got tar and feathers? and some rope?

[strmrdr]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196947,00.html

 

[hlmr]

Stories like that make me wild!!!

!!!

This judge can''t be serious?!

 

[sunkist]

Wow

Let the punishment fit the crime...

 

[FireGoddess]

*smacksmacksmacksmacksmacksmacksmack*

I hate to be crass, but maybe he would have gotten what he DESERVED being ''too small'' to go to prison - it''s not like the kid/s he molested had a choice.

I give up. I just don''t get it anymore.

 

[galeteia]

Date: 5/26/2006 5:58:10 PM
Author: FireGoddess
*smacksmacksmacksmacksmacksmacksmack*


I hate to be crass, but maybe he would have gotten what he DESERVED being ''too small'' to go to prison - it''s not like the kid/s he molested had a choice.

I give up. I just don''t get it anymore.

That was ABSOLUTELY my first reaction. More violent, actually. I''m definitely of the "molest a child, get the death sentence" type.

But after re-reading the article, I noticed some things. One, there was only one ''child'', second, the age of the ''children'' he has to avoid are any under 18, and lastly, the FEMALE judge said he "wasn''t a hunter" which I find to be VERY odd phrasing.

If he was not the ''hunter'' is it possible he could have been ''hunted'' possibly, say, by a 17 year old girl with something to prove? There is a thread on PS where people have been talking about 12 and 13 year old girls being oversexed. Could this be the case?

It IS a female judge, and the phrase is very specific. I wonder.

If that is the case, I am NOT saying it wasn''t TOTALLY wrong of him to have a relationship with a teenage girl, but he is being singled out as ''not a predator''.

But being involved with a girl in her late teens, ESPECIALLY today''s teens, is bad judgement, not the molestation of a young child. I''ve seen girls deliberately flirting with men old enough to be their fathers, if not grandfathers!!

I''m just trying to reassemble the pieces of the puzzle to see if they make a better fit.

Something really needs to be done about kids today. They are ''maturing'' WAY too fast.

 

[perry]

Galateia:

Thank you for pointing that out.

I had avoided this thread for several reasons prior to this.

You are right - we do not know the facts of the case...

However, while it is true that there really are sexual predators. It is also true that many states are defining anyone who has any form of sexual contact (intentional or intentional) as a sexual predator.

I''ll bet that everyone here thinks they know what it means to say someone has "Sexual Intercourse" - and if you hear that someone is charged with that - that they must have been "fully engaged".

What most people do not know is that many states have redefined what "Sexual Intercourse" is.

I have to admit that I am ashamed on how my home state has it now defined. Essentially it is almost any form of sexual contact - even through many layers of clothing and even if you are not sexually excited.

I think they should have added the crime of "Sexual Contact" and left the description of Sexual Intercourse alone.

It just goes to show that many of the people pushing these laws are not into fairness - they want to nail people - and brand them for life. Often over relatively minor situations.

In my case: A long time ago in a place far far away... I accidently and inadvertently found myself in what would be a sexual contact situation with a young lady (significantly underaged). I quickly backed off and went home; then because it bothered me that I had wronged her - even if accidentally I recontacted her later that day and appologized for the inadvertant contact of that area (a breast). Whereupon she said that she understood that the contact was accidental, was very glad that I appologized, and then paused a bit - then stated that she was in fact interested in continuing with more contact while quickly pulling her shirt off....

I got out of there - fast - and without any futher contact; but folks - that does not mean I wasn''t tempted.

I avoided that person for almost a decade (now we talk once in a great while at events where we both are at).

Now - under the current laws in this state. If this series of events occured in this state at this time - I could be labled a sexual predator for life. I clearly meet the terms and conditions of the current definitions. I would be charged with "sexual intercourse" with a minor. I would have no defense.

It matters not that the contact was accidental and brief. It matters not that I immediatly recognized the situation and repositioned myself to break the contact. It matters not that I appologized. In fact - the fact that was brief contact - and that later she then took off her shirt and wanted to continue would be proff positive that this was indeed a sexual contact situation because she was sexually interested. Given that - it matters not that I then immediatly withdrew with no further contact (and largly disappeared out of her life). All that matteres in the current statues is that there was contact; there was sexual interest or excitement by one of the parties; her age, my age. Case closed.

Look how people treat "sexual predators" - can you immagine... (of course, some of you may decide that I am the "scum of the earth" as well for just telling about the situation.

Also, most teenagers are also sexual predators under our current state laws (if they are sexually active with another teenager) - could be labled for life as well.


Hello anyone.... What has happend to our laws.



