So, what does this mean?

[eddy1]

I agree, but my question is, when the little 13 year old tart is shoving it in someone's face, should she get a free pass to do it again? I mean, that's the lesson she's getting. Right?

What if it's a 17 year old girl, and a 20 year old guy?

You are kidding right? You know that a 17 year old can have sex with someone who is 80 and it's not against the law in Maryland, as long as they are not related, the adult doesn't have care and custody, the sex is consensual.

I think the other person said it right. I don't understand what is the matter with you, coming on here making these assumptions that the thirteen year old did something wrong.

I just have to assume that someone you care about is one of these kiddie touchers.

 

[Toxick]

She coulda wooed him with roses and serenaded him with Conway Twitty tunes, and it wouldn't matter.

Whoa....

Those are extenuating circumstances.

 

[seeamovie]

I must admit, this post had me youtube Conway Twitty. hehe...he's good for an old guy.

 

[chernmax]

Thanks for everyones clarification on something that is outright wrong!

 

[mAlice]

You are kidding right? You know that a 17 year old can have sex with someone who is 80 and it's not against the law in Maryland, as long as they are not related, the adult doesn't have care and custody, the sex is consensual.

I think the other person said it right. I don't understand what is the matter with you, coming on here making these assumptions that the thirteen year old did something wrong.

I just have to assume that someone you care about is one of these kiddie touchers.

What's wrong with me? So, you'd be okay with an 80 year old having sex with your 17 year old daughter? Because it's legal, right?

I didn't make any accusations or assumptions. I said the article read in such a way that lead me to believe that it may not have been against her will. If you have heartburn with that, maybe you should talk to the people who published the article.

 

[mAlice]

This is what I found, and what I'm getting at.

Subtitle 3. Sexual Crimes
back to top§ 3-304. Rape in the second degree
Prohibited--In general

(a) A person may not engage in vaginal intercourse with another:

(1) by force, or the threat of force, without the consent of the other;

(2) if the victim is a mentally defective individual, a mentally incapacitated individual, or a physically helpless individual, and the person performing the act knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a mentally defective individual, a mentally incapacitated individual, or a physically helpless individual; or

(3) if the victim is under the age of 14 years, and the person performing the act is at least 4 years older than the victim.

Prohibited--Children under age 13

(b) A person 18 years of age or older may not violate subsection (a)(1) or (2) of this section involving a child under the age of 13 years.

Penalty

(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, a person who violates subsection (a) of this section is guilty of the felony of rape in the second degree and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 20 years.

(2)(i) Subject to subparagraph (iv) of this paragraph, a person 18 years of age or older who violates subsection (b) of this section is guilty of the felony of rape in the second degree and on conviction is subject to imprisonment for not less than 5 years and not exceeding 20 years.

(ii) A court may not suspend any part of the mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years.

(iii) The person is not eligible for parole during the mandatory minimum sentence.

(iv) If the State fails to comply with subsection (d) of this section, the mandatory minimum shall not apply.

Required notice

(d) If the State intends to seek a sentence of imprisonment for not less than 5 years under subsection (c)(2) of this section, the State shall notify the person in writing of the State's intention at least 30 days before trial.

You all seem to think I'm saying that what happened to this 13 year old is okay. That's not what I'm saying, and it's not what I think.

The above indicates to me that second degree could mean that the girl was not forced. It could mean nothing more than "13 year old, prohibited".

In light of that, do you not think that a 13 year old who willingly has sex, should recieve some kind of counseling? Especially a 13 year old who has sex with someone old enough to be her father? And at what age should a girl be held accountable for her actions?

 

[eddy1]

What's wrong with me? So, you'd be okay with an 80 year old having sex with your 17 year old daughter? Because it's legal, right?

I never said that. I think it's wrong, but it isn't me who isn't making it illegal, it's you legislature. Another assumption by you.

I didn't make any accusations or assumptions. I said the article read in such a way that lead me to believe that it may not have been against her will. If you have heartburn with that, maybe you should talk to the people who published the article.

It's a given that he's a pervert, but that doesn't make her any less of a tart.

This a quote from you in your second post on this subject. So you did make an assumption AND an accusation.

 

[eddy1]

This is what I found, and what I'm getting at.



You all seem to think I'm saying that what happened to this 13 year old is okay. That's not what I'm saying, and it's not what I think.

