Likes: 
Faceplams: too bad the video doesn't exist.Originally Posted by mfte
Active Member
too bad the video doesn't exist.
Active Member
Any level of sexual interaction is sex in the case for both the law and the moral objection people would have to child predators (what this law is targeted at). A child predator fingering someone would be unacceptable to just about everyone. I haven't seen anyone actually defend the girl because "it wasn't sex" but because "she is being punished for being gay." There is lots of coverage circulating about the younger girl's parent's initiating this because they are homophobic. Most of the people defending this girl are socially liberal. I'd say that group is more educated on what sex actually is than the socially conservatives.
Absolutely! This is exactly what needs to be talked about. What is sex, should we draw a line, how do we draw a line without unintended consequences, etc.
Consent is a very tricky phrase here. The younger girl is, legally, unable to give consent.
Bent Member
Can you point me to that coverage? I honestly haven't looked that hard, after I saw the pretty convincing interview with the parents insisting that it isn't the case (which I linked earlier in the thread, in case someone hasn't seen it). Everything I'd seen previously was just news reports saying that supporters of Kaitlyn said her parents were doing this because of homophobia... which could merely be the case of an assumption that got repeated so much that it became gospel.
Active Member
It definitely doesn't seem confirmed that it's why the parents actually did it (they deny the bigotry), but it seems this is the opinion of Kaitlyn's parents:
"Kaitlyn's father has also publicly claimed that the girlfriend's parents went to police because they blamed Kaitlyn for their child's homosexuality."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...ip-speaks-out/
“We would not be here if the parents were not bigoted. To take it criminally I feel like they’re using the age law to pursue their agenda,” Kelly Hunt Smith told CNN. But the alleged victim’s parents denied their actions were motivated by animus towards gay and lesbian relationships.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/2...-relationship/
They were out to destroy my daughter, they feel like my daughter ‘made’ their daughter gay,” Kaitlyn mother’s said. “They are bigoted, religious zeolites [sic] that see being gay as a sin and wrong, and they blame my daughter.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/1...-relationship/
Active Member
another one from her mom:
"They are trying to send an innocent young girl to prison because they are full of hate and bigotry. These girls are teenagers in high school, who had ONE mutual consenting sexual experience. My daughter isn’t a criminal, she isn’t a predator.”
Why the hell does it matter how many times? That comes off kind of juvenile. It's like when you see the To Catch a Predator segments where every one of the predators pulls the "this is the first time I've ever done this" line as if it changes the situation. I don't think the girl did anything worth punishing but the legal defense might want to tell the mom to STFU. ... Then again, she seems to be playing a large part in shifting national opinion with the bigotry angle.
Bite me
The girl was 14 at the time? Her parents had the right to tell the older girl to back off. At 14, she is still under the care and control of her parents. The older girl ignored the younger girl's parents. The younger girl's parents say their last resort was to report it to authorities, to get the older girl to back off. This happens in het situations all the time.
Active Member
Im sure it does. It would certainly explain alot of Rob Ford as a person.
Whether we see it or not is an entirely different question. These somalis probably didnt think how much attention this would draw and are now freaked right out. WHo knows. They shouldve taken the intial 40k that was offered and that would have been the end of that.
Bent Member
I guess that's my problem... it's just her parents' opinion. And if my daughter was being prosecuted because someone else's parents made a complaint about a consensual relationship, I'd probably make the worst kind of assumptions about those other parents and their motives, too.
I have yet to see anything concrete in any media that links these parents to homophobia and related motives... something like "they told me that Kaitlyn turned her gay" instead of “They were out to destroy my daughter, they feel like my daughter ‘made’ their daughter gay.” Big difference. The first is confirmation, and the other could simply be an assumption presented as a strong opinion.
Last edited by jessamineny; 05-28-2013 at 08:20 AM.
Stubby Member
Couple thoughts on this last topic.
