skinz Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 That’s kind of the point isn't it, they consented and he got a criminal record because the law is an ass. Or the law isn't an ass but the judge in this case who applied it is. The law doesn’t doesn't stop people having sex; it doesn't stop people being raped, but it does give young people criminal recorders for doing one of the most natural things a human can do. Again. It gives people records if it isn't applied sensibly. Laws are not living entities..humans are. Injustice happens all the time with all crime. If you want perfection go buy an Island. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 Or the law isn't an ass but the judge in this case who applied it is. Again. It gives people records if it isn't applied sensibly. Laws are not living entities..humans are. Injustice happens all the time with all crime. If you want perfection go buy an Island. I Imagine the young man that is now on the sex offenders register for having consensual sex would feel feel much better for knowing that. Bottom line if there hadn't been an age of consent he wouldn’t have been punished for doing something that is normal, but he could still have been charged if he had sexually abused her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 FLAGGING THIS POST I Imagine the young man that is now on the sex offenders register for having consensual sex would feel feel much better for knowing that. Bottom line if there hadn't been an age of consent he wouldn’t have been punished for doing something that is normal, but he could still have been charged if he had sexually abused her. Mr Smith appears to be advocating the removal of an age of consent. Quelle surprise. We have all agreed, this boy should not have been prosecuted, never mind convicted. As I have said, the Sexual Offences Act was disregarded in this case, it has nothing to do with the law as it currently stands but those who chose to charge and prosecute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 FLAGGING THIS POST Mr Smith appears to be advocating the removal of an age of consent. Quelle surprise. We have all agreed, this boy should not have been prosecuted, never mind convicted. As I have said, the Sexual Offences Act was disregarded in this case, it has nothing to do with the law as it currently stands but those who chose to charge and prosecute. I'm sure he will feel so much better knowing that we all agree that he shouldn't have been charged or convicted, but alas he was, and all because of the age of consent laws which serve no purpose at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 I Imagine the young man that is now on the sex offenders register for having consensual sex would feel feel much better for knowing that. :huh:Why would he? Or was your intention a cheap shot? Bottom line if there hadn't been an age of consent he wouldn’t have been punished for doing something that is normal, but he could still have been charged if he had sexually abused her. Bottom line, if the judicial system, in this case the judge had applied good common sense he'd have thrown it out with no more than a glancing look. The judge failed him..not the word of law. The 'age of consent' is a legal means of looking at a particular case..it isn't confined to a specific outcome arbitrarily. The judge wasn't narrowly confined by that law..his head obviously was though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 :huh:Why would he? Or was your intention a cheap shot? Bottom line, if the judicial system, in this case the judge had applied good common sense he'd have thrown it out with no more than a glancing look. The judge failed him..not the word of law. The 'age of consent' is a legal means of looking at a particular case..it isn't confined to a specific outcome arbitrarily. The judge wasn't narrowly confined by that law..his head obviously was though. So you want judges to apply common sense and disregard the law when they see fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 I'm sure he will feel so much better knowing that we all agree that he shouldn't have been charged or convicted, but alas he was, and all because of the age of consent laws which serve no purpose at all. They only serve no purpose if you have a nefarious agenda. Those who want the most vulnerable in society protected and to have the right of legal redress if abused, have no issue with the current laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 So you want judges to apply common sense and disregard the law when they see fit. Yes and no. doh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 Who benefits from the lowering or removal of the age of consent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 They only serve no purpose if you have a nefarious agenda. You do like to over dramatise things don’t you. Those who want the most vulnerable in society protected and to have the right of legal redress if abused, have no issue with the current laws. 16 year olds can get legal redress if abused and there is no reason why someone younger wouldn't get legal redress if abused, the age of connect is irrelevant when it comes to getting legal redress when abused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.