I don't think any of that holds up to any kind of scrutiny. It doesn't matter what the girls did, it only matters what the pedo did, since he's the one being prosecuted. If the girls' actions rose to the level of being tried as an adult, fine, try them as adults, but that still has no bearing on the fact that this dude knowingly sexually molested a child. How into it she was, has zero bearing on the facts.
We're only talking about the sentence, not guilt or innocence. If the judge viewed the minors' behavior as “adult-like” in the sense of laws allowing minors to sometimes be prosecuted as adults, then he may have felt that their behavior, which deliberately encouraged the illegal acts committed by the defendant, reduced to some degree the defendant's responsibility. This would be parallel to cases where if you egregiously provoke someone and they attack you, their legal responsibility for the attack may be reduced.
I lived in Kansas for almost a year on a contract. This was way back in the last century. I have never found any reason to return. I am heartened that they are starting to elect some Democrats.
Those sexting laws are egregious and have almost been entirely repealed. The other context you're thinking of is murder, and even then there is a growing consensus that throwing LWOP at minors is unconscionable.
In both those instances the minor is the defendant, not the victim. There is no legal precident you can cite that suggests "she was asking for it" is a defense to sexual assault of a minor.
I am so fucking mad and tired of the Right lying about Socialism.
Wanting better schools does not make one a Socialist.Providing debt free college does not make one a Socialist.Supporting agriculture does not make one a SocialistSupporting a fair and rapid immigration policy does not make one a Socialist.Supporting reproductive rights does not make one a Socialist.Medicare for all does not make one a Socialist.Fair Labor and Wages does not make one a Socialist.
All of these are possible in a Capitalist System. It may take some redistribution of wealth, like that is a bad thing.
Pure Socialism calls for central control of all industry, education, labor, and wages.Pure Socialism call for outlawing private property.Pure Socialism always fails because there is no money in it.Bernie ain't no Eugene Debs.
The case we are discussing is now a legal precedent. I'm not so sure there aren't others.
And in this case, the sisters were not only literally asking for it, they were actively trying to sell it. In contrast, “she was asking for it” has generally been used—improperly—in cases when there was no actual “ask”, for example, when a defendant claims that because the victim was wearing a short skirt, she was asking to be raped.
No, a district court judge yammering from the bench does not set precedent. Precedent is something other judges are obliged to follow and trial judges don't write those opinions.
The rest of your comment can simply be dismissed as "ugh, gross."
But but this sort of thing is IN THE BIBLE.
He should be removed for Judging while conservative.
I don't think any of that holds up to any kind of scrutiny. It doesn't matter what the girls did, it only matters what the pedo did, since he's the one being prosecuted. If the girls' actions rose to the level of being tried as an adult, fine, try them as adults, but that still has no bearing on the fact that this dude knowingly sexually molested a child. How into it she was, has zero bearing on the facts.
We're only talking about the sentence, not guilt or innocence. If the judge viewed the minors' behavior as “adult-like” in the sense of laws allowing minors to sometimes be prosecuted as adults, then he may have felt that their behavior, which deliberately encouraged the illegal acts committed by the defendant, reduced to some degree the defendant's responsibility. This would be parallel to cases where if you egregiously provoke someone and they attack you, their legal responsibility for the attack may be reduced.
I lived in Kansas for almost a year on a contract. This was way back in the last century. I have never found any reason to return. I am heartened that they are starting to elect some Democrats.
Thank you. My earlier criticism of Kansas had nothing to do with you. In fact, my beef goes back to likely before you were born.
Bad boys all always attractive, especially if you are young and have an oppressive father.
Eve has a douche.Lillith has a faire.
You decide.
I’ll go with the one that won’t give me a screaming UTI.
I know. I just get a bit testy about it sometimes still. I’m working on trying not to take it so personally any more.
Gross, white, and stupid is a pretty good way to skate through life, son.
Those sexting laws are egregious and have almost been entirely repealed. The other context you're thinking of is murder, and even then there is a growing consensus that throwing LWOP at minors is unconscionable.
In both those instances the minor is the defendant, not the victim. There is no legal precident you can cite that suggests "she was asking for it" is a defense to sexual assault of a minor.
I am so fucking mad and tired of the Right lying about Socialism.
Wanting better schools does not make one a Socialist.Providing debt free college does not make one a Socialist.Supporting agriculture does not make one a SocialistSupporting a fair and rapid immigration policy does not make one a Socialist.Supporting reproductive rights does not make one a Socialist.Medicare for all does not make one a Socialist.Fair Labor and Wages does not make one a Socialist.
All of these are possible in a Capitalist System. It may take some redistribution of wealth, like that is a bad thing.
Pure Socialism calls for central control of all industry, education, labor, and wages.Pure Socialism call for outlawing private property.Pure Socialism always fails because there is no money in it.Bernie ain't no Eugene Debs.
Well, that doesn't really make the choice any easier. It kinda depends on how much fun you want to have at the Faire 😎
The case we are discussing is now a legal precedent. I'm not so sure there aren't others.
And in this case, the sisters were not only literally asking for it, they were actively trying to sell it. In contrast, “she was asking for it” has generally been used—improperly—in cases when there was no actual “ask”, for example, when a defendant claims that because the victim was wearing a short skirt, she was asking to be raped.
No, a district court judge yammering from the bench does not set precedent. Precedent is something other judges are obliged to follow and trial judges don't write those opinions.
The rest of your comment can simply be dismissed as "ugh, gross."