1) Not a single post would have been made here if the older one was a guy and the younger a girl. Every one of you would have concluded he was a predator and deserved it.(I don't disagree)
2) The age rules should be very simple. 18 is okay with 16-17. 19 is alright with 17 only. End of story. For those of you who think that because they're classmates it's okay, Do you fucking remember high school? The difference between a freshman and senior is so ridiculous i can't imagine thinking of them as peers.
3) yes I know that the 16th or 17th birthday is arbitrary, but when it comes to legal matters, you can't just leave it up to someone to make a judgement call. We make hard lines on virtually every other age related law. voting 18. drinking 21. smoking 18. The reason is you just have to draw the line somewhere. If you leave it case by case, you open the door to even more bigotry where people are persecuted solely because of the authority's whims.
Bite me
The kid was 14. That's barely out of jr. high school. And parents of a 14-yr-old have the absolute right to prevent their kid from dating, let alone having sexual contact. Lots of Mormon and Muslim kids aren't allowed to date until they're 18, and nobody screams child abuse at them; it is the way it is, because parents have the legal right to do that. These parents had the legal right to determine that their daughter was too young to have consensual sexual relations, and they attempted to convey that to the older girl but the older girl evidently has parents who don't get that.
Bent Member
Perhaps I should clarify... I wasn't saying that the parents were justified in having that reaction. I was saying that I can empathize with the parents' pain, and thus I wouldn't be surprised if they're having an inappropriate reaction and making wild assumptions about the other parents' motives.
Bite me
That's the major problem I have with parenting, today: Parents can't seem to accept that maybe their kid fucked up. Even the mother of the Boston bombers is in denial, "I am mother, I know my boys, they were set up by the FBI." Parents can't seem to accept that maybe their kid did something stupid, so they automatically point at the other parent or anybody else except their kid. The best reaction from these parents of kids who've been accused of anything would be to STFU.
Active Member
Is this 2013? Are you saying teenagers younger than 16 do not have sex? Because you seem to imply that sex under 16 doesn't happen.
Little bit of common sense please ...
Bent Member
He's saying that the law has to draw a line somewhere when it comes to sex between two people where at least one is a minor and there is a large age discrepancy.
Active Member
No one can possibly think this girl deserves 15 years? Being registered on the sex offender list? Anyone believes this girl will be a better person once she comes out of prison in her late 20's? Anyone thinks prison will teach this girl valuable lessons?
This case will most likely hit the state's Supreme Court and might actually be a landmark case such as Wilson v. State of Georgia in which the sentence was deemed disproportionate.
Hairy Member
didn't get that implication. Also don't think he was implying people under 21 don't drink.
Really don't get the furore over this. I mean sure I feel bad for the girl, but thems the rules. I really don't see any discrimination because they were lesbian. If this was an 18yo boy and a 14yo girl I think its as themethatyouknow says, the guy would be seen as a predator (don't necessarily agree) and I wouldn't be surprised if his punishment was harsher.
I really don't mind the before 18 no more than 2 year age difference, seems the most reasonable way to go about it.
EDIT: WOAH! Hold up, what's this 15 years?! I haven't paid any attention to this really but was going off the plea deal you posted. So she has the possibility of a 15 year sentence if she doesn't take it? Do you still hold out that she should fight it?!
Last edited by Minpin; 05-28-2013 at 12:01 PM.
Bite me
That's the maximum sentence possible, but means zero. No prosecutor is going to ask for, or receive, maximum possible sentence for this type of case.
Even Mary Kay Letourneau didn't get 15 years.
Neither did Debra Lafave.
Last edited by allegro; 05-28-2013 at 12:46 PM.
Active Member
She did not take the plea deal because she still would have had a felony child abuse count to her record.
Active Member
Agree. When you couple this with the juvenile crap coming out of the mom's mouth, the whole "homophobia" thing may be a fabrication in an attempt to get national sympathy. It wouldn't even matter if they were homophobic.
I didn't realize that the younger parents went to her and told her to knock it off. I think, legally, she is absolutely in the wrong. Hopefully the court can give her a punishment that is proportionate though. Maximum sentences would be wrong.