Fortunately - under the laws in existance at that time and that state I cannot be prosecuted (and I did check this recently when a 30+ year old gal was talking to a "police buddy" and mentioned that her "first love" was with an older adult when she was about 15 years old - and the police have now charged the guy with statutory rape - even in the face of evidence that she was interested and did not object to the freindship with an adult that over several years eventually developed into a sexual relationship that lasted for a while until she became interested in someone closer to her own age).


I know that each state has defined things differently - but I recall that when the defiintions were changed in Wisconsin that the talk was that the state was adopting the recomendations of some national task force. So things might now be similar in other states.

Now I have no problem dealing severly with people who really are predators - who seek out kids just because they are kids. But, I personally think that in some ways - the pendulum has swung too far. We need to get the definintions straight.

So I think Galateia may be onto something. Perhaps in another era - or a more permissive state - this guy would not be guilty of anything - or at worst perhaps of bad judement.


Perry

 

[galeteia]

The thread I mentioned earlier can be found here: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/oye-what-a-way-to-find-out.45715/

Perry, thank you for coming forward with your story. I agree that the efforts the courts are making to prevent exploitation of minors is becoming misguided in some areas. It really does depend on the situation and the people involved.

A two year age gap between a 17 year old girl and a 19 year old boy isn''t much, especially when considering that girls mature at a faster rate than boys, so it''s likely that the 17 year old is more emotionally mature than her boyfriend! However, that boy would be charged with statutory rape.

One of my thesis advisors is a very boyish-faced, attractive man of 35. It''s a custom in my department for faculty members and students to all go out for ''pub nights'', which produces hilariously impassioned arguements over finer points of Greek myth and the declensions of Latin nouns. This wasn''t a problem until Ontario started phasing out grade 13; now first-year students are no longer 18 going on 19, they are 17. I have seen drunk female students flirting, hanging off him, touching him suggestively (the lingering arm pats and such), and even grabbing him and kissing him while he was trapped in a chair! While he was once flattered at the attention, the increasing youth of his admirers has begun to seriously freak him out, to the point that he began to avoid the pub nights. It''s one thing to have a student in her early twenties with a crush on you, and it''s quite another to have one who is legally a minor and half your age trying to shove her chest in your face.

By the laws of your state, Perry, he''d be charged for it. I wonder what is becoming of today''s youth, and I''m only 25!

 

[perry]

Galateia:

It can be worse than that.

I did five years in the US Navy before going to college. I am also - and have also - been "young at heart" and can have a great time (and without alcohol as well).

So half or 2/3 way through college I am in a Ballroom dancing class... There is a gal there that shares some of my interest and hobbies. Do you smell date... Yup. First one is casual and we just talk. She wants a second date. Again this was causual with a goodnight kiss (I was in no need to rush her). 3rd date - planned for the entier weekend and she brings her overnight kit and changes of clothing; but at dinner mentions something that makes me curious.... so I start asking some questions. Turns out she is 14 - a genius - and half way through college.

But for one little slip and my mental alertness- I''d have never known. The date ended after dinner, and I know she was disapointed that she could not spend the weekend with me.

How in the world does a guy tell. 1st degree statuatory rape given our age differences (I was 25 or 26). Who would expect someone half way through college to be 14? Heck, I was dreaming of her moving in with me... and I think she was dreaming of the same...


Perry

 

[perry]

Mr Majestic:

Well, glad to be of service.... Kinda....

Life can be full of surprises. At least I lived life. Of course, if I had a differents set of morals those stories would have been different and probably would never have been told. Such is life.


My real concern with this thread is the number of people jumping to conclusions on what the "crime" actually was.

Is this a "real" child molester who is a threat to other children.

Is this someone who got caught in somthing very minor or stupid where they were not the aggressor - and an overzelous police and DA prosecuted them mainly in order to claim that they are prosecuting all "child molesters" (look how tough we are !).

Is it something in between (and there are many shades of grey in between those two extreems).

Sunkist said:

Let the punishment fit the crime...
Did you ever consider the possibility that perhaps it does (or that the punishment may actually exceed the crime).


The fact is that none of us know the details and situation. Many of you just see the words indication some for of sex "crime" with a person under the age of 18 - and jump to the worst possible conclusion about it.

I am not so quick to jump to conclusions given my background experiences - and the fact that I cared about trying to obey the law (otherwise I would have nicely had two sexual relationships with underaged gals); and the recent changes in the "sexual predator" laws that seem to demonize people over even innocent or minor things that are clearly mislabled in the statues to make them sound horrific (not to mention if you are targeted for sexual issues from younger people).

What I would do if this person lived in my area is try to find out more about the details of what happened. Only then could I make a judgment.

