted by andrew cooke at 2:09 PM on August 29, 2001
posted by andrew cooke at 2:09 PM on August 29, 2001
In reference to th3ph17's comment, I did a little research and was able to get my hands on one of the conversations between the guy and the agent. You saw it first on MeFi. Entrapment? You decide:
pedophile: so, do u like touching yourself?
agent: :)
pedophile: can u take pictures?
agent: :)
pedophile: i wanna kiss u all over
agent: :)
pedophile: can i come visit u?
agent: :)
pedophile: i'm booking a ticket
agent: :)
pedophile: i'll be there on the 17th. wear white panties
agent: :)
posted by witchstone at 2:18 PM on August 29, 2001
pedophile: so, do u like touching yourself?
agent: :)
pedophile: can u take pictures?
agent: :)
pedophile: i wanna kiss u all over
agent: :)
pedophile: can i come visit u?
agent: :)
pedophile: i'm booking a ticket
agent: :)
pedophile: i'll be there on the 17th. wear white panties
agent: :)
posted by witchstone at 2:18 PM on August 29, 2001
Also, interestingly, many places in Europe seem to have a similarly low age limit.
posted by andrew cooke at 2:18 PM on August 29, 2001
posted by andrew cooke at 2:18 PM on August 29, 2001
this guy came from a country where sex with someone that age is considered legal (and presumably normal)
What I don't get, if that's the case, is why he didn't stay in the Netherlands. For years now the news has been full of reports of such stings (Patrick Naughton, anyone), about busting global child porn rings, etc. If younger girls are what he's into, and it's legal at home, why take the risk abroad? (Not to mention the expense.)
posted by phichens at 2:22 PM on August 29, 2001
What I don't get, if that's the case, is why he didn't stay in the Netherlands. For years now the news has been full of reports of such stings (Patrick Naughton, anyone), about busting global child porn rings, etc. If younger girls are what he's into, and it's legal at home, why take the risk abroad? (Not to mention the expense.)
posted by phichens at 2:22 PM on August 29, 2001
as someone quoted earlier, this guy came from a country where sex with someone that age is considered legal (and presumably normal).
I don't care. This ain't Europe.
posted by UncleFes at 2:30 PM on August 29, 2001
I don't care. This ain't Europe.
posted by UncleFes at 2:30 PM on August 29, 2001
See? This is irrefutable evidence that nothing good can ever come of legalized marijuana.
posted by daragh at 3:08 PM on August 29, 2001
posted by daragh at 3:08 PM on August 29, 2001
I've been told that 14 is the legal age of sexual consent in some Canadian provinces. This could further murkify the issue as I know of at least one case of a cross-border boyfriend and girlfriend, one 19 and the other 15, an age difference most people would find perfectly alright.
posted by nathan_teske at 3:16 PM on August 29, 2001
posted by nathan_teske at 3:16 PM on August 29, 2001
WAIT UNTIL THEY'RE 18. Is that so difficult?
Eighteen is not some magic age where children suddenly become adults. And I believe the age of consent in many states is lower than that anyway.
posted by bargle at 3:24 PM on August 29, 2001
Eighteen is not some magic age where children suddenly become adults. And I believe the age of consent in many states is lower than that anyway.
posted by bargle at 3:24 PM on August 29, 2001
unclefes - So anyone under 18 is a child, huh? Perhaps the man in question should have found a girl in Hawaii instead, as 14 year olds are apparently legal in Hawaii regardless of how old the other partner is.
