Measured Against Reality

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Who are we protecting?

I'd like someone to tell me that this isn't one of the stupidest things you've ever heard. How can someone be BOTH victim and perpetrator of the same damn crime? And how exactly does a law that's supposed to protect children protect children if it's convicting children?

It doesn't, plain and simple. It's high time we start to rethink all of these laws that are supposed to protect people, but instead punish those who engage in reasonable consensual activities. Child molesters should be punished, but children should not.

(Edit: Another case I mention in the comments here)

Labels: , , , ,

8 Comments:

  • By Blogger nullifidian, at 4:20 PM, February 20, 2007  

  • nullifidian, I know, I blogged about that recently. There's also the case of two teenagers who videotaped themselves having sex, e-mailed to each other, were found out (I forget how) and are being charged. I think that case is going a bit better.

    I've heard of even more. It's almost as though no one cares about the spirit of the law at any more.

    By Blogger Stupac2, at 4:23 PM, February 20, 2007  

  • Actually what I find more worrying is that these kids are engaging in such lewd acts at so young an age to begin with. It's like the whole society's falling into an abyss of immorality. Then again, what do you define as moral? I believe what's moral is what God says is moral, but it could be a lot more fluid in your case..

    By Blogger JeNn, at 7:05 PM, February 20, 2007  

  • JeNn, I'd prefer kids waited too, but from the polls I've seen not too much has changed (a majority of surveyed 18-year-olds were virgins). I think that we tend to see rare occurrences more frequently because of national media and large populations, and then we extrapolate that these relatively rare cases are the norm. But I can't back that up too much.

    Yes my morality is more fluid. I think I've posted on it before, but the most concise way I can say it is "if it doesn't harm anyone, then it's ok". Granted, not perfect, but I believe very strongly in letting people do what they want as long as they're not actually hurting anyone. Rape, murder, abuse, violence, all of it's wrong. Drugs, sex, and booze are fine (as long as it's consensual / they're not a dumb drunk).

    Which is why I get so infuriated about cases like this, where no one was harmed, but because of a stupid law, a stupid jury, a stupid prosecutor, and a stupid judge we have two people's lives ruined. Same thing with the war on drugs, gay marriage, and pretty much everything else I post on.

    I'd be pretty interested in how you determine what god says is moral. Did you read that post I had a few days ago dealing with this? It demonstrates pretty well that no sane person uses the bible (in its entirety) for their morality. I think this comic pretty much hits it on the head.

    Not to say that there's no good morality in the bible, there undoubtedly is (I hear that it has the beautiful gem "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", which is why I'm so amazed that so few people obey it).

    By Blogger Stupac2, at 7:17 PM, February 20, 2007  

  • Before the mid 1900's, kids were getting MARRIED at ages not much more than 12/13. So, get off your high horse, Jenn.

    By Blogger ekdikeo, at 9:54 PM, February 20, 2007  

  • ekdikeo, I wasn't on one to begin with. If you think it's therefore ok that kids should do such stuff at their age, just because they used to get married at that age, you might as well endorse child porn, because I see no difference between that and the kind of situation we see now. It is a modern exploitation of sorts, that children are taught through the subtle forces of the media that sexy is good, less clothes are good, corrupting the impressionable young minds of children. Gosh you're the one who lives in a society where people like Paris Hilton are actually celebrities. Sheesh.

    Anyway Stupac2, I guess you're right. My impressions of America are based more on what my American friends say about it, but I guess I shouldn't generalize.

    Meanwhile, one COULD argue that vices like drugs, sex and booze could be detrimental to society as a whole, even if it doesn't seem to hurt anyone else but the individual. Try the Kantian standard, for one, although I'm frankly not sure if it's relevant in this case.

    Not that I'm arguing about it. I don't think Christians should try to impose their beliefs on others either, but then again when they form the majority..

    By Blogger JeNn, at 4:12 AM, February 22, 2007  

  • ZERO tolerance means exactly that: ZERO tolerance. You wanted it: you got it. Wouldn't surprise me if you're next.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:42 PM, August 10, 2007  

  • Thanks a lot for sharing. You have done a brilliant job. Your article is truly relevant to my study at this moment, and I am really happy I discovered your website. However, I would like to see more details about this topic. I'm going to keep coming back here.

    By Anonymous Health Nwes, at 5:43 AM, February 01, 2011  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home