Even from a purely moral perspective, Kaitlyn may be in the wrong... A perfect law would allow us to calculate maturity of an individual. We use age (and parental discretion) because there is no good system for that but... lets pretend we COULD measure maturity. Most would agree that there is a point where the gap is too big in maturity between two individuals. Those of us watching from outside the courtroom have NO idea what the younger girl is like. We don't know her maturity level. We have no way of saying if she is ready for sex. So yes, even outside the current law, Kaitlyn may be in the wrong. Hopefully the court is going to be evaluating this in determining her fate.
And that is why we have a legal system! And it shouldn't be influenced by public opinion built on incomplete data.
Active Member
Both of them took plea deals. Hunt did not.
Bite me
Don't be too sure that Hunt won't eventually cop a plea.
LeTourneau plead out during trial. Lafave's plea deal, also during the trial process, was prompted by the victim's mother during pre-trial because the mother didn't want her son subjected to the grief. That plea deal was rejected by the trial Judge.
Btw: Nearly ALL criminal and civil cases are settled before the trial reaches a jury.
She is a minor under the care and control of her parents, unable to legally provide consent to sex. Think of it this way: Those Steubenville boys were found guilty of rape because the minor drunk victim was legally unable to provide consent; had the boys been 18, they'd also be facing statutory rape charges. The lack of legal ability to consent is the same in both cases.
See also Contracts and minors. Lack of legal capacity.
The unfortunate part is that many 18-yr-olds do not fit the "adult" category, mentally. Just because you suddenly achieve the age of majority does not mean you aren't, emotionally, 12. Or less. The law doesn't consider the emotional maturity aspects of the victim or the perpetrator. That will all come out during a trial.
This is interesting.
Last edited by allegro; 05-28-2013 at 01:39 PM.
Hairy Member
as a consequence of her flouting a pretty well known law. I definitely agree she shouldnt be imprisoned straight up, but I wouldn't have been outraged at a suspended sentence/good behavior type plea deal. Is it a matter of her not fully aware or understanding of the law, or was she disregarding it? If its the former, I'd hope that sex education in schools take note. The latter, well then I think she should probably cop the plea deal. Bit of clarification, but is the record permanent?
Deepvoid would your opinion of this change if it were an 18 year old guy instead? I'd like to hear how you would change the law. Just remove any age of consent laws? You say the arbitrary difference of 17 and 360 days and 18 is 'laugh out loud logic', how would you feel if the younger girl was 13? 12? 11? Methinks youre gunna have to use that logic yourself somewhere. Sounds like you want the 'perfect laws' digitalchaos just mentioned. Obviously that'd be fantastic, but it's a bit naive.
Active Member
I agree with you that a deal down the road is very likely.
I think the defense wants the count dropped to a misdemeanor & that she won't have to register as a sex offender.
Forget any teaching job though.
Active Member
Very true. The bit you quoted was me referencing a theoretical (not a current legal perspective). The topic of child rights is one of the more difficult things for me to settle on, from a philosophical perspective. I like to apply maximum freedom to most situations. That just doesn't work with children due to maturity and life-long consequences. We all know that there is a huuuuuuge stretch of time in which people slowly mature to a point where one could be responsible with maximum freedom. Some people never get there. We seem to pick an arbitrary point where the consequences of your actions are suddenly yours to own. Before that it is sort of a property rights (as messed up as it sounds) situation with the parents while the child has only partial rights.
Compared to all the other methods of legal governance, the ones concerning child rights seems to be the most lacking. Yet, I've never heard of something better.
Bite me
Exactly. The plea that was offered is a shitty deal.
They are evolving toward the better, though.
Active Member
I would totally be against someone from high school dating someone from elementary school.
I mostly have issues with with the fact that you can frequent the same high school, lunch together, play sports together, socialize with each other and then when a "connection" of some sort develops, you tell them that's it's forbidden. Basically, "Hey girls, I think it's great that you guys are friend and everything but before you step it up a notch you have to wait about 18 months. You can fuck you brains out at her sweet 16."
