Moderator: Community Team
bedub1 wrote:So I was reading an article about a woman who is claiming a guy molested her. Turns out she was 6 and he was 8.
What do you think of kids that "play doctor"? What do you think about under 18 kids that are "sexting" each other? Do you think an under-age kid that takes nude photos of themselves and sends them to other people should be arrested for distributing child porn? Do you think young kids that play doctor should be thrown in jail and labeled as child molesters?
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
aage wrote:Never trust CYOC or pancake.
pancakemix wrote:Important detail to add to this thread:
The molester is George Zimmerman.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/ ... YV20120716
And to be honest, some of the things this woman says are absurd (that's from looking at several news articles on this story, I can't find the actual recordings).
PLAYER57832 wrote: I don't see that going back and prosecuting an adult for something that happened when he was 8 as being effective or necessary.
Army of GOD wrote:pancakemix wrote:Important detail to add to this thread:
The molester is George Zimmerman.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/ ... YV20120716
And to be honest, some of the things this woman says are absurd (that's from looking at several news articles on this story, I can't find the actual recordings).
That's an 18 year old molesting a 16 year old, not 8 molesting a 6. Doubt it's the same story.
anyway this whole discussion is incredibly complicated and so I'm just going to stay out of it.
natty dread wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote: I don't see that going back and prosecuting an adult for something that happened when he was 8 as being effective or necessary.
Wait wait wait... you guys can even do that?
In my country, anyone under the age of 15 cannot be convicted of a crime - under that age, the legal guardian is always responsible of the child's actions.
aage wrote:Never trust CYOC or pancake.
natty dread wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote: I don't see that going back and prosecuting an adult for something that happened when he was 8 as being effective or necessary.
Wait wait wait... you guys can even do that?
In my country, anyone under the age of 15 cannot be convicted of a crime - under that age, the legal guardian is always responsible of the child's actions.
natty dread wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote: I don't see that going back and prosecuting an adult for something that happened when he was 8 as being effective or necessary.
Wait wait wait... you guys can even do that?
In my country, anyone under the age of 15 cannot be convicted of a crime - under that age, the legal guardian is always responsible of the child's actions.
puppydog85 wrote:That might clear up some things here if the legal guardian were responsible for the minor's actions. .
Woodruff wrote:natty dread wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote: I don't see that going back and prosecuting an adult for something that happened when he was 8 as being effective or necessary.
Wait wait wait... you guys can even do that?
In my country, anyone under the age of 15 cannot be convicted of a crime - under that age, the legal guardian is always responsible of the child's actions.
I must admit that I do like that idea, to a degree. I tend to think it might give some youngsters the idea that there are no consequences to their actions (for instance, if they're already strongly at odds with their guardian), but I do think it might make parents a lot more responsible.
... only 15 states have set minimum ages, which range from 6 to 12 years. States without statutory minimum ages rely on the common law ...
Under the English common law the defense of infancy is expressed as a set of presumptions. A child under the age of seven was presumed incapable of committing a crime. Children aged seven to fourteen were presumed incapable of committing a crime but the presumption was rebuttable. The prosecution could overcome the presumption by proving that the child understood what he was doing and that it was wrong. Children fifteen and older were presumed capable of committing a crime.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
natty dread wrote:Anyway, I can't see how it would make sense to convict anyone to a prison sentence for anything they've done when they were 8 years old, even (or especially) after they've turned 18.
natty dread wrote: They can never be sentenced to an actual prison sentence, but they can be sentenced to pay fines, or damages to victims - usually, the guardian is responsible for paying the fines/damages, but if the guardian is unable or unwilling to pay them, the child will have to pay them once he/she turns 18 (and they grow interest until then).
PLAYER57832 wrote:natty dread wrote: They can never be sentenced to an actual prison sentence, but they can be sentenced to pay fines, or damages to victims - usually, the guardian is responsible for paying the fines/damages, but if the guardian is unable or unwilling to pay them, the child will have to pay them once he/she turns 18 (and they grow interest until then).
I agree with a lot of what you say, but this part... basically says that wealthy kids get off with their parent's bailout, but poor kids get strapped to pay themselves. If a child is very young, that actually seems perhaps even more harsh than some of our punishments.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users