Perry

 

[AGBF]

Date: 5/26/2006 11:41:26 PM
Author: perry
What I would do if this person lived in my area is try to find out more about the details of what happened. Only then could I make a judgment.

Perry,

You are such a thoughtful poster! It is really a pleasure to read your contributions here, even when we have irreconcilable differences due to our basic belief systems. (That does not apply here! I was thinking about the death penalty.)

How can it ever hurt to learn more about a situation before rushing to judgement?

Deb

 

[blodthecat]

Has the world gone barking mad????

Why do the offenders get more consideration than the victims?

What kind of justice is that

Give him some Cuban heels....and get him behind bars!

 

[perry]

Deb:

Please do not make to much of our "irreconcilable differences" on the death penalty.

If you recall (and you can check the post): I would impose a very stict review critieria to any potential death penalty cases; of which I suspect that about 5% of the current population on death row would make it through. The rest would not in my book be eligable for the death penalty. I also feel; that it is probably cheaper to just lock those few up for life than to actually put into place my system. What bothers me - is the other 95% or so on death row now that my system would clear from the death penalty.

As far as the current topic. I am glad that you understand the distinctions and the issues. I in many ways have lived a fairly typical life - I''m just willing to talk about some things that most people arn''t (and many an older man just freely contineued in my examples without a second thought - or joy that a younger person wanted it from them).

The subject of human sexuality; how children mature sexually and who they trust; what happens; and the effect on their life (positive - relatively neurtral - negative) of their sexual experiments - experiences - and choices is a vast subject with many possible outcomes. I bothers me how much the US has criminalized and demonized many of those cases where the relationship was consensual.

Sometimes the real possibilities are not seen for years afterwards. In my case - the underage girl who wanted to continue and I withdrew from her life to prevent a sexual relationship. A whille later her mother discussed with me that she wanted me back into her daughters life because I was a much needed good influence for her. She (her mother) also indicated that she knew her daughter was sexually interested in me (and specifically in learning from me); and that she knew her daughter was going to end up in a sexual relationship with someone sometime and it would not bother her if it was me that her daughter was involved with (I think her daughter was 13 at the time). In fact if anything she thought that the best thing for her daughter at the time would be for a long term relationship with me; instead of with others - because I would be good to her, gentle with her, and good for her.

Have you ever seen someone who you''ve known as a child with lots of potential and now as an adult you look at and go - what a waste of talent and abilities. There was someone who could have been something - been productive - who is now essentially a nothing. Could she have been a lot different. Yes. Could it be that her mother was right - that I was the kind of positive influence that her daughter needed in her life - and I would have helped her turn out to be a much better person who was reaching for her potential - off to college and other things. Would it have mattered that the daughter chose me to be the one to learn about sexuality with because of trust and respect - and that we might have had a long term sexual relationship (at least until she wanted to move onto others).

The world is full of some things that are absolutely right, and other things that are absolutely wrong. However, many things are really some level of grey between the two extreems.

This case "of: the rest of the story" has bothered me for years. In my heart I know that the development of this young person went astray when I withdrew from her life. I also know that had I stuck arround that we would have endid up in bed as well (I am male and can be tempted). But the laws and general culture of the time would have crucified me (or yet even today had I gone ahead and became involved with a young lady like that; and they would have crucified the mother as well for supporting it). The fact that the young lady would probably have become a productive member of society and much more of who she could become - versus what and where she is - never seems to be considered. I always ask myself when I see this lady or her mother: In retrospect - what caused the worst harm and how does that square with the laws that the US society enforces. What would have been the most right thing to do.

I''m really tired of the people who claim that having sex between a younger person and an older person automatically harms the younger person. Other cultures in the world do not seem to have that automatic assumption.

I have no problem appropriately punishing people who target and hunt down younger underaged people for sex - just to have sex with a younger person. I have no problem appropriately punishing people who use force, threats of violance, or other intimindation, in order for them to engage in a sex act with someone.

I have a lot of issues seeing any crime where the relationship is consensual and based on desires of the younger person because of trust, freindship, or just have the "hots" at the time for someone or something. Personally, I think this last situation should just be decriminalized.

We have enought situations in the world where real harm is done - enough of those crimes to keep the cops busy, the courts busy, and the prisons full. What are we doing wasting resources on these other issues? Why are we prosecuting people 15 to 25 years later for a consensual relationship that the judicial system just learned about.

Anyway, so that skeliton of my past is out of the closet; but I hope you understand why I can be so thoughfull about things. I tend to find that carring people tend to be thoughfull.

Have a great day.

Perry

 

[galeteia]

The more I think about what that FEMALE judge said, the more I am convinced there is something more to the story.

