teens face criminal charges for having consensual

[EdwardKnoxII 0]

http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=8&id=3850

 

A pair of Wisconsin teens face criminal charges for having consensual sex. The prosecutor charged the underage couple with the statutory rape of each other.

 

Can two people simultaneously rape each other? Apparently in Wisconsin, the answer is yes. At least, that's what prosecutor Lori Kornblum claims happened when a boy and a girl, (both 14 years old) had sex. As each was having sex with someone under Wisconsin's age of consent (16 years old), each was charged with the sexual assault of the other. [Neither child's name has been released due to their age].

 

While, the girl has pled guilty to sexual assault, the boy's attorney has challenged the charge on privacy grounds. He has also pointed out that this is a misapplication of the statutory rape law, since such a law was intended to prevent the sexual exploitation of a young person by someone older and more experienced. Obviously, where they are the same age and maturity, such exploitation is not possible. Certainly, its hard to see how they could each have the superior knowledge and experience to sexually exploit the other at the same time.

 

Ms Kornblum is claiming that she is doing this for these kids own good. It seems they have bad attitudes, a history of misbehavior, and are unrepentant. They also have a history of troubled childhoods (including attention deficit disorder and parental abandonment). So Ms. Kornblum wants to "help" them by locking them up and labeling them as rapists and sex offenders.

 

While 14 is too young to be having sex and kids of that age should be discouraged from doing so, should such bad judgment be a criminal offense? When did we decide that adolescent "bad attitudes" should be a matter for the judicial system and criminal law instead of for parents and counselors?

 

These kids are troubled teens who need real help. What they don t need is Ms Kornblum s kind of "help".

 

That's bs, you're helping no one by labeling then as a rapist. Stupid skank.

Edited August 28, 2003 by EdwardKnoxII

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Source please.

[Vern Gagne 0]

This can't end on a postive note.

[Guest Fook]

This can't be real.

 

I'm calling shenanigans on this article.

[Vern Gagne 0]

web.moron.org

 

That pretty much says it all.

[Ripper 0]

Tha SOURCE~!

[Anakin Flair 0]

Oh, dear GOD this is so stupid. I man, WTF? They are both the same age and consenting. Let em go like rabbits an face the consequences.

[Guest wrestlingbs]

You know, I'm so glad murder and battery trials get backed up in the system so people can "take up a cause". I really am.

 

Funny thing, in movies in which underage kids have sex, it's romantic, in really life it's disgusting. I don't approve of kids having sex, but I just wanted to point that out.

[NoCalMike 0]

how about educating the kids about the dangers of what they are doing and teaching them the precautions to take, oh wait, John Ascroft must be in town......LOCK THEM UP.

[Lightning Flik 0]

So both kids are charged with rape against the other? Even though both are the same age, maturity, amount of experience (zero) and consent to it?

 

WTF? Get these kids help. Not fucking lock them up for "rape".

[MrRant 0]

This goes hand in hand with that law in Illinois about if a woman says NO during intercourse and the girl decides that you didn't pull out in time and the woman is upset about it you can be charged with rape.

 

Illinois law believed to be first of its kind in the country

 

SPRINGFIELD, Illinois (AP) --A new rape law in Illinois attempts to clarify the issue of consent by emphasizing that people can change their mind while having sex.

 

Under the law, if someone says "no" at any time the other person must stop or it becomes rape. The National Crime Victim Law Institute said it believed the law is the first of its kind in the country.

 

Lyn Schollett, general counsel for the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault, said the law was important to make it clear to victims, offenders, prosecutors and juries that people have the right to halt sexual activity at any time.

 

"I think it will empower prosecutors in charging cases where the victim and the offender have a sexual history," she said.

 

But the director of the Victim Advocacy & Research Group in Boston said it would be hard to imagine courts not upholding a woman's right to withdraw consent.

 

"To me, it's demeaning," Wendy Murphy said. "It's like the old saying: 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' I don't think it was broke."

 

The law was inspired by a California case involving two 17-year-olds who had sex at a party. The girl changed her mind about having sex, but the boy did not stop immediately.

 

He was charged with rape, and it took years for the courts to decide that he could be found guilty under California law. The California Supreme Court ruled in January that a man can be convicted if a woman first consents but later asks him to stop.

 

Lawmakers said they wanted to avoid the same kind of long legal battle in Illinois. Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed the law Friday but did not announce it until Monday.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I heard about the California case.

 

Too bad if a guy is in the middle of shooting his load and the chick says no, there NO WAY the guy is going to stop...

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Can two people simultaneously rape each other? Apparently in Wisconsin, the answer is yes.

 

Crazy shit

[Ravenbomb 0]

"Help! Stop raping me!"

"No, you stop raping me!"