What if I, living in Grand Forks, ND, found an intelligent, emotionally mature 17 year old girl from East Grand Forks, MN, literally a stone's throw across the river. She's legal in Minnesota for me (I'm 21). But, on my return to North Dakota---where age of consent is a hard 18---, should I be arrested by the ND State Police and charged with sexual imposition under North Dakota law?
posted by nathan_teske at 3:30 PM on August 29, 2001
What if I, living in Grand Forks, ND, found an intelligent, emotionally mature 17 year old girl from East Grand Forks, MN, literally a stone's throw across the river. She's legal in Minnesota for me (I'm 21). But, on my return to North Dakota---where age of consent is a hard 18---, should I be arrested by the ND State Police and charged with sexual imposition under North Dakota law?
posted by nathan_teske at 3:30 PM on August 29, 2001
jfuller: I was only talking about the cop who actually got disguised as a middle-schooler and met the guy. Of course, the horny little shit was probably so excited by the time he got there that he would have believed Florence Henderson was 14.
posted by crake at 5:36 PM on August 29, 2001
posted by crake at 5:36 PM on August 29, 2001
should I be arrested by the ND State Police and charged with sexual imposition under North Dakota law?
Yep, you should. Now I know that doesn't make any sense in light of your contrivance, but you can't spot those intelligent, emotionally mature 17-year-old's just by looking at them. Neither can the local constabulary. But the law has to address the issue, and it does that by being arbitrary. There's no other way. If you want to legally pork a 14-year-old, go to Hawaii or the Netherlands or wherever else it's legal. In the meantime, if it's against the law where you live to throw the bone to your intelligent, emotionally mature 17-year-old girlfriend, then either try dating someone your own age, or wait the friggin year until she turns 18.
Eighteen is not some magic age where children suddenly become adults. And I believe the age of consent in many states is lower than that anyway.
Wait until they're 18 anyway. Why take a chance on having to explain the injustice of it all to you new cellmate?
In any event, the law can't gauge how intelligent and mature your high-school-age sweetums is. It says 18 (or 17 or whatever), then that's the law. Grow some self-control and keep it in your pants.
posted by UncleFes at 9:13 PM on August 29, 2001
Yep, you should. Now I know that doesn't make any sense in light of your contrivance, but you can't spot those intelligent, emotionally mature 17-year-old's just by looking at them. Neither can the local constabulary. But the law has to address the issue, and it does that by being arbitrary. There's no other way. If you want to legally pork a 14-year-old, go to Hawaii or the Netherlands or wherever else it's legal. In the meantime, if it's against the law where you live to throw the bone to your intelligent, emotionally mature 17-year-old girlfriend, then either try dating someone your own age, or wait the friggin year until she turns 18.
Eighteen is not some magic age where children suddenly become adults. And I believe the age of consent in many states is lower than that anyway.
Wait until they're 18 anyway. Why take a chance on having to explain the injustice of it all to you new cellmate?
In any event, the law can't gauge how intelligent and mature your high-school-age sweetums is. It says 18 (or 17 or whatever), then that's the law. Grow some self-control and keep it in your pants.
posted by UncleFes at 9:13 PM on August 29, 2001
crake: they get arrested at about the moment they get within "hello" range, no more. All they need to do is show up at the meeting place; there's no sitting and conversing required. So the cop can wear her long hair down under a floppy hat and a denim jacket and get away with it.
posted by dhartung at 9:24 PM on August 29, 2001
posted by dhartung at 9:24 PM on August 29, 2001
UncleFes - who says that North Dakota is right and Minnesota is wrong? It seems that a lot of states have these sorts of graduated standards, where it all depends on age disparity, not an arbitrary dividing line. You seem more preoccupied with "It's the law." rather than questioning why it is the law.
BTW, I routinely had sex with my girlfriend when she was 18 and I was 17. (Oooh... the evil adult corrupted my youth, using her senior age to vex me into bed.) Under North Dakota law, which treats sexual majority as a black-and-white issue, she should have been thrown in jail. Of course a month later, when we were both 18, we went to Manitoba to drink and screw like good adults.
posted by nathan_teske at 11:02 PM on August 29, 2001
BTW, I routinely had sex with my girlfriend when she was 18 and I was 17. (Oooh... the evil adult corrupted my youth, using her senior age to vex me into bed.) Under North Dakota law, which treats sexual majority as a black-and-white issue, she should have been thrown in jail. Of course a month later, when we were both 18, we went to Manitoba to drink and screw like good adults.
posted by nathan_teske at 11:02 PM on August 29, 2001
UncleFes - I have no problem with asking people to follow the law. But your initial post (unlike your later stuff) was an emotional rant about not having sex with children as if this was some obvious, clear, universal, moral issue.