The girl in question could have been underage and lied about it. Girls these days are maturing so fast that men's brains can't make the sexually mature = legally immature connection.

It's bad enough when 14 year old little girls are walking around with the bodies of fully mature women, but when you have those same little girls LYING about their ages (Please do read that thread I posted up there for an account of this by a PSer) you have a legally explosive combination.

I was talking about the horror of seeing overdeveloped (by my mind) teen girls flaunting their womanly bodies, and my housemate said "You mean the Prostitots? [Sound it out] Yeah. Scary. I don't remember looking like that when I was their age."

Scary indeed. Let's not leap to conculsions here.

 

[glitterata]

I agree that we don''t know what happened in this case, and we need to know the facts before we can judge a situation. I also am all in favor of consenting adults doing whatever they like sexually. I think it''s none of my business, or anybody else''s.

However, I still think 13 is WAY too young for a child to have sex with an adult, no matter how hot the child thinks the adult is, and no matter how mature the child''s body looks. A 13 year old is just not old enough to make that decision. I''m not sure the solution is to treat all offenders with the same harsh punishment no matter what the details of the sexual contact, but we do need to do something to protect children from adults who take advantage of their immaturity.

So, Perry, I applaud you for backing off. And although I don''t know you or the child in question, I also don''t think you can know for sure how her life would have turned out if you had had a sexual relationship with her when she was a child. Maybe it would have been better. Maybe it would have been the same. Maybe it would have been worse. There''s no way to know.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 5/27/2006 11:39:31 AM
Author: glitterata
I still think 13 is WAY too young for a child to have sex with an adult, no matter how hot the child thinks the adult is, and no matter how mature the child''s body looks. A 13 year old is just not old enough to make that decision. I''m not sure the solution is to treat all offenders with the same harsh punishment no matter what the details of the sexual contact, but we do need to do something to protect children from adults who take advantage of their immaturity.

As the mother of a 13 year-old girl, I couldn''t agree more!!! Yes, I want laws to protect my innocent kid from being used by an adult. On the other hand, if my daughter (God forbid) ever lied about her age, no one would believe she is 13. She looks 16 or 17 and might even be able to convince someone she was 18. If she were so inclined, she could fool a man into thinking she was not the jail bait that she really is!

So I agree with you and Perry that the circumstances really have to be examined. Not every case of contact between an adult and a minor should be viewed as criminal. On the other hand, keep predators away from my kid!!!

 

[perry]

Glitterata & Deb:

A 13 year old is just not old enough to make that decision.

But many of them are making the decission to have sex, and even at younger ages than
that. What is an appropriate age?

Once a young lady, or a young man, decide that they are going to have sex - does it
really matter with whom? If so - to what extent. For clarification - I am talking
premeditated sex. Not spur of the moment because it feels good or they lost control.

Actually, I personally think it has a lot more to do with maturiy. I have seen 12 year olds
that are more mature in many ways than other 18 year olds.

What about that 14 year old genious that was half way throgh college. No one would
think she was immature. She clearly was no stranger to sex.

Something I have councelled freinds on - who asked for advice of how to handle the
sex issue with their kids (smoking and drugs are another common item) has been along
the following: First; you have to admit to yourself that you cannot stop you kids from
having sex if they decide to do so. Second; you must acknowledge that part of your
responsibilities as a parent - is to tech them how to take responsibility for their lives as
they grow older. So here is what I suggest; that you have a talk with you (son
or daughter) and explain those two items. Then ask them to do a reseach project
and come back with a report on the various issues regarding sexual activity. The benifits
having sex and why people have sex. The menstral cycle and how and when a lady can
get pregnant - including variations that can occur in the cycle. STD's and lessor infections
(yeast, simple rashes, etc). The affect on their life from such items (ranges from minor
inconvience to very signifiant). The affect on their lives if they cause or get pregnant
from the idea that they take full responsibility for the situation, and whatever else they
parents wishes to add that is directly related. Then when their son and daughter comes
back with the report and satisfies the parents that they understand the issues (and
the few parents that have reporte back indicate that their kid taught them things that
they did not know)..... Then you tell your son or daughter that it is now their
responsibility to chose when and who they get involved in. You may express your
desires on how and when you would hope they would chose; but you must accept
that they may chose to do different. Also ask to be kept up to date on any major
issues. That you will be open to talk about things.

I know this is not an easy way to go - but it seems to be effective and leads to better
relationships and communication between kids and their parents.


We do need to do something to protect children from adults who take advantage of their immaturity.


Agreed. Not all cases are clear - but most cases where someone older took advantage
are not that difficult to figure out. Arrest and appropriate prosecution are in order.

