Pedophile allowed to stand behind Constitution

by ohiocowboy 20 Replies latest social current

  • dorayakii

    There's only 6 years between them and they are both old enough to know what the hell they're doing. Unless there was rape involved, the law should quite frankly just butt it's ugly head out of the way and keep out of people's business.

    The 22 year old is not a paedophile. In my opinion, statutory rape laws are very mixed up, and should be readjusted to fit into reality, not the other way around. Sexual interactions are a natural part of human existence and should no longer be viewed as some dirty practice, unless it is practiced in a perverted way by adults to children. The definition of "child" or "minor" needs to be clearly redefined to exclude late adolescence (16/17 is reasonable), and a moveable age range (of maybe 2 or 3 years) needs to be defined as to which combination of ages constitute "statutory rape".

    Measures need to be put in place to protect real children from real paedophiles, instead of wasting time, money and energy, criminalising people like 18 year olds who sleep with 17 year olds, or 16 year olds who give consentual oral sex to 22 year olds.

    Obviously the circumstances have to be taken into account, and the fact that they didnt have a relationship but met in an "Internet chat room" and were perhaps inebriated by "rum and orange juice" would also be a factor in determining whether this really was a crime.

    It was not until 1975 that oral sex between consenting adults was decriminalized in California.

    ?? How ridiculous!! Are there any other states where this is still a crime?

Share this