Poll: Female babysitter charged for having sex with 14-year old boy.

[Diceman]

The age of consent in Connecticut is 16, with a close age rule of two years. It being a generic law is sort of the point, laws are meant to be broadly applied. She broke this one.

I'm also enjoying all the hypothetical confidence people in this thread have.

Well fair enough. Well yes, a generic law is kinda the point, but that's also the reason we go by the word of the law, not the letter of it, because we appoint judges to deem whether a case really breaks what the law was intended to prevent or not.

So as I said, while yes she did break the law, so long as the boy wasn't actually negatively effected (and I wont claim either way with assumptions) then really she should simply stop seeing him, and wait till he's of age, but not go to jail.

 

[FallenTraveler]

sounds like mom got upset and reported her... that kid is such a lucky bastard... well, if he was forced not as much, but if he wasn't... lucky bastard

 

[noble cookie]

I'll probably get shit for this but I don't see the problem as it was consensual.

Both wanted to so whats the deal?

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Snip

How would you feel if it was a male babysitter and a girl was gotten drunk? How would you honestly feel then?

 

[Dags90]

So as I said, while yes she did break the law, so long as the boy wasn't actually negatively effected (and I wont claim either way with assumptions) then really she should simply stop seeing him, and wait till he's of age, but not go to jail.

She should have done that from the beginning. Or realized at any point in their apparently months long relationship. She didn't make one stupid mistake one time. She repeatedly disregarded the law.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

[quote=

 

[Cap'n Moe]

My guy side wants to give this kid the most intense High five in history...hell, I'd smash it, sex offender or not. The moral side of me, is saying let the ***** burn...period.

 

[zehydra]

There seems to be a lot of double-standard threads around here lately.

I see nothing wrong with it, but she shouldn't get off easy from the law just because she's a woman.

 

[Hagi]

Well fair enough. Well yes, a generic law is kinda the point, but that's also the reason we go by the word of the law, not the letter of it, because we appoint judges to deem whether a case really breaks what the law was intended to prevent or not.

So as I said, while yes she did break the law, so long as the boy wasn't actually negatively effected (and I wont claim either way with assumptions) then really she should simply stop seeing him, and wait till he's of age, but not go to jail.

1. We're not judges. Judges go by the word of the law because they've studied that word for countless years and are held to very high standards. The rest of us go by the letter of the law, that's why so much time is spent wording laws right. Otherwise the only law needed would be "Don't be a jerk". Because people are constantly twisting the 'word' of the law to their own beliefs and interpretations you can't go by the word of the law. Outside the courtroom you go by the letter of the law.

2. We don't know if the child was negatively effected. It's easily possibly that at a later age he will experience anxiety, depression, guilt and a whole scale of other problems from this experience. It's happened before (yes, even in 'consensual' relationships with minors) and it will happen again. The child should be monitored and have the option of therapy if it is needed.

 

[zehydra]

Depends, if the genders were reversed would you think the same thing?

Ofcourse not, but that's not the issue.

Boys and girls are different.
We are all sexist at heart.

And really I know more than one 19 year old guy in a sexual relationship with a 14 year old.
The difference is almost invisible in appearance and mind.

In short, this should not be a crime at all.

actually that is the issue here. People are worrying about double-standards in a society that's supposedly prides itself on gender-equality.

 

[TheLoneBeet]

I hate to say this but I think she should go to jail. Even if it were only for a little while and then she was released and made to do community service / rehab. I say this because 14 is too young. Even if she were only 17, the age of consent is in place for a reason. Even at 16 (which I've read in previous posts is the age of consent in the area this all took place) people aren't truly capable of making a decision like this. It's just not right. He's too young and even if he'd make the same decision when he was 16 I still think it's just not okay for a 14 year old to be having sex. That's just my opinion.

TL/DR: Unfortunately. Jail.

 

[bakan]

Well fair enough. Well yes, a generic law is kinda the point, but that's also the reason we go by the word of the law, not the letter of it, because we appoint judges to deem whether a case really breaks what the law was intended to prevent or not.

So as I said, while yes she did break the law, so long as the boy wasn't actually negatively effected (and I wont claim either way with assumptions) then really she should simply stop seeing him, and wait till he's of age, but not go to jail.

1. We're not judges. Judges go by the word of the law because they've studied that word for countless years and are held to very high standards. The rest of us go by the letter of the law, that's why so much time is spent wording laws right. Otherwise the only law needed would be "Don't be a jerk". Because people are constantly twisting the 'word' of the law to their own beliefs and interpretations you can't go by the word of the law. Outside the courtroom you go by the letter of the law.