I also don't think you can know for sure how her life would have turned out if ... Maybe it would have been better. Maybe it would have been the same. Maybe it would have been worse. There's no way to know.

From the big picture - you are right that the endgame 10+ years later could not be
predicted. However, in the short term (next sevearl years) I believe that I would have
continued to direct her life in the direction that I had been - and that she would have
avoided some major negaiver things that she got into in the next several years.
That is what I believe her mother saw comming; and why she pleaded with me to get back
involved with her daughter - accepting that it would become sexual.
Knowing most of what did happen to that young lady over the next sevearl years - I doubt
that it would have been possible for it to turn out any worse.


Yes, I want laws to protect my innocent kid from being used by an adult.

Agreed


On the other hand, if my daughter (God forbid) ever lied about her age... she could fool a man into thinking she was not the jail bait that she really is!

And there is the rub. While I don't believe I have been subject to that situation.... I
know one guy who spent a weekend in jail - even after questioning the young lady to
the point of looking at her ID card. It turned out to be a fake ID card. It also turned
out that the police knew that she was out there with a fake ID card and seducing older
men. He was still going to be charged with statutory rape. How many underaged
gals out there get fake ID cards. It is not, I believe, really that uncommon.


So I agree with you and Perry that the circumstances really have to be examined. Not every case of contact between an adult and a minor should be viewed as criminal. On the other hand, keep predators away from my kid!!!


Thanks for the agreement: So how do we do that?

I have no problem in nailing predators - and even think that in certain cases that castration
would be appropriate ( I hope I don't offend you on that one Deb either).

The real problem with this discussion is that there are a lot of people who do know and understand at least portions of the issues involved - but will never speak up on them because they or their lover could be prosecuted to this day on what happened (perhaps long long ago): - or the social stigma would be unacceptable as well. By some degree of luck I avoided the situations that would currently be subject to charges (dispite how long ago these incidents occured). Thus I can talk about them without worry of that.

Perry

 

[perry]

So lets focus a bit on what this case is:

It occured in Nebraska. The age of consent in Nebraska is 17.

Note that worldwide the age of consent ranges from 12 - 20; with 14-16 being the most common range (although a series of countries do have 13, and some countries have different ages with the gals always having the lower age of consent). A few countries have adopted 18 as the age of consent. Within the US: The average age of consent is 16 with the range being 14-18 depending on the state. Here is the link:

www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm


Here''s a great definintion I have found on another site:

What counts as ''sex''?

This, too, is different, depending on the laws in the place where you live. Some places count things like kissing as sexual contact, and other places only count sexual intercourse. Check out the laws in your state or country.


So in the wrong place just kissing is counted as sex.... and statutory rape (that seems close to the statutes that Wisconsin has adopted; while I think they exclude a simple kiss... certainly anything beyond that - like a hug would count).



Later I will try to find out some specifics on Nebraska Law and this case. For now It''s off to work I go (I''m on call today and have already been called in once; now I get to go back again).

Perry

 

[perry]

Here is some more on the legal status - and some more on details:

The girl involved was the 12 year old daughter of his fiance.

Mr. Thompson was charged with 2 counts of "Sexual Contact" That occured over a couple of months last year.

In Nebraska; you can be charged with two forms of Sexual Assult: Sexual Contact, and/or Sexual Penitration. The definintion of sexual penitration is pretty standard and includes oral sex (The Nebraska definintions and distinctions make a lot more sense than what exist currently in Wisconsin).


Sexual Contact is: ( From: www.unicam.state.ne.us/laws/index.htm )

(5) Sexual contact means the intentional touching of the victim's sexual or intimate parts or the intentional touching of the victim's clothing covering the immediate area of the victim's sexual or intimate parts. Sexual contact shall also mean the touching by the victim of the actor's sexual or intimate parts or the clothing covering the immediate area of the actor's sexual or intimate parts when such touching is intentionally caused by the actor. Sexual contact shall include only such conduct which can be reasonably construed as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of either party. Sexual contact shall also include the touching of a child with the actor's sexual or intimate parts on any part of the child's body for purposes of sexual assault of a child under section 28-320.01;



There have been three significant court rulings of the following that affects this defiintion (the first two are essentially identicle - and perhaps the second ruling occured after a change in the statute):

1) In proving "sexual contact," defined in subdivision (5) of this section, the State need not prove sexual arousal or gratification, but only circumstances and conduct which could be construed as being for such a purpose. State v. Berkman, 230 Neb. 163, 430 N.W.2d 310 (198.3. Sexual penetration

2) In proving sexual contact, the State need not prove sexual arousal or gratification, but only circumstances and conduct which could be construed as being for such a purpose. State v. Osborn, 241 Neb. 424, 490 N.W.2d 160 (1992).


3) "Sexual contact," as defined in subsection (5) of this section, is established when the State proves that defendant intentionally touched the victim's underpants in the area between the legs. State v. Andersen, 238 Neb. 32, 468 N.W.2d 617 (1991).




Perry's comments: I'm bothered by the fact that conduct that could be construed (first 2) but was not for sexual purposes would still get you convicted. Also, I wonder about the application of the thrid one to emergency medical personel (and some other situations I can think up dealing with care and helping someone who needed it).


OK: here is what we know - and don't know:

A) He did not have sex - in the conventional sense or orally - with the girl. Otherwise he would have been charged with "Sexual Penitration"

B) It could have been incidental contact without sexual intent on his part through her cloths (perhaps while tickling?).

C) It could have been significant petting and and full sexual arrousal - and release - of both him and her.

D) I doubt that it was a steady or routine thing (whatever it was): 2 counts from a couple month period in the previous year.

E) We have no information if she was interested and a freely consenting person to the acts, a total victum, or even potentially initiated sexual contact (it happens). Given her age - none of that makes any difference. Only that the "Sexual Contact" occured: He is guilty even if she unknowing to him (and uninvited) climbed into his bed at night and started things - and then he kicked her out of bed.

Now: depending on what did actually happen - I feel that the guy should either never have been charged (incidental contact - or she initiated it and he backed away) - up to he should indeed be in jail now (if he initiated heavy petting type contact for sexual purposes).

Unfortunately, we will never know for sure as the details of what did happen are almost certainly sealed because of her age.

The only real clue was the judges comment that "that doesn't make you a hunter. You do not fit that category."

This would indicate to me that it was closer to the incidental contact or she initiated it catagory than the he initiated full sexual petting contact for sexual arrousal (i.e. he did not hunt her).


One further item: The sentancing has been appealed to a higher court by the DA's office. They want him in jail.

Hope that helps all understand as much as I suspose we can.

Perry

 

[glitterata]

I don''t know--I think it''s pretty bad for a 12-year-old''s future stepfather to be touching her sexually. I don''t know whether (or how) I think he should be punished, but I definitely think he should be stopped. No matter how innocent he persuades himself it is. No matter how much he thinks she wants to do it. The balance of power makes it impossible for her to make a free choice in the matter.

If an adult is in doubt about the age of someone he''s considering having sex with, he should stop. Why is that so difficult? Find someone your own age, or get to know the person well enough to know their age before having sex with them.

Yes, many kids will have sex, whether their parents like the idea or not. But at least let them have it with people close to their own age, and therefore not automatically in an unbalanced power relation to them.

 

[perry]

Now that I have had a night to sleep on what I found about the case:

I agree that this was probably more than incidental contact and an overzelouse prosecution (but those cases do occur). The judge did say that he "did it" (whatever "it" was: in the realm of sexual contact, without any form of penitration or oral sex).

At the same time I think that this may have been a case of her initiating - or her participating in some specific situation where it was easy to slip the bounds (or transition) into sexual contact (tickling... couild be that type of situation; so could certain games played or activities while swimming; and I am sure there are others). This from the judges comment that he was not a hunter - and from the fact that the police only charged him with two counts from a several month period. Far more often you see cases of many counts in the same time period where there is preditation (hunting) involved; or claims of multiple victums where there is preditation involved.

As far as the "ballance of power" issue with the age difference. It is troublesome that this is a 12 year old. I agree there are cases where the age ballance of power is a key factor in the sexual contact or conduct; but there are cases where it is clearly not - even with 12 year olds (and cases where you don't know). There is no way of us knowing this on the facts in public domain in this case; although the judge probably has a good idea on this.

I wonder about the sentance: It is unusual - and the reason "given" is unique (and I suspect easily over-ruled). The no contact with any minors is standard.

I wonder if the judge really felt that given all the facts of the case (which she knows and we don't) - that this was a situation where prision was not justified; but, that under the sentancing guidelines that there was no normal way that she (the judge) could not sentance him to prision: So she "invented" a unique argument as to why he should not go. Her argument actually does have a bases and many people do not disagree that a small short person can be in great danager in modern prisons.

I suspect that her sentance will be overturned on appeal.


Keep in mind that he is now branded a "sexual predator" for life (even if she initiatied it and "it" was very minor contact which she wanted - and got). He must register for life as well. People who jump to conclusions will assume that he is a predator for their children the rest of his life (even though the judge clearly stated that he was not). That aspect bothers me in this case. He may be guilty of sexual contact with a minor - without being a sexual predator.


Perry

 

[blodthecat]

Hi Perry,

Just a short reply to your original post. Sorry if this sounds old fashioned and idealistic!

Childhood is so brief these days. There is nothing clever about sex, infact any idiot can do it. My concern is that these days young people are not allowed to grow and develop emotionally without thinking that sex is something they have to master too.

Sex is easy....relationships are much harder. These days all the emphasis is on sex and not relationships.

I think young people should be given the opportunity to develop BOTH physically and emotionally before they start becoming sexually active. They are then in a better position to make balanced decisions about what is right for them.

Just my 2c

Blod

 

[perry]

blodthecat Says:

Just a short reply to your original post. Sorry if this sounds old fashioned and idealistic!

Childhood is so brief these days. There is nothing clever about sex, infact any idiot can do it. My concern is that these days young people are not allowed to grow and develop emotionally without thinking that sex is something they have to master too.

Sex is easy....relationships are much harder. These days all the emphasis is on sex and not relationships.

I think young people should be given the opportunity to develop BOTH physically and emotionally before they start becoming sexually active. They are then in a better position to make balanced decisions about what is right for them.

Just my 2c


Actually: I totally agree. You are so right. So how do we get back to that - versus the current idea that it is OK to date a different person every week (or more often). I heard a co-worker recently describe her daughter as practicing serial monagamy (which I think was a great line). That she was faithfull to her current boyfreind - but changed them frequently.

In general I think that people should be encouraging that people - of all ages - have a freindship and mutuall relationship first. That under most situaions that sexuality should be within such a relationship.

Of course their are exceptions to that, and has anyone else ever sat down and listed all the reasons people have sex? The pro's and con's of each of those situations (another exercise that may help kids - if the parents can pull it off without becoming upset or being able to fairly discuss the issues and options).


I understand that people may be wondering about me and some of my points. I'm just not a person who sees everything in black and white. I am always thinking of the exceptions to all the rules - and understand that there are cases where those exceptions apply.

I feel that justice - real justice occurs when people understand what happened and the motivation for what happened; and the knowlede that people had along with the risk that people took in the situation. Then apply the appropriate penalty for punishment for the unique case situation. The goal - if possible - of the punisment phase is to change something about the person so that what happened does not happen again. Only in the most agreegious situations should punishment be just for punishment sake. Only in the most extreem cases should people be locked up for life or put to death.

It bothers me when people just see some headline or news-story and jump to conclusions on what happened and what the punishment should be. The news- orgainzations are more about creating contriversial headlines and stories instead of deep investigation and reporting that there is a mess that needs to be understood before any judgement can be made. The reason is people seem to want that instant headline or short story that they can then react to and feel good about their reaction.

In extreem cases the press can destroy (or attempt to destroy) an individuals position in scociety (and I was once the featured guy for a 3 part - 3 consecutive days - top half of the front page - picture in the upper right - expose' of mismanagment of the power plant; where a series of charges by emplyees against me on a variety of issues were detailed out in full paragraphs as complete waste of time and money - and all of my answers were cut to "Mr. _______ says he had to do that." What I had to do in most cases was to comply with current state and federal laws - but the paper did not take the time to explain that to its readers even after I cited chapter and verse on most of the issues; afterall one of the reporters told me - that would imply that the previous managment hadn't done their job - and they were well known and respected in the community. Oh, the fact that I took a plant that was broke down about 6 months a year and returned it to utility grade reliable service (6 month run times with spring and fall outages) somehow did not make the story as well - even though the reporters were given the information).

Thus, I tend to take press reports with a grain of salt and a questioning attitude.

Few people tend to take the effort to learn more and question (who else went out and looked up more information on this case).

Concerning the main issue in this thread: Sexual Misconduct by an "adult" with a "child." What a real mess of possibilities.

In general - the concept of the "age of consent" is to prevent an older person from exercising an undue "Balance of power" over a younger person such that the younger person essentially does not have a a free choice in the matter. "age of consent" was not set to adress the issues of force or intimidation. Ordinary sexual assult laws always cover that independent of age.

I agree with the concern: An older person can totally overwhelm a younger person - and the younger person can agree to things just to please the older person. That is wrong - and taking advantage of the younger person.

The problem is how do you implement it; how do you sort it out: The younger a person is the more likely the chance of this type of influence; and the older they are the less chance of that. A significant problem is also that different kids mature at different rates. As stated above: I have seen 12 year olds that were more mature than some 18 year olds (and I would trust that the 12 year old was mature enough to decide to have sex and the 18 year old was not) - and I think that most of you know what I mean. Some people feel that gals often mentally mature faster then guys - thus there can be an argument the there should be an age difference for gals and guys. The fact that the age of consent arround the world ranges from 12 to 20, with some states and countries having different ages for gals and guys indictes the range of possible approached on the subject - and the disagreement on the approaches.