When it's not.
It's a point of law, but morally it's relative to your society. And that's an important point given the levels of hysteria that are being whipped up about child porn, under age sex etc etc - issues that are regularly rolled out as excuses to reduce people's freedom to act and speak.
posted by andrew cooke at 3:11 AM on August 30, 2001
When it's not.
It's a point of law, but morally it's relative to your society. And that's an important point given the levels of hysteria that are being whipped up about child porn, under age sex etc etc - issues that are regularly rolled out as excuses to reduce people's freedom to act and speak.
posted by andrew cooke at 3:11 AM on August 30, 2001
who says that North Dakota is right and Minnesota is wrong?
The voters and legislature of North Dakota. The citizenry of Minnesota may disagree with them, and insitute their own policies.
You seem more preoccupied with "It's the law." rather than questioning why it is the law.
I believe I know why it's the law - to keep adults from humping children.
was an emotional rant about not having sex with children
Sorry. I have kids. I'm an emotional guy. And I don't believe that having sex with children is a freedom issue. And I do believe that it's a moral issue. If 18 is wrong, when is right?
When it's not.
Yes it is.
I fear we may have a sticking point in our discussion here :)
It's a point of law, but morally it's relative to your society.
Sure, but we're not talking about indiginies from Mars here, we're talking about differences from state to state - not exactly a wild difference cultural mores between ND and Minnesota. My point is, the law has to address it, an the only way they can do it is arbitrarily by age, since emotional maturity is notoriously hard to gauge. You as a citizen are aware of that law, but you choose to break it. If you don't believe a law is fair, you work to change it. If you choose to break a law - however unfair you feel it is - then you assume the potential for consequences.
And what's worse, this whole issue is SO STUPID. Is it really so difficult to say, OK, I'm just going to have sex with 18-year-olds and up? Is it really that tough? Is it really that much of an infringement on your "freedom to act and speak"? All this "what if I'm 19 and she's 17" crapola is just baby steps toward a slippery slope argument.
I think this all comes down to is selfishness and lack of self control - someone's wanting to fuck overriding both their willingness to follow the law and their concern for any repercussions it may have on their partner. I agree with you that "the children" are trotted out to cover a lot of repressive shit, but in this case, I find it hard to believe that refraining from having sex with anyone under 18 is repressive.
posted by UncleFes at 7:23 AM on August 30, 2001
The voters and legislature of North Dakota. The citizenry of Minnesota may disagree with them, and insitute their own policies.
You seem more preoccupied with "It's the law." rather than questioning why it is the law.
I believe I know why it's the law - to keep adults from humping children.
was an emotional rant about not having sex with children
Sorry. I have kids. I'm an emotional guy. And I don't believe that having sex with children is a freedom issue. And I do believe that it's a moral issue. If 18 is wrong, when is right?
When it's not.
Yes it is.
I fear we may have a sticking point in our discussion here :)
It's a point of law, but morally it's relative to your society.
Sure, but we're not talking about indiginies from Mars here, we're talking about differences from state to state - not exactly a wild difference cultural mores between ND and Minnesota. My point is, the law has to address it, an the only way they can do it is arbitrarily by age, since emotional maturity is notoriously hard to gauge. You as a citizen are aware of that law, but you choose to break it. If you don't believe a law is fair, you work to change it. If you choose to break a law - however unfair you feel it is - then you assume the potential for consequences.
And what's worse, this whole issue is SO STUPID. Is it really so difficult to say, OK, I'm just going to have sex with 18-year-olds and up? Is it really that tough? Is it really that much of an infringement on your "freedom to act and speak"? All this "what if I'm 19 and she's 17" crapola is just baby steps toward a slippery slope argument.
