Montana judge defends 30-day sentence for rape

[Ideologue]

Hell, if it's an issue of undue influence (or its converse, sexual bribery), even sex with an 18 (or 25) year old should be criminal.

The difference is the age of reason. By 19 or so, one hopes that the individual is at least capable of completely grasping the consequences of their actions.

You're misidentifying the issue.  The issue is the subversion of a process for personal ends, which needs to be fair for both parties.  If a high school teacher intimidates a student into giving him a blowjob, or if she exchanges blowjobs for A's, that's criminal even if she's 18 (and I mean it actually is criminal, at least in SC, but it should be very criminal--it is morally degenerate and damaging to society as a whole, when a mere relationship that developed out of mutual sexual attraction is at worst damaging to one person).

[Ideologue]

Should bosses who sleep with the people reporting to them be sent to prison as well?  They have a hell of a lot more power over you than teachers do.

That's different because Amalgamated Accountants, LLP, do not represent the state and carry out state functions.

[merithyn]

Hell, if it's an issue of undue influence (or its converse, sexual bribery), even sex with an 18 (or 25) year old should be criminal.

The difference is the age of reason. By 19 or so, one hopes that the individual is at least capable of completely grasping the consequences of their actions.

You're misidentifying the issue.  The issue is the subversion of a process for personal ends, which needs to be fair for both parties.  If a high school teacher intimidates a student into giving him a blowjob, or if she exchanges blowjobs for A's, that's criminal even if she's 18 (and I mean it actually is criminal, at least in SC, but it should be very criminal--it is morally degenerate and damaging to society as a whole, when a mere relationship that developed out of mutual sexual attraction is at worst damaging to one person).

From what I understand, it is criminal to coerce someone into having sex. It's called rape, for better or for worse.

[Ideologue]

I don't think it's usually considered rape if a college professor says "I'll fail you if you don't put out."  It's still maybe criminal (I'd have to look it up), and it's definitively actionable, but I don't believe it falls under the ambit of rape.

It's about as bad as rape, and in some ways worse, because of the reasons I've outlined.  So, yeah, fine, call it whatever.

[Berkut]

If you make reasonable arguments, at least some people will presume you are being reasonable.

If you make unreasonable arguments, even ones like "you've all decided .... I can't be reasonable" then people will in fact think you cannot be reasonable.

Nobody has decided you can't be reasonable, people have observed that you are not being reasonable. It's not the same thing.

You aren't a victim.

Okay, Berk. Since you say so....

Yes, that is certainly the way to convince me you are not being unreasonable.

[garbon]

If you make reasonable arguments, at least some people will presume you are being reasonable.

If you make unreasonable arguments, even ones like "you've all decided .... I can't be reasonable" then people will in fact think you cannot be reasonable.

Nobody has decided you can't be reasonable, people have observed that you are not being reasonable. It's not the same thing.

You aren't a victim.

Okay, Berk. Since you say so....

Yes, that is certainly the way to convince me you are not being unreasonable.

Because your approval is so damn important.

[merithyn]

Yes, that is certainly the way to convince me you are not being unreasonable.

I stopped worrying about that awhile ago. You believe what you want.

[Berkut]

If you make reasonable arguments, at least some people will presume you are being reasonable.

If you make unreasonable arguments, even ones like "you've all decided .... I can't be reasonable" then people will in fact think you cannot be reasonable.

Nobody has decided you can't be reasonable, people have observed that you are not being reasonable. It's not the same thing.

You aren't a victim.

Okay, Berk. Since you say so....

Yes, that is certainly the way to convince me you are not being unreasonable.

Because your approval is so damn important.

I kind of doubt it, but she does seem to be annoyed that people are finding her unreasonable.

[Berkut]

Yes, that is certainly the way to convince me you are not being unreasonable.

I stopped worrying about that awhile ago. You believe what you want.

Belief has nothing to do with it.

You make unreasonable arguments, then get all offended that people find you to be unreasonable.

You believe whatever YOU want. Play the victim, if you really want to believe that is the issue.

[DGuller]

Yes, that is certainly the way to convince me you are not being unreasonable.

I stopped worrying about that awhile ago. You believe what you want.

[Razgovory]

Meri, do you think there are circumstances where an under age defendant should be tried as an adult?  What about a person who is legally an adult, should they always be tried as an adult?

[merithyn]

Belief has nothing to do with it.

You make unreasonable arguments, then get all offended that people find you to be unreasonable.

You believe whatever YOU want. Play the victim, if you really want to believe that is the issue.

The thing is, Berk, that these recent "unreasonable arguments" were never meant to be arguments. They were off-the-cuff comments that were, at least to me, clearly an exaggeration for effect. I read the damn article. I even read, believe it or not, the last paragraph. I understood what she was trying to say. I disagree with her conclusions but I understood her arguments just fine. At a certain point, it's not worth bothering anymore. When the immediate response to the article is:

Meri is gonna be PISSED.

Yeah, nuance and context and anything other than "OMG THAT MAN RAPED HER UNTIL SHE DIED!" is clearly signs of some serious defect.

... why should I even bother offering a legitimate response? You and sbr have already decided how I'm going to respond. And on top of that, you've both completely disregarded my perfectly reasonable responses earlier in the thread in order to come to the conclusion that I was totally incapable of having a reasonable argument about this topic.

For the record, I thought the article was a great assertion of her beliefs with nothing to support it other than her personal experiences and her opinion. She didn't say anything that was of any real value to the discussion so far as I'm concerned. She said she didn't think it was an issue. She said that it's time to have a "real discussion" about the topic at hand, as if that hasn't already been going on for years. She said that she thought that there are teenagers out there that could reasonably decide to have sex with a teacher. Well, good for her. I disagree with all of her assertions, as I've said repeatedly.

Are there nuances to every situation? Of course. That's common sense. That doesn't change the fact that one has to have laws that fits the majority of the cases because you can't litigate nuances.

[Neil]

On a different note, I'm not sure why we should feel for individuals like Mr. Rambold when people take rape to mean that he forced this 14 year old to have sex.

Because she was a willing participant, and 100 years ago, it would have been okay. Besides, he didn't physically hurt her, so it doesn't actually count as rape. It's not damaging, just immoral.

Or something.

And not even immoral.  Just inappropriate.

[merithyn]

Meri, do you think there are circumstances where an under age defendant should be tried as an adult?

No, I don't.

What about a person who is legally an adult, should they always be tried as an adult?

Yes.

[Razgovory]

Meri, do you think there are circumstances where an under age defendant should be tried as an adult?

No, I don't.

What about a person who is legally an adult, should they always be tried as an adult?

Yes.

So you don't believe in diminished capacity?