Are the laws just in allowing for the range of possibilites? I believe no: Under the current situation in the US I believe that the pendulum has swung too far (anything to protect the children - is inappropriate when it applies unfair punishment to others: The key is ballance). This issue has some of the best examples of the worst laws: I believe a classic example of a bad law is one that if actually applied against every member of the population the law targets - would declare that most of them are in fact a criminal. I can't speak to most states: but the "statuatory rape" laws in Wisconsin would lable most of the teenagers as sexual predators for life if actaully applied to all teenagers.


Does the fact that someone does something make them a "criminal" (if so we are all criminals) - or does the situation and the response of the person have a meaning. Or did we just make a mistake: as discussed above: I once had "sexual contact" with a younger person (touched a breast): it was unintentional, unexpected, I reacted to quickly end it, I appologized becasue I felt that I had done something wrong and that I needed to appologize for it - then I withdrew from her life to end the temptation when she wanted to continue (and an important part of that temptation was that she was a freind - I liked her). Does that make me a sexual predator - yet that is how the current laws would brand me if this were to happen now (and I'd be branded for life).

Here again is another disconnect with fairness (and this has largly been adopted across the country): Someone who has some form of sexual contact (any form - no matter how minor, regardless of who intitiated it and the situation; and regardless of the response of the other person - even if to reject) with a person under the age of conset in the state would be labled a sexual predator for life.

Another thing that has often puzzled me: How come someone could date someone in one area and engage in sexual activity - perfectly legally - but then worry about being arrested and prosecuted if they take a trip with the same person to another state (I could potentially legally date and have sex with a young lady of 14 - who lived just across the border: but in my home state she would have to be 1. There are other cases where people can get legally married in one state - but if they move to another state the marriage would not be recognized and the people charged (this issue deals with how close of relative is someone).

I think that there should be a recognition that people who travel should not be considered criminals - or have their marrage broken up - just because they are visiting another state (as long as you are legal in your state of residence - no charges here while you are visiting): and that marriages should be recongized as legal if they were legal in the state where the people are from (previous residency in those other states required: not the cases where people eloped to get married in another state and then returned home).


In the end my thoughts are (consensual activities):

Do guys and gals want sex with each other - sometimes with significant age differences: Yes.

Is it wrong: I see that as case dependent: depends on the sitution and the intent of both parties (and I'd instantly toss out any charges against an older person where a youner person lied about their age).

Is the older person always the initiator: No

Why do people have sexual desires and why can they be suduced: Great question - and I don't have an answer. And some people really know how to press our individual sexual buttons.

Are there sexual predators out there - who target younger children just for sex: Yes.

Would I convict them and subject them to a range of rehabilitation and punishments: Yes - in fact, I'd go so far as to literally castrate some of them (and perhaps many of them) - and would consider the death penalty for the worst cases. Some people are too dangerous to society to be allowed in it.

Should sexual predators be labled as such for people in the community to know about: Yes; but I also think that there should be some form of scale that indicates the level of risk the person is (ranging from "sexaul predator - most likely effectively treated"; Sexual predator - for the following type of situation"; Sexual predator: general high risk).

Does isolated cases of sexual contact - up to full sexual engagemnt and a potentially long term relationship with a person make one of them a sexual predator: No. Even if there was inappropriate or wrong behaviour A person can recognize that they made a mistake and work to avoid it the rest of their life. In fact; my opinion is that is what you would want people to do. Those are the examples that people need to see.

As far as this case: Nebraska & Mr Thompson: I will defer to the judge - recognizing that she is the one with all the details on what did and did not happen; who inititiated it under what circumstances; what Mr Thompsons reactions were to the situation; what the young ladies reactions were; and the fact that she feels that the potential harm to Mr Thompson in prison is inappropriate for the situation. I don't know many (if any) judges who are leanient on real sexual predators. Much less a female judge.

I am also very concerned with how our prisons system seems to turn out people a lot worse than when they went in; and how the US prision population keeps growing - in the face of a lot of evidence that the worst violent crimes are decreasing. Just tossing people into jail is not always the answer. But it seems that a lot of people feel that way.

Have a great day folks - and I hope I have helped people think about the situation - and what justice really means.

Here is something else to think upon: If any of you are ever charged with a crime - and there is a lot of circumstancial evidence against you (regardless of the facts). Do you want someone like me sitting on the jury - or do you want somene who is outraged at the crime, or aspects of the crime, and believe that anyone involved in any way needs to pay - big time.

Perry