Get Out the Violins or A Call For Immediate Violence

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The  OP says this guy, who is in his late 30s, was convicted of having
sex with a 16 year old. Doesn't say how old he was when the offense
occurred, nor does it say if it was consensual. However, it is implied
that the sex was consensual since it was said he "had sex" and not
"raped." Also, since he had been convicted and is now living with a
wife, it can be assumed that the offense took place some time ago.

Beyond that, we don't know shit. But what difference does it make?
Since the crime involves sex, why don't we all just lynch the guy?

No one hates a pedo more than The Good Reverend, but this isn't pedophilia, it's ephebephilia.

The guy should have been put in the stocks and mocked, maybe a little bastinado...not had his entire life ruined.

[East Coast Hustle]

maybe. unfortunately, he could have been convicted even if she had told him she was 18 or 20. I dunno about you, but if I'm wasted at a party and some 20 year old girl wants to jump on my nuts, I might not remember to ask for ID. seems a shitty reason to stigmatize someone.



edit: strike that. ANY excuse to dish out the bastinado.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

edit: strike that. ANY excuse to dish out the bastinado.

This is the correct answer.

[AFK]

Okay, so I was watching this interview while chasing around my 16 month old daughter getting her ready for daycare.  So my recollection of the story isn't the word-for-word gospel.  They really didn't go indepth into his particular crime.  All I know is it involved a 16 year old and he was significantly older than her at the time.  

The whole point of my post is that someone who knowingly committed a crime that involved later being registered a sex-offender shouldn't whine about being labeled a sex-offender after they have committed said crime.  You do the crime you do the time and part of that time involves being labled a sex-offender.  Seeing's how the victim isn't exactly offering the guy any support in his crusade to find a better house I'm guessing the sex wasn't all that consensual.  

I have a daughter now so I guess I look at these things differently than others.  I just have no sympathy for the guy at all.  He did something to a girl that he should not have done.  He just has to shut up and deal with it.  Or I could embed some sharpened steel in his skull.  Either one is fine with me really.

[unlike_someone]

At what age can someone be capable of making the decision regarding sex? I know plenty of minors who have gone looking for older guys, some of whom succeeded in their quests.

The laws are too black and white with these things. The intent of the guilty party should really be taken more into consideration. If they were having consensual sex with a minor (but not a child) and this was a one time incident, maybe they shouldn't be labeled as a sex offender. If the crime was rape or sexual behaviour with a child/non-consensual victim... then attach the term.

But really... repeat offenders... castrate them chemically... Or make all offenders serve their prison term in a mental health facility rather than a prison... maybe they can get some help in 10 years or so.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

But really... repeat offenders... castrate them chemically... Or make all offenders serve their prison term in a mental health facility rather than a prison... maybe they can get some help in 10 years or so.

Castration?

Why not just chop off their legs?  

We have prisons for a reason.

[Eldora, Oracle of Alchemy]

The  OP says this guy, who is in his late 30s, was convicted of having
sex with a 16 year old. Doesn't say how old he was when the offense
occurred, nor does it say if it was consensual. However, it is implied
that the sex was consensual since it was said he "had sex" and not
"raped." Also, since he had been convicted and is now living with a
wife, it can be assumed that the offense took place some time ago.

Beyond that, we don't know shit. But what difference does it make?
Since the crime involves sex, why don't we all just lynch the guy?

Three words for you















Mary

















Jo















Buttofuco

[gnimbley]

The  OP says this guy, who is in his late 30s, was convicted of having
sex with a 16 year old. Doesn't say how old he was when the offense
occurred, nor does it say if it was consensual. However, it is implied
that the sex was consensual since it was said he "had sex" and not
"raped." Also, since he had been convicted and is now living with a
wife, it can be assumed that the offense took place some time ago.

Beyond that, we don't know shit. But what difference does it make?
Since the crime involves sex, why don't we all just lynch the guy?

