So, there's this:
http://www.itemlive.com/articles/2008/02/01/news/news05.txt
Apparently, being a.) dumb as a post and b.) a jerk are grounds for life imprisonment now. Who knew? If we're locking up people under those criteria now, they better start building some more maximum security facilities. On the plus side, it'll make the Green Line much less crowded and alleviate the whole "move into the train" problem.
Seriously though? Using the term "child rape" to describe consensual sexual behavior between a teenage couple is, to me, offensive to, y'know, children who have actually been raped. And the oh-so-cynical side of me wonders, noting the "victim's" hometown, how wealthy and connected her parents are, and whether anyone would be making *quite* so much of a fuss if her last name ended in a "z" and her mommy only spoke Spanish.
But what do I know? I just had a conversation the other day in which I reminisced about how much pure fun sex was back when I was under the age of consent. But obviously I should have been being protected from my base appetites. Or something.
xoxo
3 comments:
OK, life in prison is a bit dramatic, but, c'mon--posting the naked pictures on the internet crosses some kind of line, doesn't it?
We'd all like to think "she was my girlfriend", corroborated in whatever way, would be sufficient to wiggle out from most garden-variety statutory rape charges. But a 17 year old budding Larry Flint, taking dirty pictures while promising not to show them around, and then posting them up on MySpace, is going to need to argue more than "but she was my girlfriend" to get a free pass from me. Or maybe that's Andrea's idea of "pure fun"? ;-)
No, no, no. No. :-) That's covered under b.) "being a jerk". Which, yeah, I think there are probably criminal statutes I'd be comfortable applying to that behavior, like harrassment or something, but it has nothing to do with rape or child pornography.
And, my original point being, if we're gonna threaten people, especially teenage guys, with life imprisonment for being *not a nice person*, I'll fer sure get a seat on the Green Line once 90% of BC to prison.
It's been pointed out before that most statutory rape laws date to some golden age when adolescents did not have sex or, if they did and there were consequences, out came the shotgun and the preacher. I'm not sure that was a better solution. Penalties for this level of bozo-dom? Absolutely. Life in prison? Gimme a break. Oh yes, selling a conviction on that basis could be real tough. Time for the DA to play "let's make a deal," I think.
Post a Comment