I think this all comes down to is selfishness and lack of self control - someone's wanting to fuck overriding both their willingness to follow the law and their concern for any repercussions it may have on their partner. I agree with you that "the children" are trotted out to cover a lot of repressive shit, but in this case, I find it hard to believe that refraining from having sex with anyone under 18 is repressive.
posted by UncleFes at 7:23 AM on August 30, 2001
People ranting about their "right to freedom" to deny others freedom never fails to amuse.
An adult setting up sex with an adolescent will be hard-pressed (to coin a phrase) to show that coercion, whether overt or covert, was not involved. A suspicion of coercion will increase as a function of the difference in ages. In most cases, there is a disparity in power and decision-making capacity that is disturbing, if not criminal.
Waiting until your paramour is 18 doesn't strike this writer as much of an insult to our precious god-given rights.
But then again, there are always those who whine that they should be able to drive 90 on the freeway, smoke around asthmatic children, and pollute the world -- all in the name of "freedom". But in fact all our freedoms are diminished by such selfish acts.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:20 PM on August 30, 2001
An adult setting up sex with an adolescent will be hard-pressed (to coin a phrase) to show that coercion, whether overt or covert, was not involved. A suspicion of coercion will increase as a function of the difference in ages. In most cases, there is a disparity in power and decision-making capacity that is disturbing, if not criminal.
Waiting until your paramour is 18 doesn't strike this writer as much of an insult to our precious god-given rights.
But then again, there are always those who whine that they should be able to drive 90 on the freeway, smoke around asthmatic children, and pollute the world -- all in the name of "freedom". But in fact all our freedoms are diminished by such selfish acts.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:20 PM on August 30, 2001
UncleFes -
I believe I know why it's the law - to keep adults from humping children.
Define "child" please and define "adult". You seem to define the former as anyone under 18 and the former as anyone 18 and over, yet only argue from the extremes. False division of the middle: the 19 and 17 year old are treated differently than the 18 and 20 year old, without a signigicant difference in emotional maturity.
My point is, the law has to address it, an the only way they can do it is arbitrarily by age...
No it's not: Most states provide several ages of sexual maturity, each age listed with some sort of "other partner may be n-months older..." While still setting hard limits, it's a lot more flexible.
All this "what if I'm 19 and she's 17" crapola is just baby steps toward a slippery slope argument.
Actually no: People have been arrested, tried, and sucessfully prosecuted in the case of "I'm 18 and she's 17". In North Dakota, having sex with someone even a month younger than you will get you labelled as a sex offender for the rest of your life. To me, that's just a load of crapola :-)
posted by nathan_teske at 1:17 PM on August 30, 2001
I believe I know why it's the law - to keep adults from humping children.
Define "child" please and define "adult". You seem to define the former as anyone under 18 and the former as anyone 18 and over, yet only argue from the extremes. False division of the middle: the 19 and 17 year old are treated differently than the 18 and 20 year old, without a signigicant difference in emotional maturity.
My point is, the law has to address it, an the only way they can do it is arbitrarily by age...
No it's not: Most states provide several ages of sexual maturity, each age listed with some sort of "other partner may be n-months older..." While still setting hard limits, it's a lot more flexible.
All this "what if I'm 19 and she's 17" crapola is just baby steps toward a slippery slope argument.
Actually no: People have been arrested, tried, and sucessfully prosecuted in the case of "I'm 18 and she's 17". In North Dakota, having sex with someone even a month younger than you will get you labelled as a sex offender for the rest of your life. To me, that's just a load of crapola :-)
posted by nathan_teske at 1:17 PM on August 30, 2001
Everybody, listen up: please stop fucking children.
Oh. Well, ok, then. I guess I will. I've been meaning to cut back anyway.
:p
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:37 PM on August 30, 2001
Oh. Well, ok, then. I guess I will. I've been meaning to cut back anyway.
:p
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:37 PM on August 30, 2001
Everybody, listen up: please stop fucking children.
What about pets?
posted by jpoulos at 10:06 PM on September 1, 2001
What about pets?
posted by jpoulos at 10:06 PM on September 1, 2001
« Older Damn that pacific! | Egged on by Crowd, Woman Leaps From Bridge Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by waxpancake at 10:18 AM on August 29, 2001