If such is the case, you should have uni gender schools until 16. You can't ask teenagers to befriend each others and throw the book at them if things go a bit further. They are teenagers. They will experiment and have fun. This was consensual and harmless. The victim in this case will end up being the perpetrator if she spends time in jail. You know that jail won't do her any good.
When I was working as a clerk in a pharmacy in my teenage years, we had parties where there was younger employees who were 15 close to be 16 and guys that were 18 who were hooking up.
I think this issue could be resolve by having a decent acceptable gap age.
What would you do if two 14-year old had consensual sex? You would throw them both in juvenile detention?
Last edited by Deepvoid; 05-28-2013 at 02:06 PM.
Throbbing Member
Um, no. I teach these kids, I spend five days a week with them: they have sex (all kinds of sex), most of it is consensual, most of it is fun. They have very meaningful and intimate relationships, and it's not because an 18 yr old guy is dating a 15 yr old girl that the guy is a predator and the girl completely unable to consent. Is she going to be heartbroken when he dumps her? Sure. Is that the most likely outcome? Absolutely. We can't protect teens from that, and we shouldn't: it's part of growing up.
(Don't forget, too, that boys do a lot of growing up around the age of 17 - until then, girls have 2 yrs advantage, meaning that a 17 yr old boy and a 15 yr old girl are intellectually and psychologically equals).
So it's okay for someone who can't even grasp concepts of responsibility and consequences, to drive a car that can hurt, maim and kill people - but not for them to have ownership of their own body?3) yes I know that the 16th or 17th birthday is arbitrary, but when it comes to legal matters, you can't just leave it up to someone to make a judgement call. We make hard lines on virtually every other age related law. voting 18. drinking 21. smoking 18. The reason is you just have to draw the line somewhere. If you leave it case by case, you open the door to even more bigotry where people are persecuted solely because of the authority's whims.
Also: correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that you cannot buy booze and cigs under that age limit, not that you cannot consume them. Have their been cases of parents who were sued and convicted for allowing their minor to drink and smoke in their own homes?
It's hypocritical, that's what it is. And it pisses me off.
Bite me
In this country, yes. Not for their own children, but relative to other peoples' minor children. Again, parents are legally entitled / obligated to the care and control of [their own] minor children, but contributing to the delinquency of other minor children is a crime.
In New Jersey, you can't go to a tanning salon if you're under 17, because of "tan Mom."
Kids are going to have sex, and statutory rape laws are relatively rarely enforced. But, the laws exist for a reason; the laws have evolved, but they're never going away in this country. The age of majority being an absolute age relative to sex is a myth; again, capacity and intent will be a big part of the trial. If the older girl is mentally retarded, experts will be called. Innocent until proven guilty. But, nevertheless, a law has been allegedly broken. Just because you're 18 and she's 14 and you go to school together does not negate the possibility of the older girl being a predator. That's what the law attempts to prevent. No matter your gender.
That gap definition already exists in many states.
Last edited by allegro; 05-28-2013 at 02:26 PM.
Active Member
That gap definition already exists in many states.[/QUOTE]
I also appreciate that we have laws that try to protect our kids from predators but in this case, the law is being used for other reasons.
If proven that Hunt is not a predator, then it's simply a matter of the government tell two citizen what they can or cannot do at a certain age.
Yes, I looked a few state laws. The gap varies depending if you're in a conservative or liberal state. Some states have no gap.
Here's our situation in Canada:
The Tackling Violent Crime Act took effect on 1 May 2008, raising the age of consent to 16 from 14.
There exist two close in age exemptions, depending on the age of the younger partner. A youth of twelve or thirteen can consent to sexual activity with an individual less than two years older than they. A fourteen- or fifteen-year-old can consent to sexual activity with a partner who is less than five years older than they.
Therefore, if Hunt was living in Canada, we wouldn't be talking about her right now.
Bite me
If Hunt was a dude in this country, we wouldn't be talking about this right now. The media loves this shit.
You think, based on your opinion based on media reports you are seeing right now. We do not know the facts of this case. It involves a minor, who is protected by law. We may never know all the facts of this case.
Last edited by allegro; 05-28-2013 at 03:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
