However, since it was a woman child rapist, she was instead granted full asylum.
People would be flipping their shit if the genders were reversed.
Can not rape the willing.
(keep in mind we are not talking about children here, this was a young man she had sex with.)
Can not rape the willing.
(keep in mind we are not talking about children here, this was a young man she had sex with.)
The state of Florida legally defines a 16 year old boy as a child for purposes of consenting to sexual intercourse. So as far as the state of Florida is concerned him being 16 would be the same as him being 5 from a legal standpoint. And I'm sure had it been say a 50 year old man having sex with a 5 year old girl, we'd totally want that man to spend 30 years in jail. It just happens that in Florida there is no distinction between the two situations.
After police launched an investigation, Harvey was recorded telling the teen to lie to police and tried to blackmail his sister not to help authorities.
Considering that the woman in question is a child rapist you would appear to be wrong.
Wrong. A minor cannot consent, so they can't be "willing" according to the law.
Keep in mind this *was* a "child" according to the law. Now if you want to argue that 16 is not a "child" anymore, that's fine, but what then is the appropriate age? If you make it 16, and someone bangs someone who's 15 years and 11 months, 29 days old, you're gonna hear the same thing "hey, what's the difference, in just another day he'd have been 16 and it would be legal!". Wherever you draw the line is up to the people to decide, but once they set that line, you should treat everyone the same under the law, not hand out different punishment for male offenders vs female offenders.
All this outrage over the 30 year sentence may be missing some facts of the case...the article mentions:
Wonder if some of that time relates to blackmail/witness tampering and not just fucking a kid:hmm:
Keep in mind this *was* a "child" according to the law. Now if you want to argue that 16 is not a "child" anymore, that's fine, but what then is the appropriate age?
All this outrage over the 30 year sentence may be missing some facts of the case...the article mentions:
Wonder if some of that time relates to blackmail/witness tampering and not just fucking a kid:hmm:
Consenting teens need to be distinguished from actual children.
So we're back to trying to draw some perfect age line where a "child" magically turns into a full fledged adult.
Lets focus on the sentence, which is what caused the lady to flee to canada.
If the young man consented, this is a victimless crime. I know about the law saying he can not consent. A 15 year old girl can consent to an abortion, but a 16 year old boy can not consent to have sex with an older woman?
Where is the victim?
The young man will brag how he banged his friends mom.
What this boils down to who is the predator and who is the prey.
If a 30 year old guy is meeting 12 year old girls, he is a sexual predator.
What this boils down to who is the predator and who is the prey.
If a 30 year old guy is meeting 12 year old girls, he is a sexual predator.
If a 30 year old woman beds a 16 year old boy, both are equal, as both are looking for sex. Both of them are looking for the same thing, the relationship is mutual beneficial.
Abortion has nothing to do with it. As a society, we've decided that before someone reaches a certain age, we assume that they are not able to make such decision (and consent to certain things) because they are not mature enough. Whatever that age is, at some point you have to set a line.