2. We don't know if the child was negatively effected. It's easily possibly that at a later age he will experience anxiety, depression, guilt and a whole scale of other problems from this experience. It's happened before (yes, even in 'consensual' relationships with minors) and it will happen again. The child should be monitored and have the option of therapy if it is needed.

He will more likely associate sex as bad because his mother reported the girl he had a relationship with for several month, not because he had sex at this age...

 

[Diceman]

She should have done that from the beginning. Or realized at any point in their apparently months long relationship. She didn't make one stupid mistake one time. She repeatedly disregarded the law.

Should have? Probably. Personally if I were her friend and had known about it, my response would've been apathetic.

Interestingly here is an example of judicial discretion:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8238952/man-who-slept-with-11-year-old-walks-free

IDK what to think of this one (in the above post)...they later got married and had a kid when she was 18, but 11 and 42...I wonder what he would have got if he had stuck around to be sentenced in 1995?

See now that's quite amusing considering it points towards the fact that the judges ruling was actually a good one considering the outcome, but of course that could only be realised fully with hindsight. Either the judge was lucky or just good at their job.

1. We're not judges. Judges go by the word of the law because they've studied that word for countless years and are held to very high standards. The rest of us go by the letter of the law, that's why so much time is spent wording laws right. Otherwise the only law needed would be "Don't be a jerk". Because people are constantly twisting the 'word' of the law to their own beliefs and interpretations you can't go by the word of the law. Outside the courtroom you go by the letter of the law.

2. We don't know if the child was negatively effected. It's easily possibly that at a later age he will experience anxiety, depression, guilt and a whole scale of other problems from this experience. It's happened before (yes, even in 'consensual' relationships with minors) and it will happen again. The child should be monitored and have the option of therapy if it is needed.

1. This is why the letter of the law is generally used and in this instance, the couple (if that's what they were) went by the word and assumed a judge would also do so.
But you're right, we're not judges, which is why I'd accept whatever the judge (who does know the situation much more fully) makes.
2. Agreed, but then that's the point for the judge to decide again, of course, since they'll be the one actually being able to talk to the child.
I don't advocate what they did, but at the same time, haven't yet seen reason to condemn it.

 

[Diceman]

Although that said, 11-42 compared to 14-22, is a somewhat large difference in mental maturity. 11 is far too young regardless.

 

[Skoosh]

Charge them both with underage drinking. Come on, she's not 21 yet either, they are both kids. Charge her with providing alcohol to a minor too I guess, but not rape. They were seeing each other before, if the mom had a problem with her, she shouldn't have let her into her house. Babysitter? With a 14-year-old? Yeah, sounds more like sensationalized headline than the truth. If the mother didn't approve the the relationship, she should not invite the girl into her home and charge her with trespassing or something if she did come.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

Alth

 

[Hagi]

He will more likely associate sex as bad because his mother reported the girl he had a relationship with for several month, not because he had sex at this age...

Are you a psychiatrist?

I'm not saying it's a certainty that he'll experience issues with this later on. It's very possible it'll be nothing more then a boasting story in 10 years.

But stuff like this does have very negative consequences on the long term at times. It's not just the sex. It's also having sex with an adult in a peer position. When that happens it does radically changes a kid's views on sexuality and relationships. Sometimes he'll be able to process it and deal with it without any problems. But there are many cases in which situations like this cause serious problems at a later date.

Drunk driving is illegal because 1/10 times it goes horribly wrong and has serious consequences. It's not legal because no problems happen the other 9 times.

Sex with minors as an adult is illegal because at times it goes horribly wrong and has serious consequences.

You don't subject children to such chances as an adult. You don't take guesses whether he'll be able to deal with it or not. You simply don't take such risks as a responsible adult, even if you deem the risk relatively small.

 

[retyopy]

Well, if it was consensaul, then slap a medal on the kid and call him a hero, but if it really was sexaul assault, then may the babysitter burn in hell until the end of time! Or at least go to jail. But heres something that someone else said, and I'm too lazy to go back and quote.

Imagine if this was a 20 year old male who got a 14 year old girl drunk and then had sex with her. The world would be screaming for his head to be stuck on a pole and his still writhing body to be thrown into the center of the sun.


I like cheese. Test(/sub)

 

[Black Watch]

Not guilty of anything but providing valuable sexual education.

Oh, and high five to the kid.