Blatant Disregard for Situational Consequence - TravelPUNK Backpacker College Student Budget Travel Message Boards!

**Sijuki** · 12-13-2005, 01:26 PM

22 Year Old May Be Sentenced to 50 Years After Marrying 14 Year Old.

A 22 Year old Man in Nebraska knocked up his girlfriend, they fled to Kansas got married with parental permission (Kansas has no minimum age limit for marriage as long as you have permission of parents/guardians/judge). She gave birth to their child and so they arrest him and plan to send him to prison. Does this make any damned sense? No. While sure, you could say the 21 year old should not of been having sex with a 13 year old, it happened. With every action there is a reaction. The reaction is she got pregnant. They got married, he is supporting his family. So why doesn't the government come on in and send the guy to prison so his wife and kid can live off state aid for the next 50 years! Great idea... way to waste public money to punish someone who is taking care of their mistake. Sending him to prison won't get rid of the child, won't protect the 'victim'. The goverment is creating a victim by walking into a situation, with their stupid babbling of law and policy and bullshit and wasting time, money and anything else they can to prove some pointless worthless point. Mistake happened, the guy stuck around, married the girl and is taking care of business. Leave it be.

If only the government was so cavalier to go after dead beat piece of shit parents that abandon their children don't support them at all. Maybe then the victims would be helped.

This is one of those cases that I think the gov't overreaches its boundaries. I am not promoting underage sex. I am not saying they are right, but it happened, it can be undone so might as well deal with it as best as possible. Which not include sending someone to prison. Stupid.

Rant done.

**voyd** · 12-13-2005, 01:34 PM

I kinda agree - is the penalty for that really 50 years? Seems kinda stiff. I say do punish him, but don't make the TAXPAYERS pay for HIS mistake!

But then again, it IS taxpayers paying for ALL criminals' mistakes - having to pay for all their prison costs, court costs, welfare for their kids, etc etc... So, this one case is really just one tiny drop in the bucket. Taxpayers get double-whammied by criminals - by being victimized as well as paying for their conviction, incarceration and welfare for their daddyless kids.

Hip, hip, hoo-RAY!

**Sijuki** · 12-13-2005, 01:40 PM

Well its a situation thing... which used to be the reason for judge/jury. To decide if you committed a crime and the situation. A situation in which something like this happens, there is little or no reason to punish people. They made their mistake, they are stepping to the plate to take their responsibility. What is it that a prison cell is going to do to correct this? Hmmmm... nothing. Now someone who preys upon young girls and coerces them into sexual acts and repeats without caring, obviously something does need to be done. Different situations.

Just like if I walk up to some guy on the street and blow his brains out... it is probably murder and I will probably get time for it. But if a guy breaks into my house and I shoot and kill him because I feared for my life, I don't go to jail for murder. But I still killed a man. Reasons why laws were designed to be judged by situation. Our present legal system loses sight of that many times.

While I don't condone the action, it was handled as properly as it could have been. No need for the gov't sticking their snout into it.

**omisan** · 12-13-2005, 02:14 PM

Time to riot...

Our laws and our system, instead of improving over time and multiple cases, seem to get stupider and more ridiculous as time goes on. They should change with the times and work on precedent to adapt to various situations as they apply to each case, but instead we have blanket laws that serve more to make law enforcement/sentencing easy, rather than just.

nemesis331 · 12-13-2005, 02:33 PM

wow..thats fucked up on soo many levels..what he did..the punishment..what he did

**bluepea** · 12-13-2005, 02:33 PM

I understand why there are statutory rape laws in effect but agree that there are times when things are made worse by the judicial system being involved, rather than better. Obviously the girl and her family were consenting, they're married and as you said, raising their family. Or trying.

While taxpayers do pay for all crimes, this doesn't have to be classified as a crime.

**voyd** · 12-13-2005, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jamiepeaski@Dec 13 2005, 04:33 PM
Obviously the girl and her family were consenting, they're married and as you said, raising their family.
[snapback]92667[/snapback]

What's weird, and arguably intrusive, is that police usually only intervene in these cases if one of the kids or parents complain. Well, sounds like they've all consented, so perhaps why not let them make the best of a bad situation?

I hear 1/3 of all American babies are now born to single moms. The future social impact of that as whole for our generation is pretty scary (no offense to single moms)...

**omisan** · 12-13-2005, 02:53 PM

Wanna read about injustice? This here is pretty jacked up.

**ChasinJason1313** · 12-13-2005, 03:43 PM

For fuck's sake man.

What's wrong with us?

**The Monsignor** · 12-13-2005, 06:20 PM

In the first case, I'd probably reserve judgement till the sentencing is over. The judge, in his sentencing, will really have the lattitude to determine circumstance. The kid, knowing that he is, technically guilty of having sex with a minor - no matter the circumstance - decided to plead guilty, save the fruitless legal battle, and rely on the court to assign a lenient penalty. Most likely, he's not gonna get more than probation, which ensures that if he were to receive another conviction (from dating another minor) it would show a pattern of behavior that means there's more to this than what meets the eye... Other than that, he's likely not to have to worry bout this again...

The second one, without further research, I have a bit of trouble swallowing as is. There's a bit of bias or an agenda trying to be proven there (note the author's implication that race was a factor in this conviction) and the fact that the article itself is somewhat misleading (if race was a factor, having a mixed jury, even one that is predominantly white, still wouldn't have the power to convict, it only takes one voice of dissent to have a hung jury and require another trial - so the black jurors voted to convict, as well as white jurors!)

The system is broken enough, as it is, but I dunno just how strong a case either of these makes for that...

**kingcrazylegs** · 12-14-2005, 12:34 AM

^Omid's one is SO wrong - how screwed up!

**Somnambulation** · 12-14-2005, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by omisan@Dec 13 2005, 02:14 PM
They should change with the times and work on precedent to adapt to various situations as they apply to each case, but instead we have blanket laws that serve more to make law enforcement/sentencing easy, rather than just.

[snapback]92659[/snapback]

I kinda agree in this situation, but precedent and an objective stance saves tax payers tons of money and lets the courts operate more efficiently.