Judge questions why ‘only the boy’ is charged in underage sex case.

[Deleted]

Because, sex, no matter how protected can still result in pregnancy. Inbreeding is detrimental to any child.

Yeah, abortion doesn't exist.

[MerinPally]

Because, sex, no matter how protected can still result in pregnancy. Inbreeding is detrimental to any child.

I think you're overestimating how many people would end up sleeping with their siblings and also how regularly.

[Deleted]

I mean, i can't really make any legal argument against incest between adults; It's all based on "Ewww" aspects, and as long as procreation doesn't take place...

Like, in the majority of states boning your dog is legal, right?

So...

[Sunseeker]

Because, sex, no matter how protected can still result in pregnancy. Inbreeding is detrimental to any child.

Statistically speaking, close family incest results in a <5% increase in genetic risk (aside from people who are already prone to genetic risks) in single-generational (ie: one time, between one pair of family members) incest. It's the long-term and family-wide incest that leads to the production of severe genetic risk increases.

Like this guy:

He could barely eat or drink or move his jaw at all from the generations of royal inbreeding across Europe and specifically within Spain in an attempt to get the "Spanish Chin" the royal family was known for.

[Cosmic Janitor]

It is a loaded question as people mature at different rates, there is no easy answer.

However that it is my view that unless you can prove malice you cannot elevate one persons rights over another let alone assign blame.

As for the age of consent, I used to think 16 was right, but now I lean more towards 14. Statistics show that new generations hit puberty earlier and earlier. I think the main goal should be to arm the kids with the information and trust their choices if you cannot prove malice.

Just like the age/2+7 bs rule this whole debate is pointless really. Laws have one fundamental flaw, they usually only cover certain cases. In cases like legal age there are more factors though, like level of physcial and physical development of both parties that influence their degree of maturity. The one size fits all approach is bad for people that are just further ahead have to deal with a too high age as well as those that would be better off protected from doing something studipd who were not yet ready.

I mean, i can't really make any legal argument against incest between adults; It's all based on "Ewww" aspects, and as long as procreation doesn't take place...

Like, in the majority of states boning your dog is legal, right?

So...

Sodomy is quite strange, even from a legal perspective. Even with the argument of consent, animals are despite that often possessions from a legal point of view. Not that I'd advocate it, but if he likes his goat that much, let him have some fun . I wonder what happens once we have AI and robots, we still haven't managed to revise copyright law, I doubt we will have something for that cases once they happen..

[Lightwysh]

Yeah, abortion doesn't exist.

Im not opening that can of worms in this thread. Make a new thread if you want to discuss that.

[TirielWoW]

Usually in these cases, the boy is charged because the boy is the older of the two involved (although I question how anyone can get charged with statutory when the girl is 15 and he's 17, since that's well within the exception clause most states have).

In my opinion (and this is just my opinion, of course), the person charged in such a situation should always be the older one, regardless of gender. But, of course, I also get really pissed off at how people freak out if it's a girl being taken advantage of by a man, but it's just totally cool if it's a grown woman taking advantage of a young boy. So twisted and fucked up, as if a boy can't be just as damaged by having an authority figure abuse them.

In this case, I don't know why it's in court, tho. If she was 15 and he was 17, then it should be covered by the Romeo & Juliet clause, I would think?

Edited to Add: I actually thought that Romeo & Juliet laws were in place across the country. Welp! So much for common sense...

[Crocadial]

I think you're overestimating how many people would end up sleeping with their siblings and also how regularly.

It was my understanding that most of documented incest occurs between siblings who were not raised together, as normal family dynamic's deter (but not eliminate) this from occuring.

We typically do not make laws according to outliers, but they do need to be considered of course. I would consider sibling incest an issue for therapy and not one for the courts.

[Ferg]

Because, sex, no matter how protected can still result in pregnancy. Inbreeding is detrimental to any child.

Inbreeding is detrimental, eh? Tell that to every royal family of every monarchy in history.

You do realize that the odds of fucking up a child due to incest are only slightly higher than have sex with a stranger, right?

[Masark]

Inbreeding is detrimental, eh? Tell that to every royal family of every monarchy in history.

You do realize that the odds of fucking up a child due to incest are only slightly higher than have sex with a stranger, right?

