13 Child Porn Victims in Ice Cream Case

greenleaves said:
Ofcourse it is wrong for a 40 year old to have sex with a 4 year old. If you read my post you would understand that.
Click to expand...

Not really, because aside from complaining you can't bang 17 year olds and how the media portray them you didn't mention age at all.

greenleaves said:
If you wanted to put a limit, no double the age fucking if the girl is 18 or under.
Click to expand...

So by your definition 36 and 18 is okay but 37 and 18 isn't? How is that any less arbitrary than 18 as opposed to 17 years + 363 days?


greenleaves said:
I was pointing out the media loves to say 'children' whenever they can to draw up the simpathy/redneck outrage card. Even if it is a person that is 17 years and 363 days old. That is not being 'contrarian'... it is simply stating a fact.
Click to expand...

Ah, so media spin is the part of this story you feel the need to call out? Good to see you have your priorities in order.

And if you have an instance of when a news outlet referenced a 17 year old as a "child" or "children" please do tell.

And finally, allow this redneck retard to help you out in the spelling arena: it's "hence" and not "hense" (5 letters bro, seriously?) and it is "sympathy" not "simpathy".
 


A public defender is so swamped that they rarely put too much effort into any one case unless they really believe in it. Most of what they do (from my experience working for one) is pretty mechanical. This guy admitted to what he did, so the PD doesn't have too much work to do (assuming he had a PD.)
 
greenleaves said:
Yes 40 and 13 is wrong, but I see no problem if it is 20 and 15. Hense the case by case basis.
Click to expand...

Why is it ok for a 20 year old to have sex with a 15 year old, but not ok for an older person to have sex with the 15 year old? you claim there should be no barriers, but you just put one in place.
There is nothing wrong with the barriers we already have in place, why change them to satisfy the sick fucks of this world.
 
I guess what he is really saying is THINK!

Although I do agree that there has to be a limit, these limits are set arbitrarily.

Just look at laws all over the world and you will find that these limits are not only different, they have changed over time as well.

16 seems to be a limit that is (almost) universal, but even here the laws differ.

In some countries, this is old enough to be a prostitute (Switzerland, for example) in others, this is old enough to have sex with anyone, in some, this is old enough to have sex with someone also under 18 and in some, it is still a crime.

What stands is that these limits are arbitrary and that the coverage of the case has holes.

But...seduced by laced icecream does not sound like happening to 16-year olds, so we can almost safely assume the guy is a sick fuck.

::emp::
 
emp said:
What stands is that these limits are arbitrary and that the coverage of the case has holes.
Click to expand...

There are no holes at all. You can only be tried by the laws applicable in the country the crimes happened. What happens in other countries has absolutely nothing to do with this case.
 
err... what I meant is that it should be common sense to think about how laws come to be.

And yes, I do agree that he should be put to trial.

::emp::
 
Have no pre-set limit and let the jury decide on a case by case basis.

A jury won't screw over somebody who is 18 for having sex with somebody who is 16. They will however put somebody who is 40 into jail for having sex with somebody who is 12.
 
cardine said:
Have no pre-set limit and let the jury decide on a case by case basis.

A jury won't screw over somebody who is 18 for having sex with somebody who is 16. They will however put somebody who is 40 into jail for having sex with somebody who is 12.
Click to expand...

I think the last time we left something in the Jury's hand a 17 year old got convicted of statuary rape of a 16 year old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom