Then, Sir, The Judge Is An Ass

goofyfish

goofyfish

Analog By Birth, Digital By Design
Valued Senior Member
A Ventura County judge has sentenced 23-year-old Andrew Fonseca to a year in jail for having consensual sex with the 14-year-old girl he later married. His wife, now 15, begged Judge Kevin J. McGee to free her husband and wept on hearing the sentence. The mother-in-law told the judge, "Andrew is living at our house, married to our daughter and he works and supports her. It's been the best thing that ever happened to her." McGee’s answer was to break up the new family and cause its breadwinner to register as a sex offender. As a result, Mr. Fonseca will never be able to work again as a teacher. (Story here – registration required)

If Judge McGee is of old California stock, he is almost certainly descended from women who married in their very early teens or even younger. Some were indeed pitiable victims, married off by their parents to much older men for, essentially, monetary consideration. Others were not at all pitiable. Like young Mrs. Fonseca, they considered themselves fortunate. Whether these couplings were held to be good or evil depended not on the calendar, as our laws do today, but on the individual circumstances.

Let's consider the circumstances of the present case, then. Which man would you rather see hanging around the girls' locker room, Kevin J. McGee or Andrew Fonseca?

:m: Peace.
 
It used to be common in Europe - and still is in many places - for girls to be married off as soon as they can reproduce, to much older men.

But...

I think what the judge did was riciculous. But also, the young man should have the wits to wait. The girl was 14. If she truly loves him, then he can afford to wait until she is 16 or whatever the legal screwing age is.
 
At one time I'm kinda' sceptical about how well such a relationship could work out, seeing how as the bride still has a LOT of growing up yet to do, and being locked down like that couldn't be a good thing for her, but the judge's reaction was WAY to harsh.
 
The judges reaction was a too harsh I agree. But would you want a teacher who apparently finds 14 years olds attractive, teaching your child?

If Judge McGee is of old California stock, he is almost certainly descended from women who married in their very early teens or even younger. Some were indeed pitiable victims, married off by their parents to much older men for, essentially, monetary consideration.
Click to expand...

Thats why laws were passed, to protect young children. You and i both know that a 14, even a 16 year old isnt making rational decisions when it comes to love.

Like young Mrs. Fonseca, they considered themselves fortunate.
Click to expand...

I think she is a little too young to know what is good for her, dont you?


One last thing: I have a feeling that the husband is actually supporting or partially supporting the whole family. Of course the parents wont object.

Take care:)
 
Last edited:
The judge's ass speaks

Yes, too harsh. Whether the parents are motivated by money or not, is not an issue in considering whether this guy in his twenties deserves to go to jail. Whether or not he's a pervert, pedophile or otherwise.... well, i'd have to have a look at miss teeny-bop to judge that.

"But would you want a teacher who apparently finds 14 years olds attractive, teaching your child? " (by sTRgRL)


Would you want a college professor who found young women attractive teaching your children? Some fourteen year-olds are a bit big for their emotional britches, if you know what I mean. We can't make any assumptions here about this guy.

Is it a bit fishy, yeah, but let's be open-minded about it.
 
that cant happen here

one of the exseptions on STATITORY rape (as orpose to normal rape or whatever it should be called) is that u r or belive to be married to the person under 16
 
keep hoping

yeah, i'm used to not finding that ideal. but then, here's to hoping...

And, as a wise man once said.... "you are entitled to your opinion---you are entitled to be wrong." -C.R.

maybe he has a point....
 
Are we missing something?

He raped a 14 year old.
Admittedly, it's a bit grey -- 14 is almost age of consent -- but I, for one, don't like the idea of excusing rapists simply because they marry their victims.

Frankly, it sounds like the parents sold her ass - quite literally. The man is a predator, and his sentance is appropriate.

/None of the above should be taken completely at face value, as I am only on my first cup of coffee/
 
err...

uh, rape? that's a bit steep of a claim. the sentence was handed down under the terms of consensual sex (yes, 14 years olds make those decisions, whether or not you think they should)...


anyway, not sure i'd call it rape. with or without coffee....;)
 
I agree. There are some extreme view here. i think it should be pointed out that biologically some people can have children at this age and sometimes younger! It is decided (presumably) that the age of consent is 16 because this is when mandatory education has finished. While this appears to be because of an effort to create a more 'enlightened' and educated society it could be questioned. It should also be noted that this is the age of consent i.e. they are deemed mature enough to understand what they are consenting to however this surely cannot be the case. Surely while still a teen-ager (inlcuding nine-teen) yrs old they are still withing puberty and as such are not an adult yet!! They cannot be mature enough to understand their decision until they are an adult. The age of consent is 16 could surely be because they are old enough to work and earn their own money then and so are out of the states control (to an extent!) and so legislation does not really have much choice i.e. they are old enough to earn companies their money and so are being screwed here and to ban 'screwing' in general would be a contradiction: earning companies their money by giving them your labour and allowing them to take most of the money earned is exploitation so power physical power relations (?) must be allowed.
 
tasty, I was quite capable of giving consent at 14. But fucking a 14 year old is statutory rape in most states of the Union.
 
xev its not statitory rape in australia

as i said there r exeseptions to statitory rape, if u belived the person was over 16, if u are or belived urself to be married to the person in question

so from my point of view its NOT rape, even tho its not something i would do and i find the whole thing quite sick its still not illegal if they had been here
 
legality

i checked out the site C. Coffee listed above and read the laws for California. It does state that a "previous or current dating or marital relationship" doesn't nullify the case. So the judge was certainly within his right to hand down the sentence (which was the maximum jail time). So, yes, he was legally guilty of statutory rape. Also, the laws listed the reasons why so much attention is given to statutory rape in California. Apparently, teen births are a big problem in CA. The statistics also point to teen births by men over 20 are highly associated with the spread of STD's. All good reasons to prosecute an offender.

However, i'm not sure these issues are so applicable to the defendent in this case. He is supporting her. (She won't burden the welfare budget of the state). They were married with consent. She's legally able to get married, but not legally able to have intercourse with her husband? Silly, if you ask me. Change the marital laws, if that's the case.

Oh, yes, and I wonder if she's pregnant now...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top