1. Scroll up a bit and see smrund's post.

2. As a one-off event, basically. Repeated instances is what screws things up.

[Lightwysh]

Inbreeding is detrimental, eh? Tell that to every royal family of every monarchy in history.

You do realize that the odds of fucking up a child due to incest are only slightly higher than have sex with a stranger, right?

Exactly the problem.

[Sunseeker]

Inbreeding is detrimental, eh? Tell that to every royal family of every monarchy in history.

It was VERY detrimental to historical royal families. Indeed one of the biggest reasons for making alliances was to bring in "new blood" because the kids were so genetically backwards.

[IKT]

Brace yourself lads.

The feminazis are coming.

Are they here yet?

[chrisberb]

Usually in these cases, the boy is charged because the boy is the older of the two involved

This goes to explain WHY boys are usually charged more than girls.
And the article posted by the OP is a little unclear, what it doesn't state is that:

But the court heard the pair had intercourse after the boy turned 18 and when he broke up with the girl her mother found out and went to police.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-2...utions/5484310

So while a lot of you have been arguing about the fact that they're both under 18, it's not really the case, because the sexual relationship STARTED when they were both under 18, but continued after the boy had turned 18.
This still doesn't change the arguments about how "arbitrary" age of consent laws are, it does clarify some of the actual details.

[Velaniz]

This goes to explain WHY boys are usually charged more than girls.
And the article posted by the OP is a little unclear, what it doesn't state is that:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-2...utions/5484310

So while a lot of you have been arguing about the fact that they're both under 18, it's not really the case, because the sexual relationship STARTED when they were both under 18, but continued after the boy had turned 18.
This still doesn't change the arguments about how "arbitrary" age of consent laws are, it does clarify some of the actual details.

Meh. Still fucking stupid.

[MerinPally]

This goes to explain WHY boys are usually charged more than girls.
And the article posted by the OP is a little unclear, what it doesn't state is that:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-2...utions/5484310

So while a lot of you have been arguing about the fact that they're both under 18, it's not really the case, because the sexual relationship STARTED when they were both under 18, but continued after the boy had turned 18.
This still doesn't change the arguments about how "arbitrary" age of consent laws are, it does clarify some of the actual details.

You can't pick and choose which sexual acts are prosecutable. Sure they had consensual sex after he turned 18 but also before. You can't just ignore the prior crime which both of them committed simply because a "different" crime was committed after, because that becomes rape of a minor rather than statuatory rape. The statuatory rape still occured and was perpetrated by both parties. If the mother is only complaining about the stuff that happened after he turned 18 then he can immediately turn around and talk about the stuff before.

Doesn't excuse him but does bring a different argument into it because whilst the post-18 stuff would still be prosecutable, it's ridiculous to say that all sex you had before that age was fine but everything after, isn't. At which point it all falls apart. It's not like they broke up and then he went back and raped her or anything.

This is silly, I think someone mentioned something called the Romeo and Juliet clause? And that makes an exemption for young relationships? I've not heard of it myself although I always assumed there was something in the way to stop crap like this entering the court system, it really doesn't need to be there. More beneficial for everyone if we put the "real" rapists infront of the courts rather than a pair of horny teenagers.

[Deleted]

Dat Male privilege tho.

[Masark]

This is silly, I think someone mentioned something called the Romeo and Juliet clause? And that makes an exemption for young relationships? I've not heard of it myself although I always assumed there was something in the way to stop crap like this entering the court system, it really doesn't need to be there. More beneficial for everyone if we put the "real" rapists infront of the courts rather than a pair of horny teenagers.

Yes. It's otherwise known as a "close in age exemption". It's what I mentioned up in my post on the first page about Canada's law on the matter.

A few states have such clauses in their laws, but the majority don't and there's isn't anything to stop crap like this from entering the court system except the DA's discretion, and if you think the DA looking at reelection/advancement to higher office is going to turn down an easy chip shot conviction on a "sexual predator", I've got an excellent investment opportunity in Nigeria you should consider.

[Duronos]

My guess, boy broke up with her, he was her first, she couldn't handle that he'd broke her heart and well... She told her mum and now mummy is defending her daughter's so called "abuse".

[satimy]

The fact that males are charged and females are not in cases of consensual sex is a violation of the 14th amendment