Three words for you Mary Jo Buttofuco

I was actually referring to the fact he was not currently incarcerated,
nor under house arrest. Sorry I allowed an extraneous reference to
confuse the issue.

[Eldora, Oracle of Alchemy]

The  OP says this guy, who is in his late 30s, was convicted of having
sex with a 16 year old. Doesn't say how old he was when the offense
occurred, nor does it say if it was consensual. However, it is implied
that the sex was consensual since it was said he "had sex" and not
"raped." Also, since he had been convicted and is now living with a
wife, it can be assumed that the offense took place some time ago.

Beyond that, we don't know shit. But what difference does it make?
Since the crime involves sex, why don't we all just lynch the guy?

Three words for you Mary Jo Buttofuco

I was actually referring to the fact he was not currently incarcerated,
nor under house arrest. Sorry I allowed an extraneous reference to
confuse the issue.

This thread has gone so far off topic without actually going off topic it's scary and I still can't find a link to what this guy actually did

[AFK]

That's because it never really got any press.  The Today Show was doing a piece on how states are strengthening laws and regulations concerning sex offenders and how they are registered.  So, Matt Lauer was interviewing this convicted Level 1 offender and his current wife as a follow-up.  So I doubt there is any news story on this guy in particular.  The point of the interview wasn't his specific crime it was how these laws and regulations concerning registered sex-offenders are affecting this guy's life.  He and his wife were complaining that he shouldn't be lumped in with the level 2 and level 3 who are more dangerous because it affects where they can live.

My whole point, once again, is that the guy has no right to complain because he committed a crime.  The fatherly vitriol in me wants to just slice the guys head off but even the rational side of me, at the very least, wants to scream at the guy to shut the fuck up.  Bottom line:  He committed a crime.  He was convicted.  HE MUST DEAL WITH IT.  I mean, the guy has a house.  He just wants to move into a bigger one but his registered status is "making it difficult."  Boo fucking hoo!  Even as a registered sex-offender he is able to own a home.  That's a life 100 times better than Stinky Joe who lives on the corner.    

Yeah, I know there can be some blurry lines when it comes to older teenagers.  However, I'm guessing that the sex with this 16 year old wasn't all that consensual.  I tend to think that if this incident had that much grey area he wouldn't have done any time.  There would have been some sort of plea deal.  The evidence against him was strong enough to send him to prison for a time.  Yeah, maybe he didn't beat her or maim her afterwards but he invaded her sexually.  That, by itself, is reprehensible.  A man should be able to excercise more restraint than that.  We can be rational and keep it in our pants.  It really isn't that hard.  Someone who gives in so easily into their temptations IS a danger to society.  They need to be dealt with in which ever way is best to eliminate that danger.  Death is the most certain but I know that isn't PC in our society.  And I can agree with that to a point.  But in the meantime, these convicts should not complain.  They have lost that right as soon as they violate another.

[LMNO]

It seems that the whole question is:

"Which crimes should carry a lifelong stigma?"

Hell, even car insurance and credit records are expunged after 7 years, and they make money off your your mistakes!

The issue is not whether the guy was punished after comitting a crime; he went to jail.  But is it fair to ostracize the guy?  You obviously think so.  Others here disagree.

But while they have given reasons (albeit crude) why they think june-september relationships shouldn't be given the same weight as baby rapists, all you seem to be offering is "but he comitted a crime!" which is not being debated.

Oh, and it wouldn't matter if the girl "wanted to help" the guy find a place.  The law doesn't really care.

PS - in sweden, if I remember, the age of consent is 15.  So, in essence, the guy only comitted a crime because he's American.

[AFK]

The issue is not whether the guy was punished after comitting a crime; he went to jail.  But is it fair to ostracize the guy?  You obviously think so.  Others here disagree.

It's the type of crime he committed.  Sure, he didn't screw with a 7 year old girl but trust me I see lots of 15 and 16 year olds come into my store on a daily basis.  You can look at one and say, yeah she can make womanly decisions.  You look at others who are still emotionally immature.  Teenagers don't all mature at the same rate which is why it is illegal to have sex with someone 16 or younger.  Yeah, maybe they can make that decision but the chances are significant that they can't.  So it's better to be safe than sorry.  It's not perfect but biology isn't perfect.  It's a fact of life and people need to just deal with it even if it ends up biting them in the ass.  

But while they have given reasons (albeit crude) why they think june-september relationships shouldn't be given the same weight as baby rapists, all you seem to be offering is "but he comitted a crime!" which is not being debated.

I understand that.  And I even agree with it to a point.  I just have no sympathy is I guess what I am saying.  Currently the law is if you screw a 16 year old, and she was an unwilling participant, you get labled a sex offender.  You don't want to get labled?  Try going to the local bar and stay away from the high school basketball games.  It's pretty simple and avoidable really.  

PS - in sweden, if I remember, the age of consent is 15.  So, in essence, the guy only comitted a crime because he's American.

Yeah, that's right.  But he should have known that before he committed the crime.  If he didn't he was just ignorant and got what he deserved.

[LMNO]

So, you're saying that if you read an item in the paper about a 15-year old girl dating a 30-year old guy in Sweden, you wouldn't have a problem with it?

You seem to be obsessed with the letter, if not the spirit, of American jurisprudence.

If Congress (through some act of weirdness, admittedly), lowered the age of consent to 15, retroactively, making this guy no longer a technical criminal, would that be ok with you?

And I can only suppose that you are in support of mandatory jail time for marijuana posession, as it is the current law of the land.

[AFK]

So, you're saying that if you read an item in the paper about a 15-year old girl dating a 30-year old guy in Sweden, you wouldn't have a problem with it?

If it was consensual and it's their law yes.  I don't think it's a wise course of action but as long as both parties are cool with it on the other end (no pun intended) then I would be fine with it.  (Like that really matters)  Look if I thought that the incident we were talking about was consensual and the guy got railroaded I'd be right there with you.  But at no point in the interview did he say he got wrongly convicted.  He admitted he had unwanted sex with a 16 year old.  Unwanted.  Not welcome.  Not asked for.  Unwilling participant.  

You seem to be obsessed with the letter, if not the spirit, of American jurisprudence.

Not obsessed.  But as an American you must obey the law.  If you don't like it, work to change it.  However, if you break the law you deal with the consequences.  And besides this is affecting another person.  

If Congress (through some act of weirdness, admittedly), lowered the age of consent to 15, retroactively, making this guy no longer a technical criminal, would that be ok with you?

But he still would be a criminal because it was unwanted sexual intercourse.  No does actually mean no.  If this was just a case of a girl having sex, her father finding out and getting pissed and landing the guy in jail, I'd be right there with you.  But that isn't what happend.  This guy took advantage of an emotionally unprepared 16 year old and forced her to do something she didn't want to do.  He didn't beat the crap out of her but he did emotionally scar her.  

And I can only suppose that you are in support of mandatory jail time for marijuana posession, as it is the current law of the land.

Umm, actually no.  Because someone smoking a joint in their bedroom doesn't harm an innocent 16 year old girl.

[LMNO]

From your Original Post:

He was convicted for having sex with a 16-year old. This guy's in his late 30's so he was definitely doing something he knew was against the law.

Then, on Page 3:

Okay, so I was watching this interview while chasing around my 16 month old daughter getting her ready for daycare. So my recollection of the story isn't the word-for-word gospel. They really didn't go indepth into his particular crime. All I know is it involved a 16 year old and he was significantly older than her at the time.

and later:

However, I'm guessing that the sex with this 16 year old wasn't all that consensual. I tend to think that if this incident had that much grey area he wouldn't have done any time.

But only now, do you claim:

He admitted he had unwanted sex with a 16 year old. Unwanted. Not welcome. Not asked for. Unwilling participant.

Sorry, if you keep moving the playing field, I don't feel like participating.