We are losing common sense? Lawsuits for common sense mistakes on the Person sueing? Jailing kids for having sex (Like we didn't, or try at their age)?
In our local paper, we have 3 pages with sex offenders on it, and 2 and a half are 18yr olds that had 17yr old Girlfriends and mad parents.
2006-09-04 08:38:01 · 6 answers · asked by Common Sense 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Yup I agree...
2006-09-04 09:12:22 · answer #1 · answered by JR S 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, the specifics on the sex offenders does seem to have gotten out of hand. Yes, people have been having sex below the age of 18 for a long time, but many of those actually got married. At least they did when daddy held the shotgun . . . The whole idea that the law is responsible for regulating what goes on in our private bedrooms is offensive, although I can see there being some recourse to law if an adult corrupts a child; but 18 and 17 are not "adult and child." I think the statutory rape laws should only apply when the victim is below say 16, maybe even 14, and the "perpetrator" is at least ten years older. As it is, it totally depends on the parents' power trip. But then, as in the case of that shotgun-wielding papa, I guess it always did.
2006-09-04 15:48:13 · answer #2 · answered by auntb93again 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Most locations have certain laws that state if the sex is consenual after age 15 then it is not a crime. Rape is a different story. Incest is another story. No-one deserves to be violated. If both the 17 and 18 year old had consensual sex and then the 17 year old's parents found out and pressed charges, that is not right. If the 17 year old is playing like an adult, he or she should stand up and tell the truth to their parents and the courts!!!!
BEST RULE OF THUMB, KEEP IT ZIPPED UNTIL MARRIAGE!
2006-09-04 15:43:27 · answer #3 · answered by Shayna 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's not a problem with how the laws are being interpreted.
Part of the problem is the way laws are written by the legislators. The rest of the problem (in the civil arena) is the awards that juries are handing out.
Judges are bound by the text of the law, unless the law obviously doesn't work as written in the current situation or was never intended to cover the current situation. But when the law is on-point and covers the facts, judges need to apply it.
It's a lose-lose situation for the judges, really. If they don't follow the law as enacted by the legislature, no matter how irrational it is, they get accused of being activists. If they defer to the legislature, and uphold the laws as enacted, they get accused of being activists.
2006-09-04 15:40:09 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That's how the lawyers are making money to fund the Democratic National Committee!
2006-09-04 15:43:49 · answer #5 · answered by here17now36 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
what happened to Nancy Reagan's just say no policy,,,
2006-09-04 15:51:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