cybercoma Posted May 19, 2014 Report Share Posted May 19, 2014 I wish everybody would stop saying it was consensual sex. It cannot be consensual if one of the parties is legally a child. I'm not saying the sentence is just, but the humping cannot be consensual. It's certainly a hell of a lot different from rape. Especially when most states have a consenting age below 18, commonly 16. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 19, 2014 Report Share Posted May 19, 2014 Florida can't and shouldn't run its criminal justice system based on the hug-a-thug laws in Canada, nor should any other state.This stupid line again. Let's address it....again. 30 US States have 16 as the age of consent: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia. Florida can't? And shouldn't? What about those 30 other states that do? Meanwhile, Florida is giving people 30 years for something that's completely legal in 30 states? It's a ridiculous and indefensible sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 19, 2014 Report Share Posted May 19, 2014 Florida can't? And shouldn't? What about those 30 other states that do? Meanwhile, Florida is giving people 30 years for something that's completely legal in 30 states? It's a ridiculous and indefensible sentence. It is quite defensible....she was found guilty on five counts. Florida and any other jurisdiction sure as hell won't water down the age of consent or penalties just because of the perp friendly laws in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 19, 2014 Report Share Posted May 19, 2014 That is precisely the crux of this topic for many......you don't care what the law says in FLA. The state jurisdiction obviously means nothing to you, which can easily be reciprocated. I don't care about that either. I don't respect the punishments meted out in Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Quatar, Iran, or other authoratian states, and I'm under no obligation to accept this simply because it comes from a democracy. You are more enlightened than those rube Floridians..... Yeah, as a matter of fact, I am. this attitude is the beginning of many cultural wars. Do you pay your speeding tickets from other state/provinces? I don't get speeding tickets. I'm a law-abiding conservative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 19, 2014 Report Share Posted May 19, 2014 Then you obviously have no "respect for the law" when you disagree. What was your first clue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 19, 2014 Report Share Posted May 19, 2014 Sure and in some parts of the world adulterers are stoned to death. It doesn't mean Canada should respect their laws. The issue here is cruel and unusual punishment and 30 years in jail does not fit the crime. Yes it does...she was actually given a reduced sentence based on the number of counts. US courts have upheld such penalties as constitutional (not "cruel and unusual"), regardless of what the perception may be in Canada. Canada has no jurisdiction or standing in the matter, respect or not. I am quite certain that if the defendant had been a 43 year-old male then there would be far less support for asylum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 19, 2014 Report Share Posted May 19, 2014 What was your first clue? I don't care about that either. I don't respect the punishments meted out in Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Quatar, Iran, or other authoratian states, and I'm under no obligation to accept this simply because it comes from a democracy. That's OK...a lot of people in and outside of Canada have no respect for Canadian law and associated punishments as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 19, 2014 Report Share Posted May 19, 2014 Yes it does...she was actually given a reduced sentence based on the number of counts. US courts have upheld such penalties as constitutional (not "cruel and unusual") Then the US courts are morons. Which doesn't surprise me in the least, given some of their rulings. , regardless of what the perception may be in Canada. Canada has no jurisdiction or standing in the matter, Given we have posession of the 'perp' I'd say our jurisdiction is pretty complete. I am quite certain that if the defendant had been a 43 year-old male then there would be far less support for asylum. Not on my count. You might recall I was wholly unsupportive of a 100+ year sentence handed out to a guy who downloaded a couple of dozen child porn pictures from the internet, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 19, 2014 Report Share Posted May 19, 2014 That's OK...a lot of people in and outside of Canada have no respect for Canadian law and associated punishments as well. Prisoners per 100k population. United States - 737 Communist China - 118 The land of the free, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 19, 2014 Report Share Posted May 19, 2014 Not on my count. You might recall I was wholly unsupportive of a 100+ year sentence handed out to a guy who downloaded a couple of dozen child porn pictures from the internet, too. Great...you think child porn penalties are also too severe. That will get you lots of support from moms, dads, and kids everywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 19, 2014 Report Share Posted May 19, 2014 Prisoners per 100k population. United States - 737 Communist China - 118 The land of the free, eh? Yes...people are free to commit crimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 Yes it does...she was actually given a reduced sentence based on the number of counts. US courts have upheld such penalties as constitutional (not "cruel and unusual"), regardless of what the perception may be in Canada. Canada has no jurisdiction or standing in the matter, respect or not. I am quite certain that if the defendant had been a 43 year-old male then there would be far less support for asylum. If she some how ends up in Canada seeking asylum, then Canada has jurisdiction in granting her safety from what we define as cruel. As far as your second comment, go find an example, bring back the link, and then we can discuss it. Until then, this is just an unsubstantiated opinion. