There's a large space between "perfectly acceptable" and "getting the death panelty". You're saying that if I don't agree that we should put child molesters to death that I think it's perfectly acceptable. That is a factually incorrect argument.

If you've been convicted, you are NOT innocent.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

I never said that.

However, you did feel the need to use the phrase "average citizens" in a discussion about child molestation. Personally, I don't believe there's anything "average" about someone who would molest a child. Clearly, based on your own statement, you do, and I'm just wondering why that is...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

thats because the attorney generals office is and has been a political post since well....decades…..and its agenda/platform is of course disseminated through out the system…..


so the office, in the end like it or not, reflects the system of the prevalent government...the legislature.

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

There is a huge problem I have with this subject. You need to define what a child is. 16? 14? 12? 12 and 3 months? 12 3 months and 3 days? You need to define how old someone can be before it gets "icky". No matter what you come up with I can always ask the question "what if the person is 1 day below the cut off age?".

I think every case needs to taken on an individual basis just because every case is so different. Consensual sex should never result in jail time in any case EVER.

For rape, obviously you need to strengthen the sentences for children etc but again how the heck to you arbitrarily choose an age. How about if the victim is sexually active or not being the deciding factor?

Just some things to think about before advocating harsh punishment. If your not careful you'll wind up with cases like Genaro Wilson's.

[...]

Whether someone is sexually active or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they can be raped.

You might want to explain that statement a bit more ...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Strange poll. You dont punish non-murderes with death IMO - after all, it is still a less severe crime than killing someone. A minimum of 10 years behind bars and medical castration for first time offenders. 10 years and physical castration (remove the balls) second time - then they cant do it again when they get paroled.

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

We arbitrarily choose an age because we have to. Biologically, young children are not capable of making or understanding the ramifications of sexual behavior.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

I'm going to answer this post a bit out of order.

I agree that ages do matter. States have varying ages of consent. All allow 18 or older. It varies below that in each state although there are limits beyond which the laws will not allow. Some statutes in some states can lead, IMO, to absurd results.

The Wilson case in Georgia you cited is one example. Here in PA, I have long opposed the application of our Corruption of Minors statute as it concerns 16 and 17 year old people having sexual acts. The Corruption statute says that any person who corrupts a minor (defined as anyone under 18) can be convicted of that crime. The age of consent is 16 here with no 'Romeo and Juliet' age restriction allowances; however, our courts define any sexual act as one that constitutes corruption when it comes to a minor. The Corruption statute also make no age allowances. Thus, if a person who turns 18 on their birthday has a sexual act with a person one day short of 18, technically that constitutes a Corruption of Minors charge. IMO, that is an absurd result--especially given the conflicting statute that says 16 is the age of consent with no restrictions--and I think our courts are completely wrong about that interpretation because you shouldn't be said to corrupt someone when the legislature elsewhere says the conduct is permitted to be consented and thus, if so, is not a corrupting act.

I believe a national agreement should be adopted, including a 'Romeo and Juliet' provision allowing proximity of age (example given: all persons age 18 or older being allowed to have sex with all persons likewise, but regarding sex below that age, having an age variation allowance, such as if the person is 16, then allowing all persons within 4 years of that age to consent to sex with a person of that age). This is especially true because the laws so often conflict not only inside a state, but across state lines and in federal law.

For example, if a person over 18 leaves my state with a 17 year old to go to New Jersey to have sex where the age of consent is 17, then the person older than 18 can be charged with a federal offence of having taken the 17 year old there because the 17 year old's home state of PA considers sex with a 17 year old to be Corruption of Minors, even though the couple travelled to do an act that is legal where it is done.

I can't go there, and if you rethought that, I don't even think you'd go there.

What I was addressing above was older teenagers who definitely know about sex and have mental and sexual advancement compared to younger people. Almost all 17 year olds definitely know about sex and many are actually sexually active. But even still, there are reasons why such conduct--and especially concerning large age disparities--can be legitimately considered illegal.

For example, if a 45 year old man or woman prowls the local high schools looking for horny Lolitas and studs, that can direct the students away from their high school education because they get to party around and bang an older guy or woman. Most know that younger people are often attracted to older types because it is 'cool' or such. That isn't necessarily good for the public good, though. Getting through the trappings and temptations of high school are hard enough for those already there and their parents without older adults in society looking to contribute to them.

And if such people impregnate or create fathers out of such students, that burdens these young people tremendously. Their school and work opportunities get severely hampered by the out of wedlock children they will have at such a young age. Such young people are also generally not ready on a maturity and security level for a marriage or family relationship compared to older people.

The burdens of such events also often wind up the problem of the young person's parents. If, for example, you found out that your 16 year old high school daughter got knocked up by some 45 year old guy looking for a good time with your daughter for thrills, guess who would be likely spending time and money helping care for your high school daughter's grandchild and supporting your daughter with that? You and your wife (or mother of your daughter if not married or divorced). Do you think you would find it reprehensible that this older guy did all this damage just because he wanted to have a thrill banging your young daughter? I bet you would--shotgun style.

I think you would also agree that the younger a person is, the more immature and unknowing they are. For example, I presume if you thought more than a fraction of a second that there is a huge difference between an adult screwing a 17 year old and screwing a 12 year old.

If, for example, a 45 year old man decided they wanted to 'teach' a gullible or sexually curious 11 year old virgin girl how to give a blowjob by encouraging the 11 year old to give him a blowjob, and the 11 year old consented to giving that 45 year old the blowjob, that is, IMO, precisely the kind of worst conduct on the map that ought to be severely criminalised. There is simply no parity of consent in such a situation.

Some states in the USA have enacted laws that make the death penalty as a option for the 2nd time molesting a child.

__________________
"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”—Theodore Roosevelt

Which ones? I do think harsh penalties should be given, but that's over the top, IMO.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesrage
Some states in the USA have enacted laws that make the death penalty as a option for the 2nd time molesting a child.

The consequencs of child molestation are so great and affect not only the child for life but also an extended famiy to the degree that I would favor such a law. Justice should be swift and decisive IMO.

Unfortunately Child Molestors though mentally ill are untreatable by any known method.

I vote for life imprisionment for first offence, if the perpetrator knew the victim was under 14 ,which is the lowest age of consent in any US jurisdiction.
Any person under fourteen would be highly unlikely to be sexually mature and would suffer physical as well as emotional harm.
The same life at first offence would be reasonable if the victim is over fourteen but obviously not sexually mature.

Theres always a possibility of a child appearing much older than they really are, its not uncommon to find a few girls that look 18 at a much earlier age, and be sexually mature,and there are cases where girls lie about their age. This should always be considered and carefully investigated if used as a defence.

A man under the influence of drugs or alcohol and not knowing the actual age of a young lady who engages in sex voluntarily would also have a viable defence. In other words stupid is not the same as crazy.

The true Child Molestor is very often a victim of molestation, their mental development warped by the experiance, they are still a danger to society. Until an effective treatment is found they should remain in a prison set aside for people like themselves, away from the regular prison populations. As much to prevent problems for other inmates who might kill a CM in outrage as to protect the CM.

PS
Some years back a number of self styled Libertarians were promoting the ideal that there should be no age of consent laws, and even suggesting incest to teach children how to enjoy sex. Theres a lot of wackos out there.

I'm saying that I would be hard pressed to consider anyone who is sexually active of their own accord to be a child. Laws for statutory rape should take this into account.

I pretty much agree with O'sullivan on everything he wrote.

At young ages, a child is not capable of making those decisions. It's biology. If a 12 year-old is having sex, it's still coersion, regardless if they think it's willing or not.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears