Didn't her and her underage lover, who are now living happily ever after with two children, set a reasonable precedent that the law is arbitrary and wrong? Now that they're both legal, why don't they stand up and fight for other's rights to do the same thing, if it worked out so well for them?
2006-11-01 06:00:05 · 12 answers · asked by hercule 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Probably because this issue is a political hot potato. Even if many people agree that age of consent laws should be changed or other legislative reform introduced, no one dares speak up on the issue for fear of being branded a pedophile or child molester. We should be able to have a rational debate about important issues like this, but, especially in the United States, it is too much of a political and emotionally charged issue. Other countries have more sensible laws on the books, but I doubt that the United States will ever adopt them because of the Christian Fundamentalist and Conservative elements in American society.
2006-11-01 06:05:31 · answer #1 · answered by Perplexed Music Lover 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
(I know this is a different culture than I'm from, so I'm not going to comment on a 48 year old marrying a 15 year old. If that's acceptable in that culture, I wish them the best of luck.) I don't know about the laws there specifically, but in general, as long as the marriage is legal, any sex within the marriage would also be legal. Procreation is one of the traditional purposes of marriage (along with other purposes), and sex is the easiest way to procreate. He should consult an expert on legal issues to make sure (which it sounds like he has). A public forum such as this is not the best place, and any "legal advise" is for entertainment purposes only.
2016-05-23 03:52:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That case is extremely wacked. Who says they will live happily ever after. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. But the fact of the matter is that at the ages of consent, it is determined that there is reasonable probablility that the minor is not compotent to make such a decision. If they really loved each other, they could have waited until the age of consent was not an issue. Beside, I read that the boy was in counselling for a few years, he may be doing better now, but at the time he wasn't which shows that at the age this originally happened he was psycologically unable to cope.
2006-11-01 06:05:11 · answer #3 · answered by xorosho 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think anyone can answer the second part of that question except the 2 of them. I think the reason consent laws didn't change is because a person isn't sexually mature until the age of 16, therefore cannot make decisions about that. On a similar note would you want your 10 year old brother/sister/cousin/daughter/son to be having sex with a 30 year old man/woman? I don't think you would, it would probably creep you out. Love is one thing, preying on innocent young children is entirely another.
2006-11-01 06:14:21 · answer #4 · answered by snowbaby 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In a previous era, 14 and 15 year olds getting married wasn't uncommon in parts of the USA (if not the entire thing at one time or the other).
However, She had sex with a person who was under her power, her control. She was his teacher. This is the aggravating factor, making it a lot more than just a case of someone being too young.
In addition, a 13 year old has no business having sex. Even if their body is ready to go, you can bet that their emotions and life skills are nowhere close to handling the responsibilities and stresses of having sex. The vast majority of people who have sex at that age, ESPECIALLY with a trusted adult, are profoundly damaged psychologically.
2006-11-01 06:15:57 · answer #5 · answered by geek49203 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Maybe Letourneau and the kid are just happy to have the press off of their backs. They probably don't want the publicity that may come with standing up for the rights of others who are in their same situation.
2006-11-01 06:02:20 · answer #6 · answered by A Lady @ ALL Times 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The law isn't normally changed for one case. It usually takes more than that to set precedent.
2006-11-01 06:02:41 · answer #7 · answered by rockhoundguide 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Letourneau case didn't change anything because she was convicted and sentenced and no appellate court overturned her conviction. The law was upheld.
2006-11-01 06:47:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Frankly, I think the age of consent should be increased to a point where a person can actually be responsible and maintain a job and pay rent and feed a family. I'm thinking 25.
2006-11-01 06:09:06 · answer #9 · answered by darthbouncy 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Just because "it worked out so well for them" doesn't make it right. She should have waited for him to become legal before doing anything. She still took advantage of him.
2006-11-01 06:02:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