http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6743303.stm
In a case like this would the guy get any compensation from the government?
In a case like this would the guy get any compensation from the government?
Injustice
- Thread starter kenworth
- Start date
Why should he get compensation? He was found guilty of the crime, and the sentence was prescribed by law.
"Mr Wilson, a former high school honours student and star athlete, was found guilty by a jury of aggravated child molestation for having oral sex with a 15-year-old girl at a New Year's Eve party in 2003.
"At the time the crime carried a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years and a lifetime registration on the state's sexual offender list."
Notice ...."At the time...."?
Baron Max
"Mr Wilson, a former high school honours student and star athlete, was found guilty by a jury of aggravated child molestation for having oral sex with a 15-year-old girl at a New Year's Eve party in 2003.
"At the time the crime carried a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years and a lifetime registration on the state's sexual offender list."
Notice ...."At the time...."?
Baron Max
has much ahs it pains me to do so, i have to agree with BAron on this, he was found guilty, they had hard evidence of him in the act, so why should he be compensated, has far has i am concerned its the girl that should be compensated
consentualy oral sex with a girl who is 2 years younger than you should be punishable by 10 years in jail?
especially bearing in mind that if he would have just fucked her the sentence would have been less.
when i was seventeen a fifteen year old girl sucked me off,the thought that i could have gone to jail for it is frankly ridiculous.
especially bearing in mind that if he would have just fucked her the sentence would have been less.
when i was seventeen a fifteen year old girl sucked me off,the thought that i could have gone to jail for it is frankly ridiculous.
All you're trying to say is that the law and the mandatory sentence was wrong. So ...how did it get to into law? Who approved it? ...and a slew of other such info about the law?
I would also caution you about making this into too much of an issue ...or I'll be forced to resort to my ol' pedophile-style argument! Like ....if that guy was right, or it was okay for him, why do we put 35 yr old pedophiles in jail for the very same offense?
Baron Max
The biggest problem with common sense is that it ain't very common! And worse, your common sense is not the same as that of others. So who decides?
Well, there's the ol' common sense. An underage girl having sex with a boy that just turned legal age? But what's the difference in one being a few days under legal age having sex with someone 5 years over legal age? One of 'em we like to think of as "puppy love" or perfectly innocent; yet we call the other one a pedophile and vilify him for life!
Baron Max
a judge.
the difference is maturity,in SOME cases where the guy/girl is 5 years older
they have manipulated a person who is not capable of making rational,informed choices.
but then again the same thing can be said of people who are drunk,sad etc.
Like the same judge who handed down the sentence in the case in this very thread?
In "some" cases? And again, who decides? That same judge who imprisoned the boy in this very thread topic? Or like the judge who was found to be a pedophile on that tv show?
Yeah, so ...let's make everyone who has sex to have a signed, witnessed, notarized document, filed with the court, which gives them permission to fuck. And we must have such a document for every time we fuck, in addition to each person we fuck.
Or better yet, let's just not allow anyone, anywhere, to fuck at anytime in their entire lives. We could have babies by artificial insemination ONLY.
Baron Max
And do you seriously think that the 16-year-old guy wouldn't try to manipulate the girl for sex? Why is the girl not capable of making rational, informed choices with a 25 year old, but suddenly is capable if the guy is only 16?
Last edited:
Wouldn't that make the sex more risky? It sounds like you're making inadvertent arguments to only allow teens to have sex with older people. And besides, it's not as if you actually need to know how to be good at sex in order to pressure someone to have it.
you have misunderstood me.
what i mean is when people in a couple are near the same age (<17)
they will probably have been exposed to the same kind of information,that neither of them will have that great an advantage over the other.
whereas if you have a 45 year old man and a 16 year old girl,he would be much more manipulative.
what i mean is when people in a couple are near the same age (<17)
they will probably have been exposed to the same kind of information,that neither of them will have that great an advantage over the other.
whereas if you have a 45 year old man and a 16 year old girl,he would be much more manipulative.
It seems very unlikely to me that a 45 year old is going to be better at manipulating a 16 year old girl than a 16 year old guy who knows the girl, knows her friends, goes to the same parties, school, etc.
In any case, I still don't understand your reasoning. Do you think that it's acceptable for a 16 year old to have sex, or not? If you thought that sex is too dangerous for a 16 year old and wanted to ban 16 year olds from having sex, I would understand where you were coming from. If you didn't think that sex is too dangerous for 16 year olds and wanted to allow them to have sex with whoever they wanted, I would understand where you were coming from. What I don't understand is your position that sex is too dangerous for a 16 year old if she's having it with a 45 year old, but not too dangerous if she's having it with another 16 year old.
Even if one accepts that a 45 year old is "more experienced" (or whatever) and might be able to manipulate a 16 year old into having sex...so what? I thought that we had decided that it's acceptable for 16 year olds to have sex, right? So what's the problem? The guy is manipulating her into doing something that is acceptable! If you want to argue that it's not acceptable, then why are we allowing her to have sex with other 16 year olds?
Even if one accepts that a 45 year old is "more experienced" (or whatever) and might be able to manipulate a 16 year old into having sex...so what? I thought that we had decided that it's acceptable for 16 year olds to have sex, right? So what's the problem? The guy is manipulating her into doing something that is acceptable! If you want to argue that it's not acceptable, then why are we allowing her to have sex with other 16 year olds?
im a mysterious and very tired boy.
if i saw two people with downs syndrome having sex i would not think anything of it,if i saw a "normal" man having sex with a girl with downs syndrome i would suspect that he was probably taking advantage of her condition.
sometimes i would be correct sometimes i would be wrong.
so i the case of sex between people of different ages i think clear-cut laws are ridiculous because each situation is different.
if i saw two people with downs syndrome having sex i would not think anything of it,if i saw a "normal" man having sex with a girl with downs syndrome i would suspect that he was probably taking advantage of her condition.
sometimes i would be correct sometimes i would be wrong.
so i the case of sex between people of different ages i think clear-cut laws are ridiculous because each situation is different.
You're missing the whole point of the legal system. That last statement is exactly why there ARE judges! The judge has discretion in determining what the punishment should be depending on the different circumstances/conditions.