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 Yes...people are free to commit crimes. Just like any other country. Give me a freekin break. Argus got you and that's your response? Give it up, the highest incarceration rate in the world doesn't have an "angle" that can somehow be used to prove that there is more freedom in the US when it clearly proves that the US has the highest limitations on personal freedoms! By the way, in case you haven't figured it out by now, the opposite of "freedom" is going to freekin jail! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 Yes it does...she was actually given a reduced sentence based on the number of counts. US courts have upheld such penalties as constitutional (not "cruel and unusual"), regardless of what the perception may be in Canada. Canada has no jurisdiction or standing in the matter, respect or not. I am quite certain that if the defendant had been a 43 year-old male then there would be far less support for asylum. I disagree, if a 43 year old man was give a 30 year sentence, I think the support would be similar. That's the part you seem to be having a difficult time comprehending. It's not about 'jurisdiction', she was granted asylum based on the notion that the punishment exceeded the crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 I disagree, if a 43 year old man was give a 30 year sentence, I think the support would be similar. That's the part you seem to be having a difficult time comprehending. It's not about 'jurisdiction', she was granted asylum based on the notion that the punishment exceeded the crime. AND, more to the point, it's not a crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 Just like any other country. Give me a freekin break. Argus got you and that's your response? WWWTT China doesn't keep prisoners. People go "missing" or are executed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 It is quite defensible....she was found guilty on five counts. Florida and any other jurisdiction sure as hell won't water down the age of consent or penalties just because of the perp friendly laws in Canada. And in the majority of US states Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 As far as your second comment, go find an example, bring back the link, and then we can discuss it. Until then, this is just an unsubstantiated opinion. WWWTT there is no example. 16 is the age of consent in Canada and 30 US states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 China doesn't keep prisoners. People go "missing" or are executed. Ya and that never happens in the USA WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 (edited) AND, more to the point, it's not a crime. Actually, unlike many of you on this thread, I don't argue that no crime was committed. It's a bit of a grey area in my opinion. In canada age of consent is 16 but judges look at the circumstances around the case, such as age difference and the nature of the relationship (ie one of trust etc). Given the difference in age, some judges might consider this crime here too. Regardless, a 30 year sentence is excessive and we did right in granting asylum based on that notion alone. Edited May 20, 2014 by BC_chick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 (edited) there is no example. 16 is the age of consent in Canada and 30 US states. Sorry had to edit this comment, I made an error. My apologies WWWTT Edited May 20, 2014 by WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 Actually, unlike many of you on this thread, I don't argue that no crime was committed. It's a bit of a grey area in my opinion. In canada age of consent is 16 but judges look at the circumstances around the case, such as age difference and the nature of the relationship (ie one of trust etc). Given the difference in age, some judges might consider this crime here too. Regardless, a 30 year sentence is excessive and we did right in granting asylum based on that notion alone. Yes and a judge did look at the circumstances in this case. One issue that did surface that still needs to be addressed in the case is the 'international standards" portion of cruel and unusual. It doesn't appear there is much contest here, just that the issue wasn't properly addressed in the original case. The conclusion was no crime was committed and therefore the asylum is temporarily on hold until that formality is laid to rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 Yes and a judge did look at the circumstances in this case. One issue that did surface that still needs to be addressed in the case is the 'international standards" portion of cruel and unusual. It doesn't appear there is much contest here, just that the issue wasn't properly addressed in the original case. The conclusion was no crime was committed and therefore the asylum is temporarily on hold until that formality is laid to rest. Please provide reference link to your statement of fact that "it doesn't appear there is much contest here", I've been made aware this is a requirement punishable by thread-death, especially since I can find no such reference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 Please provide reference link to your statement of fact that "it doesn't appear there is much contest here", I've been made aware this is a requirement punishable by thread-death, especially since I can find no such reference. Double standard! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 Please provide reference link to your statement of fact that "it doesn't appear there is much contest here", I've been made aware this is a requirement punishable by thread-death, especially since I can find no such reference. Well I guess if you think there is a chance that the outstanding issue so mentioned will be judged based on the international standards of Saudi or South Sudan, then perhaps there will be a problem for her with this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.