Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevo
Show me the law in which states you are consitered a "sex offender" for pissing on the side of a building. In most states its not illegal for an 18 yr old to have consentual sex with a 17 yr old. If its illegal in any states at all.
In which case are you asking about? The one being discussed in this thread, or the one you made up where some 18 yr old gets the sex offender title for pissing on the side of the road and then having sex with a 17 yr old?
No one that rapes and sodomizes his own daughter along with other teenagers does not deserve to have children, ever. I don't care if its 10 yrs ago, today, or in 30yrs. tough shit for him. he should have never been allowed out of jail.
|
I'll let jinn show the states that those are in effect, I won't jump on that. However, what I am going to jump on is this.
Quote:
|
No one that rapes and sodomizes his own daughter..
|
Now call me silly, stupid or just plain dumb, but I don't see where you gathered this information. If you can point me to the source that states he raped and sodomized his daughter, then perhaps I will lend you some credibility on your view of the argument.
There's a great post just a couple above yours that shows how the argument that you lead into here is pretty null as of right now.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BBtB
Now from what I have read of this case it is really to complex for any of us to make a firm judement of this man. Sexual predator is to vague a label to simply say that because of that he should not have a child. That and simply because he was charged with something does not mean he did it. The first article never states what his specfic charges where and the second article lists charges as "rape, attempted rape, sodomy and attempted sodomy of two teen-agers". No where in the list of charges is his daughter. All that is said about his daughter is that the AP quoted the New York Parole board of "indicating" he sodmized her. Now I am no lawyer but I believe there is a huge difference between "indicating" someone did something and "charging" them with doing something. Maybe I am naive but I think if the evidence was there why would have jumped at adding that to the list of charges. Also, no where in either article does it say the rape was statutory rape. That is sex, consenual or not, with an underage person. They could have just as easily been two 19 year olds as two 14 year olds.
|