Dragon Con Co-Founder Pleads Guilty to Child Molestation Charges

Recommended Videos

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
balfore said:
Strazdas said:
balfore said:
Strazdas said:
Sensationary titles strikes again.
Sexual abuse of teenagers is not child molestation because by definition teenagers are not children.
The U.S. law defines minors as people under the age of majority in the U.S. that's 18. Once you reach the age of majority you go from childhood to adulthood. So yes, they are children and it is definitely molestation.
You are mixing Minors (legal definition) with children (social definition)
But the title is referring to his charges which are of legal nature. So referring to a teenager as a child is appropriate in the title and all matters of the crime he has committed.
No. If the title would use a legal definition, it would say Dragon Con Co-Founder Pleads Guilty to Minor Sexual Abuse Charges.
It however used social definitions, and by social definition these people were not children.
 

balfore

New member
Nov 9, 2006
74
0
0
Strazdas said:
balfore said:
Strazdas said:
balfore said:
Strazdas said:
Sensationary titles strikes again.
Sexual abuse of teenagers is not child molestation because by definition teenagers are not children.
The U.S. law defines minors as people under the age of majority in the U.S. that's 18. Once you reach the age of majority you go from childhood to adulthood. So yes, they are children and it is definitely molestation.
You are mixing Minors (legal definition) with children (social definition)
But the title is referring to his charges which are of legal nature. So referring to a teenager as a child is appropriate in the title and all matters of the crime he has committed.
No. If the title would use a legal definition, it would say Dragon Con Co-Founder Pleads Guilty to Minor Sexual Abuse Charges.
It however used social definitions, and by social definition these people were not children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse_laws_in_the_United_States

In legal definition a person is considered a child or even an infant according to the law when they are under the age of majority. There is nothing "Sensational" about referring to a minor as a child in legal definition. If you need further proof here is the academic journal that helped establish the laws in the United States.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/844549
Not sure if the link will work on all computers. (I accessed it from a campus library that subscribes to Jstor)