Here in the state of Georgia, the age of consent is 16. Most people think it is 18 though. So it is perfectly legal for a 30 year old to have sex with a 16 year old but an 18 year old and a 15 year old is illegal. I believe according to Georgia law that if there is just a three or four year age difference then it is a misdemeanor. So just say a senior highschool student has sex with a freshman or sophomore they could be charged with a misdemeanor. How this makes any sense at all to anyone amazes me.
Harshest sentence ever?
- Thread starter The Atheist
- Start date
-
- Tags
- sentencing issues
Here in the state of Georgia, the age of consent is 16. Most people think it is 18 though. So it is perfectly legal for a 30 year old to have sex with a 16 year old but an 18 year old and a 15 year old is illegal. I believe according to Georgia law that if there is just a three or four year age difference then it is a misdemeanor. So just say a senior highschool student has sex with a freshman or sophomore they could be charged with a misdemeanor. How this makes any sense at all to anyone amazes me.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,442
Yeah, but screaming "pedo!" is easy and works.
They still do it to Bertrand Russell and he's been dead for 45 years.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,442
Yes but in Sweden you won't get to spend 22 years in prison for having consensual sex with your students. In fact assuming there's no abuse or coercion the worst thing you could expect is to lose your job.
Hell the only crimes that get even comparable sentences in any sane country is something like murder.
With regards to this threads title i would like to highlight that the sentence isn't all that harsh relatively speaking. After all this takes place in America and in America people could face centuries in prison for possessing child pornography or 25-years-to-life for the completely non-violent theft of video tapes.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,442
Good point, although I'd argue any possession of child pornography is nothing like equivalent, because that has real victims.
The title is deliberately hyperbolic.
The point wasn't whether it's "victimless" or not it was the complete lack of proportionality and fairness.
One of the most basic parts of judicial fairness is to not excessively punish people, especially in comparison with people who commit crimes of comparable or greater seriousness. Plea bargaining, "three-strikes" laws and such practices have lead to incredible discrepancies in sentencing compared to the actual "harm" done (if any). The case in this thread is just one of many countless examples of that.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,442
Yeah, but you'd get bored with posting every example.
Kids who get locked up for three years without trial, innocent people locked up then dying of AIDS they got from being raped in prison.
USA has so much of it going on it's hard to know which one is worse than another. The ACLU does its best.
Kids who get locked up for three years without trial, innocent people locked up then dying of AIDS they got from being raped in prison.
USA has so much of it going on it's hard to know which one is worse than another. The ACLU does its best.
He said at 96. Ah, at last rid of the sexual urge.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,442
I've just been considering some other sentences.
Duane Bell: Triple murder at Panmure RSA. 30 years
David Bain*: Five murders. 16 years
John Barlow: Double murder. Served 15 years.
22 years for screwing three 17 year old boys.
Sounds fair
Duane Bell: Triple murder at Panmure RSA. 30 years
David Bain*: Five murders. 16 years
John Barlow: Double murder. Served 15 years.
22 years for screwing three 17 year old boys.
Sounds fair
commandlinegamer
Philosopher
I'd take reasonable odds that the general public wouldn't see it so.
We're talking about someone in a position of trust here, not quite the same as two people in similar social situations.
Furthermore, there were three boys (possibly more, if I understand correctly that there are other charges left on file) involved, which lends weight to the charge it was just about sex. If there were only one victim, there might be a chance of arguing they loved each other and were going to set up house, have a family, etc, etc,
Last edited:
WTF the asterix?
eta
Scales descended from eyes when I finished Joe's book. I will send you the hard copy in a plain brown envelope. Adams should fall on her sword very bloody quickly.
Last edited:
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,442
Correct, and I have covered that.
She should be barred from teaching. This is what would have happened in a truly developed country.
Utterly irrelevant.
Sex is about sex, not marriage. The issue is the age of consent to sex.
18 is absurd.
Sorry, the asterisk was going to be that he'd since been found not guilty, because it was the sentence I was highlighting, not the guilt or innocence.
But save yourself the postage, mate. I don't want to read it and have no interest in Baino or Karam whatsoever.
Strawberry
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 2,151
So having sex with someone you don't want to marry is a crime now?
She should have been sacked and banned from teaching again, and that's it. 22 years in prison is a murder sentence, not a shagged a few willing 17 year olds sentence.
Clearly it was a manner of speaking. I can't and don't send unsolicited objects to anonymous internet posters. A civil response could have been considered, but that's a long shot with you. Mate.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,442
A civil response could have been considered, but that's a long shot with you. Mate.
I'm struggling to what's not civil about it. I have no reason not be civil to you.
Are you seeing something that isn't there?
SezMe
post-pre-born
Shows poor impulse control. Not good for a teacher.
Ok, let's not discuss Baino. Hope it doesn't happen to your kids because there are no safeguards. You know this. You have expressed similar abhorrence for our system as me often enough.
Look at the long list.
Kristy McNicholl is next.
This guy writes extensively. He is worth checking out.
http://nostalgia-nz.blogspot.co.nz/
skeptichaggis
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2015
- Messages
- 692
I agree. OK the sentence is disproportionate considering right now the dads of the boys are(out of earshot of wives etc)probably bragging about how there boys got lucky. The boys themselves have just been promoted to the top of there peer group and are enjoying being there. I lost my virginity young and practically ran up a flag and set of fireworks. If anyone in my vicinity didn't know it wasn't for long.
The fact of the matter is these boys are unlikely to be mentally suffering and(whatever they tell the parents)are probably feeling pleased with themselves. O.K it may not be the acknowledged thing but when these boys lost there cherry(if it was there first time!)they danced in the street,crowed to there pals and seriously considered printing up t-shirts. I know I did and I was thirteen.
But,she was a schoolteacher and that puts it in a different league. As has been pointed out a guy teacher would be called a peadophile-period. She was in a position of trust and authority. I just had it away with a older but ordinary girl with no power over me. That's the difference. She betrayed everything she in her capacity as a teacher should have held dear,more than once.
Her arrest and conviction was completely appropriate. A long prison sentence was inevitable-and correct. While I detect a bit of good old fashioned american Puritanism here I cannot argue with the conviction or a long prison sentence. 22 years is a bit much but perhaps we should think of what Voltaire said about admiral byng..