Wisconsin woman who had 2 babies with boy, sent to prison

oxboro wrote:

i am guessing the boy wasnt complaining

Twice in the same week we agree! I'll buy us a round.

MargoinFargo wrote:

To those that think there was no crime because the boy consented have poor thought processes. Immature children are protected by the law because their thought processes are about as bad as some here. Just because they enjoy it or it may feel good, does not mean a violent crime was not committed. Seduction and rape of a child isn't tolerated most countries.
Simply exchange the male for female roles here. Does that wake up any dead brain cells?

Umm, then why have "children" as young as 13 been charged as adults in serious crimes? Interesting standards we have eh?

DOUBLE STANDARD - Females always receive a slap on the wrist compared to males.

speedy wrote:

<quoted text>
Umm, then why have "children" as young as 13 been charged as adults in serious crimes? Interesting standards we have eh?

I'll take a stab at that. The operative word in your post is not "children" it is
"serious". The 2nd most important word in your post is "crimes". Those two words put
together transcend age. Age, on the other hand, plays a huge role when it comes to
procreating. Or..........do you ..........not think so?

Clueless wrote:

<quoted text>
speedy wrote:
(quoted text)
Umm, then why have "children" as young as 13 been charged as adults in serious crimes? Interesting standards we have eh?

I'll take a stab at that. The operative word in your post is not "children" it is "serious". The 2nd most important word in your post is "crimes". Those two words put together transcend age. Age, on the other hand, plays a huge role when it comes to procreating. Or..........do you ..........not think so?

I believe the point Clueless was trying to make was this:

If the court believes that at age 13 one is "adult" enough to make the decision to commit a serious crime then the 13-year-old, by the same standard would be "adult" enough to perform sexual acts; therefore no sexual crime should be charged. The courts can't have it both ways.

Personally I think it is idiotic to charge an immature child as an adult. What's next, charging them income tax?

Jimmy Garcia wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe the point Clueless was trying to make was this:
If the court believes that at age 13 one is "adult" enough to make the decision to commit a serious crime then the 13-year-old, by the same standard would be "adult" enough to perform sexual acts; therefore no sexual crime should be charged. The courts can't have it both ways.
Personally I think it is idiotic to charge an immature child as an adult. What's next, charging them income tax?

That is the major question then, isn't it? At what age is a child mature enough to be held accountable for their actions? And the truth is, that each person is different. But, obviously the government can't create separate laws for each person, so an age limit is agreed upon for each different act (which varies from state to state). Notice the different age limits for driving, voting, drinking, smoking, consent laws, etc.
And by the way, children do pay income tax. If the child's unearned income is over $900 or earned income over $5,450, a tax return must be filed.

Jimmy Garcia wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe the point Clueless was trying to make was this:
If the court believes that at age 13 one is "adult" enough to make the decision to commit a serious crime then the 13-year-old, by the same standard would be "adult" enough to perform sexual acts; therefore no sexual crime should be charged. The courts can't have it both ways.
Personally I think it is idiotic to charge an immature child as an adult. What's next, charging them income tax?

You said it best with the statement "the courts can't have it both ways". Unfortunately they have had it any way they please for a long, long time.
Of course things, and society changes, but it was in America's past, probably a bit over a century ago that girls in thier early teens were deemed mature enough to marry and get busy having kids. Of course they only lived to 40,,lol.
Of course that is rediculous now, and enlightened people know that teens mature much slower than they did in earlier days. So we shifted ages of concent to adapt to the slower maturity rate.
I don't think a clear and unanimous age of concent for sex, or deemed adult for criminal charges will ever happen. And if we let the court decide on a case by case basis, whew, they have done SO well in everything else....

Jimmy Garcia wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe the point Clueless was trying to make was this:
If the court believes that at age 13 one is "adult" enough to make the decision to commit a serious crime then the 13-year-old, by the same standard would be "adult" enough to perform sexual acts; therefore no sexual crime should be charged. The courts can't have it both ways.
Personally I think it is idiotic to charge an immature child as an adult. What's next, charging them income tax?

I'm not so sure you did get my point. The point of charging anyone, regardless of age, with serious crimes is to isolate those
capable of committing them from the rest of society so they don't
hurt anyone else. That's it; it has nothing to do with maturity,
age, or anything else, simply the safety of others.

Age of consent, on the other hand, is about pro-creating. When is
a "child" capable of having, and raising, another child? Also, when is said child mature enough to have an intimate relationship
with an adult? When is the playing field, so to speak, so skewed
in favor of the adult that the child is at their mercy? I don't
pretend to have that answer, but I do believe that if someone
breaks the law, gets busted, is told to cease or get into real
trouble, refuses to cease and thumbs their nose at the entire
system of probation and release, its' time to put the hammer down.

I don't suppose I cleared that up at all, did I?
:)

Bobby Donnell wrote:

<quoted text>
There you are again with your legal definitions that have no resemblance to actual law. The boy in this case cannot decide what is wanted or unwanted. Children of his age cannot legally give consent, no matter what their gender. Please give up your practice now and leave the law to younger cousel.

common law is more "realistic" than statutory law- shmucks come-up with statutes that don't make any sense- under common law "assault is the threat of harm "battery" is un wanted contact- statutory law is anything the goofy law maker wants it to be!

In Fact, in some states (under statute) 13 year-old can be bound in marriage! Old law has always made more sense that new law- New laws have wrecked this Great Nation.