Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A jury still has to convict. Even with DNA in a case like this you would be surprised at the reluctance they have to do so. I'm not saying it wouldn't happen, but it only takes one juror refusing to vote guilty. Its not as simple as some think. Some people don't see the thirteen year old as a victim in this case. They should, but they don't necessarily. Its likely why a plea bargain was done.
This is true. I guess I would be surprised that jurors would not convict. I would assume they would base their verdict on the facts and not on personal feelings.
Well, DNA would prove that she did have sex with a 13 year old, so it seems like a slap dunk to me. Does this have to do with CO being so liberal now? I hope, since she is a proven pedophile who has acted on her sick and illegal lusts, that they remove the baby. I really wouldn't want to see it go to the 13 year old or his family, as in the way the child was conceived, I just don't think that would be the best environment to grow up in.
How sick does an adult have to be to have sex with a 13 year old? Sick enough to be removed to an island with all the other pedos for the rest of their lives. Once they act on their pedophilia, they generally don't stop.
The city and the county where this happened (and where it was tried, I'd think) in Colorado are pretty conservative in their local politics. About the only parts of the state that are liberal are Denver and Boulder, maybe a few little isolated artsy towns like Manitou Springs.
But this was in Fountain, which is a conservative area where a lot of the lower to middle ranking soldiers from Fort Carson live. Very close to where my ex husband still resides, and it's been going downhill, with major increases in crime lately, for some reason.
Other stuff from that area that has been in headlines recently...
The young man who shot up Club Q had previously had a bomb threat stand off with police down there.
There was a guy who shot his wife or girlfriend or something, and then killed a cop and was at large for some time.
There was an incident where police put a woman in the backseat of their cruiser and parked it on some railroad tracks, whereupon it was mowed down by a train.
There have been a rash of shootings, robberies, and kidnappings of children in the area. Schools seem to be on lockdown at least once every couple of months because of something going on in the area.
I see all of this because during a time when one of my sons was staying with my ex, I followed a community news page on Facebook, and it's just one thing after another. The area used to be nice, when I lived there like 6-7 years back. Working class, but nice...small town feel to it. I don't know why it's been going downhill like this.
But I assure you, it's not liberals. It's definitely not a liberal spot.
Double standard, for sure, but is it better for the baby to not have to be separated from the mother, if mother had been sentenced to prison?
While this is a legitimate question, it is not one that is posed seriously when pedophile males statutorily rape adolescent females who subsequently get pregnant and have their children. I'd argue that having both parents are equally important.
Still, to your point, and setting aside the very valid point about double standards for a second, this does raise the question IMO of how long/what the punishment of abusers like this should be. Indeed, the adolescent victim may very well want to continue a relationship with the child's father once she becomes of age and the law is no longer an issue. Should the father be locked up for years to where this isn't possible?
As much as I think that such people need to be punished, I'm not sure where we should draw the line. That said, as long as there is going to be a standard on this issue, it needs to be the same regardless of the sex of the offender IMO.
This is about as cut and dry as it gets. She had sex with a 13-year-old. That's the definition of pedophilia. She should be in jail for a long time. Yes, the baby should be taken from her. Someone in her or his family can elect to raise the baby.
This isn't about a woman getting treated like a man would in this case. It's about an adult who took advantage of a 13-year-old kid who couldn't have consented.
This is about as cut and dry as it gets. She had sex with a 13-year-old. That's the definition of pedophilia. She should be in jail for a long time. Yes, the baby should be taken from her. Someone in her or his family can elect to raise the baby.
This isn't about a woman getting treated like a man would in this case. It's about an adult who took advantage of a 13-year-old kid who couldn't have consented.
I don't see what's so confusing about this.
Thirteen isnt necessarily prepubescent which would be the definition of pedophilia.
I agree with prospect that this can be a blurred line as far as having the punishment fit the crime.
The thing is at this moment in time, here in the US we see consent at arbitrary ages, 16-18. This acceptable age has also changed over time, as well differs among countries.
My parents married when my father was 25 and my mother was 16 (no she was not pregnant). My mothers half sister married at 14 (she was not pregnant either). Both couples remained married until death did they part. This was in the 1940's.
I dont agree with adults having consensual sex (or otherwise) with 13 year olds but I dont think they should be in prison for a long time or have their kids taken from the by default.
Thirteen isnt necessarily prepubescent which would be the definition of pedophilia.
I agree with prospect that this can be a blurred line as far as having the punishment fit the crime.
The thing is at this moment in time, here in the US we see consent at arbitrary ages, 16-18. This acceptable age has also changed over time, as well differs among countries.
My parents married when my father was 25 and my mother was 16 (no she was not pregnant). My mothers half sister married at 14 (she was not pregnant either). Both couples remained married until death did they part. This was in the 1940's.
I dont agree with adults having consensual sex (or otherwise) with 13 year olds but I dont think they should be in prison for a long time or have their kids taken from the by default.
How is 16-18 arbitrary? Until you are 16, you can’t work full time, can’t emancipate from your parents, can’t drop out of school (unless Amish), and/or do a lot of other tasks required for adulting and presumably caring for a child without supervision. It’s also doubtful you can freely consent when you don’t have autonomy legally. This has been an issue in polygamous religions like FLDS. Even though many of those girls “consent” because it’s part of their religion, they really have no way to support themselves when they are 14-15.
Thirteen isnt necessarily prepubescent which would be the definition of pedophilia.
I agree with prospect that this can be a blurred line as far as having the punishment fit the crime.
The thing is at this moment in time, here in the US we see consent at arbitrary ages, 16-18. This acceptable age has also changed over time, as well differs among countries.
My parents married when my father was 25 and my mother was 16 (no she was not pregnant). My mothers half sister married at 14 (she was not pregnant either). Both couples remained married until death did they part. This was in the 1940's.
I dont agree with adults having consensual sex (or otherwise) with 13 year olds but I dont think they should be in prison for a long time or have their kids taken from the by default.
Another thing to remember is that this is a teenage boy.
I'd say his friends were probably jealous, he was getting high fives, etc.
I'm not condoning it, and there needs to be a penalty, but it's not the same thing as if it happened with a small child.
How is 16-18 arbitrary? Until you are 16, you can’t work full time, can’t emancipate from your parents, can’t drop out of school (unless Amish), and/or do a lot of other tasks required for adulting and presumably caring for a child without supervision. It’s also doubtful you can freely consent when you don’t have autonomy legally. This has been an issue in polygamous religions like FLDS. Even though many of those girls “consent” because it’s part of their religion, they really have no way to support themselves when they are 14-15.
It is arbitrary become someone just picked the age 16, someone arbitrary picked the age 17, someone arbitrarily picked the age 18, etc. etc. In another time someone picked the age 13, 14, 15.
At age 16 you can take hormone blockers and have permanent surgey to trangender. You can get married at 18, go to war at 18 but you cant buy a beer. Arbitrary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
