SCENARIO 1: A 14-year-old throws rocks off a bridge overpassing a highway. One hits through a windshield, killing someon
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Soapbox
P.Error — 9 months ago(June 18, 2025 09:08 AM)
SCENARIO 1: A 14-year-old throws rocks off a bridge overpassing a highway. One hits through a windshield, killing someone. The 14-year-old is charged as an adult. He's sentenced to life in prison.
SCENARIO 2: A 14-year-old has a crush on his 26-year-old attractive teacher. He tries to charm her after class. She is distanced at first, but agrees to exchange numbers for texting, assuring no sex stuff. After weeks of texting, the content errs to more flirting. The teacher wants to put an end to this, stating that she could get in a lot of trouble. The 14-year-old assures her that he won't tell anyone and to trust him. Eventually, they meet and have sex. The teacher is charged for sexual abuse of a minor and the 14-year-old is the default victim.
Here's the contradiction.
The law is effectively stating that a 14-year-old is competent and aware to understand his actions when killing someone, thus charging him with murder.
The law is also effectively stating that a 14-year-old are too incompetent to understand sex with an adult, therefore sex acts by them are not recognized as such, but they are lawfully referred to as victims of sexual abuse.
There is no way to objectively say, from a legal perspective, that a person is competent enough to commit a murder but they are not competent enough to have sex. That makes no sense whatsoever. There's no way to even argue that.
These are just policies that sound good, and people want them, so they stay. But it does not make any sense for the objective legal standard to say one is competent to commit a murder (so much that he's tried as an adult) but that same person is not competent enough to have sex with an adult. These are contradictions.
I've never heard of a case where a minor in a teacher sex scandal was determined to be an adult by the court, effectively throwing out the case. It only happens when the minor does crimes unrelated to sex, unless the sex crime involved a minor also.
So, either we need to stop trying minors as adults, or we lower the age of sexual to 14. Can't have both. Well you can, but can't have both in a way that doesn't cherry pick nor defy logic.
No one should be tried as an ADULT by a COURT if they're sex acts are not even recognized as SEX by the same COURT.
Never lose your desire. -
/.ㅤ — 9 months ago(June 18, 2025 09:56 AM)
Because in the first case the crime is committed by the kid throwing the rock. In the second the kid didn't commit any crime. It's not against the law for a child to decide to have sex with an adult, it's illegal for an adult to decide to have sex with a child.
My password is password. -
P.Error — 9 months ago(June 19, 2025 03:06 AM)
That was really silly to say.
We already know what it is. The question is why. The premise is that it doesn't make any sense.
It's not against the law for a child to decide to have sex with an adult
Why? Because children are stupid and do not understand the situation.
It's against the law for a child to throw a rock resulting in someone's death.
Why? Because children are smart and they understand the situation.
These two are contradictory with one another. Either the law must operate under the premise that they are incapacitated or that they are capable.
Never lose your desire. -
-
P.Error — 9 months ago(June 19, 2025 03:45 AM)
Do you still shake a bag of leaves on voice call to make it look like you are outside?
LOOK A TRAIN GUYS!
BEEP! BEEP!
HEAR THE TRAIN?
IT'S SO DARK GUYS, I CAN'T SEE.
I HAVE BEEN WALKING FOR 2909 DAYS.
I'M ALMOST HOME. ANOTHER 446 MILES.
I'M IN A CAVE NOW.
HOLD ON GUYS, I HAVE SWIM ACROSS THE RIVER.
THE CURRENT MAY TAKE ME.
I HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CAVE, COME OUT AT THE CEMETERY, THEN RUN ACROSS THE RICKETY SUSPENSION BRIDGE, HIJACK THE F-14 TOMCAT FIGHTER JET, BEFORE I CAN RESUME THIS CALL - LET ME MUTE SO I DON'T DISTRACT YOU WITH JET AND RIVER NOISES. GIVE ME 5 MINUTES GUYS TO DO THESE TASKS.
Never lose your desire. -
P.Error — 9 months ago(June 19, 2025 03:37 AM)
Ad hominem. Ok you can't answer because you misunderstood. That's OKAY.
Next time just say, "I'm sorry. I made a mistake in judgment." That's all you have to know. There's no reason to be a narcissist. It serves no points in respect. It was only cool on message boards in the 90s. Now, the alpha male thing to do is tell others they're beautiful, not stupid.
Never lose your desire. -
P.Error — 9 months ago(June 19, 2025 05:50 AM)
Scenario 1 objective: minor kills someone.
Scenario 1 legal: minor murders someone.
This rests on the reasoning that minors are intelligent enough and adult enough to formulate intent, consent, and awareness in acts of taking a life.
Scenario 2 objective: minor has sexual intercourse with someone.
Scenario 2 legal: minor is victim of sexual abuse.
This rests on the reasoning that minors are not intelligent enough nor adult enough to formulate intent, consent, and awareness in physical sex acts.
Conclusion: The law (inconsistently) states that a 14-year-old is adult enough to commit a murder, and recognize it as such by the State, but the same 14-year-old is not adult enough to commit a sex.
I do not believe there's any way to say the legal position on this makes sense.
If you have sex with a teacher, and only the teacher is arrested, and you're exempt from any crime because the law says you're too incompetent, then you're not mature enough to be tried as an adult for murder. LOL.
Never lose your desire.
️ — 9 months ago(June 19, 2025 03:08 AM)