The above indicates to me that second degree could mean that the girl was not forced. It could mean nothing more than "13 year old, prohibited".

In light of that, do you not think that a 13 year old who willingly has sex, should recieve some kind of counseling? Especially a 13 year old who has sex with someone old enough to be her father? And at what age should a girl be held accountable for her actions?

When the girl is four or more years older than the person under sixteen she is having sex with. There is no difference in the law. What I see you doing is trying to take blame away from the adult, who is responsible for his actions, as well as is responsible for influencing a 13 year old child.

 

[mAlice]

This a quote from you in your second post on this subject. So you did make an assumption AND an accusation.

You're right. That does sound like I'm accusing her. I could have worded it differently. That said, how do you know she isn't? Certainly not from the article, and that's where I got the idea that she may not have been completely innocent.

 

[mAlice]

When the girl is four or more years older than the person under sixteen she is having sex with. There is no difference in the law. What I see you doing is trying to take blame away from the adult, who is responsible for his actions, as well as is responsible for influencing a 13 year old child.

My question to you is, when does the victim become responsible for her actions? Age 14?

 

[eddy1]

My question to you is, when does the victim become responsible for her actions? Age 14?

16.

 

[eddy1]

My question to you is, when does the victim become responsible for her actions? Age 14?

There you go again. You would rather assume that she has done something wrong than just take it at it's face value. YOU are the reason women don't want to come forward on sexual assualts. They know when the get on the stand, people are going to look at every single thing that happened and then lay some sort of blame on another person's actions. In this case the girl is thirteen years old and he is 37. Somehow, you can't seem to understand that an adult that age is far more equiped to manipulate a CHILD.

 

[mAlice]

16.

But the law says it's okay if she's 14,and the person in her bed is less than 4 years her senior. So which is it?

(3) if the victim is under the age of 14 years, and the person performing the act is at least 4 years older than the victim.

 

[mAlice]

There you go again. You would rather assume that she has done something wrong than just take it at it's face value. YOU are the reason women don't want to come forward on sexual assualts. They know when the get on the stand, people are going to look at every single thing that happened and then lay some sort of blame on another person's actions. In this case the girl is thirteen years old and he is 37. Somehow, you can't seem to understand that an adult that age is far more equiped to manipulate a CHILD.

I'm really not assuming this girl has done anything wrong, and I'm sorry you can't have a general discussion about the law and leave the girl out of it.

 

[eddy1]

I'm really not assuming this girl has done anything wrong, and I'm sorry you can't have a general discussion about the law and leave the girl out of it.

You....without any idea of what happens call the girl a tart, then questions why she isn't responsible, and you want me to leave her out of it?

 

[mAlice]

You....without any idea of what happens call the girl a tart, then questions why she isn't responsible, and you want me to leave her out of it?

So, you know what happened?

 

[eddy1]

But the law says it's okay if she's 14,and the person in her bed is less than 4 years her senior. So which is it?

(3) if the victim is under the age of 14 years, and the person performing the act is at least 4 years older than the victim.

It's a parental issue if the girl is under 16 and is having sexual intercourse with a person less than four years her senior, providing the sex is consensual. Why do you insist on changing the situation. That's not what this crime is about now is it? This crime is about a 37 year old having sex with a 13 year old. You wanted to know what age the girl is accountable, and that would be 16 when the person is four years his or her senior. Why blame the child when an adult should know better?

 

[eddy1]

So, you know what happened?

Yes, as a matter of fact I do. A 37 year old man is alleged to have had vaginal intercourse with a 13 year old. I don't need any other facts in order to convict him of that henious act!!!

 

[mAlice]

It's a parental issue if the girl is under 16 and is having sexual intercourse with a person less than four years her senior, providing the sex is consensual. Why do you insist on changing the situation. That's not what this crime is about now is it? This crime is about a 37 year old having sex with a 13 year old. You wanted to know what age the girl is accountable, and that would be 16 when the person is four years his or her senior. Why blame the child when an adult should know better?

Why do you insist on making it about this particular case? I'm talking about the law in general.

 

[mAlice]

Yes, as a matter of fact I do. A 37 year old man is alleged to have had vaginal intercourse with a 13 year old. I don't need any other facts in order to convict him of that henious act!!!

So, you were not there, and you have no idea what happened. Thank you.