Controversial discussion... please keep it mature!

[uslspct]

Stop talking about rape. It has nothing to do with this case. It didn't happen and she isn't being charged with that.

Update... http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/24/justic...html?hpt=us_t2

This article says the young girl is and still is 14. Looks like it's going to trial. I predict she gets off.

[deevergote]

An 18 year old having sex with a 14 year old is considered rape by law.

[uslspct]

An 18 year old having sex with a 14 year old is considered rape by law.

It's not rape until someone is convicted of it, and she isn't even charged with that crime. OJ didn't kill anyone according to the law.

[deevergote]

Is she being charged with having sexual relations with a 14 year old?

[uslspct]

I stand corrected on the charges...http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes...s-battery.html , but if not convicted it didn't happen.

[deevergote]

Agreed. She is not a rapist until she is convicted, but she is indeed being charged with rape.

[cb7 calling]

Sometimes when you break a law you didn't do anything morally wrong but still broke the law.
Speeding your pregnant wife to the hospital.
Having a bag of marijuana.
One time I reached through a car window unlocked the door and shut off the headlights.
There isn't anything morally wrong with a friend in the passenger seat drinking a beer between bars while you are the sober dd, but its soooo illegal.
In some cultures you are married by 12 but certainly not here.
However 100 years ago that too happened here. In highscool one of my friends grandma was like 41. She had his mom when she was 12. From what I could tell the family seemed fine, with all normal morals in tact.
I don't always agree with the morals behind a law but understand them. I don't think I did so with the same comprehension at 18 though.
I dated a 16 year old girl. Closer to one year younger than me. Legal here I think its two years separation of age as long as the child is over 16 in Ohio. But we did take a trip to Florida with her family, I'm sure we broke the law is some of those sates. Is that illegal?
I didn't care it didn't interfere with my morals. I'm sure I would care though if I got arrested.
I guess I'm saying I feel bad for this girl. She is probably in trouble.
She isn't the only person on there way or already in jail that didn't do anything morally wrong. Feel bad for all of them. Jail sucks. Prison sucks.
Actual rapest just register when they get out and live next door.
Actual crack dealers get a life sentance.
Which of those two is more likely to fit in with society after they are rehabilitated or corrected, or whatever they name the human cage that particular human was/is in.
It does not always make sense, but its still a law.
I hope she gets no punishment at all, but doubt that's the outcome.

[deevergote]

"Morality" is a subjective concept. What is "moral" to you may not be "moral" to someone else. It should have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on legal process.
When you start talking morality, you're one step from talking about religion. One step from deciding what is right and wrong based on personal beliefs, rather than by what the law states.

Hijacking planes full of innocent people and flying them into buildings wasn't "morally" wrong to the people that did it. In fact, the whole reason they did it was because the people they were attacking were "morally wrong" in one way or another!

It's a very slippery slope when you try to use "morals" to make an argument in a legal matter.

[phatdoughnut]

"Morality" is a subjective concept. What is "moral" to you may not be "moral" to someone else. It should have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on legal process.
When you start talking morality, you're one step from talking about religion. One step from deciding what is right and wrong based on personal beliefs, rather than by what the law states.

Hijacking planes full of innocent people and flying them into buildings wasn't "morally" wrong to the people that did it. In fact, the whole reason they did it was because the people they were attacking were "morally wrong" in one way or another!

It's a very slippery slope when you try to use "morals" to make an argument in a legal matter.

This is why our country is so F$###$@ up. Emotions and morals should not be used to make laws.

[deevergote]

I agree 100%.
Well, in some sense they were used to establish the laws... but they should not be used to interpret the laws, nor should they be used to determine the validity of the laws. The law is the law, regardless of how it "should" be applied.

I mean, by saying it's not rape when an 18 year old adult has sex with a 14 or 15 year old child... is it any different when you say it's not rape when a white man forces himself upon a black woman? Does that make the exception to the law ok, because it's fine with the "morals" of a certain demographic? No. Rape is rape.

Don't get me wrong. I feel for Kate, and I think the parents of her girlfriend are awful people.It is entirely possible that the relationship is 100% legitimate, and her girlfriend truly understands the relationship at an adult level... but according to the law, sexual relations between an adult and a 15 year old minor would be considered rape.

[cb7 calling]

Societies moral protection is why we have laws,security and safety are a byproduct.
Moral reaction is why we have this thread.

[deevergote]

That's deep. And I do agree.
But the morality behind the formation of laws is one thing. Applying moral judgments after the fact is another. Once the laws are in place, they should not be applied only when deemed suitable. Letting this girl circumvent the law simply because she's a young adult and a "good girl" is no better than giving her a harsher punishment just because she's a lesbian. It's judging her actions, and therefore her punishment (or lack thereof), based on factors unrelated to the crime committed.

[LadyG]

Punishments painted in broad strokes, is not justice though.

And this is supposedly why we have judges.
Judges interpret how the crime and the punishment should fit together. (Unless bound by the law itself with mandatory minimums, and this is one of those cases)

As I stated before- the label that this girl would carry if convicted is the same label some truly sick individuals carry- and one that I do not feel should apply here.

She supposedly broke the law, and she should have punishment.

But a lifetime of (for lack of a better term) suffering; All of the restrictions to her future that label will cause, that does not seem "just" to me.

[deevergote]

I agree that it's a very harsh punishment for someone that did not consider their actions to be a "crime". An 18 year old girl involved in a sexual relationship with a 15 year old is not extreme. Especially in light of the fact that the relationship began when both of them were minors. It is certainly not the same as if a 45 year old man pressured a 15 year old girl to have sex with him (and when people think "statutory rape", that's generally what they imagine... an older adult taking advantage of a minor without the use of force.)

BUT, the laws are clear. Ignorance of the law is no defense, and she did willingly continue a relationship after her 18th birthday.
"Just two kids in love, being persecuted by bigots" seems like a fair description of this situation.
But I recall a few years back when a teacher, a woman in her 30s, I believe, became sexually active with a 15 year old student. Both the woman and the student claimed to be in love. I believe they actually carried on their relationship once the student turned 18. They may even be married now. She was, of course, treated like a monster. A child abuser. A rapist. And put in jail. Everybody supported it, because the age difference was significant.
To me, looking at this situation from the perspective of the law, it is no different. The age difference makes it less "yucky"... but Kate is by law an adult, and her girlfriend is by law considered a minor. To allow for a "gray area" is to set a precedent that will invite all sorts of creative maneuvering by defense attorneys in the future. Kate may not be a "child molester", but the precedent set by allowing her to escape punishment would surely be used in the future to allow true predators to walk free.

I agree that a judge is there to interpret the crime and punishment... and I'd totally support a lesser punishment than 15 years in prison... but Kate DID break the law, however innocent her actions may seem, and she is subject to punishment.

[Ralphie]

Well its ot, but stat rape isn't really the same as reg rape.

I mean, for all intents and purposes, rape is rape, but by the law, it is definded explicitly because it is so different.

9 times out of 10, if you drag someone off and rape them, you just kidnapped them....

so kidnapping will be added to your charges.

Its all about the way its charged and the degree in which it falls.

But for the sake of this arguement it might as well be the same.






and im not sure but did 8ball just talk shit about my dead father?

God damn we have some real winners on this site.