Friday, January 07, 2005

Got a letter in to the Sun-Times yesterday on statutory rape

The Sun-Times printed my letter here on why Dick Devine should be prosecuting men who impregnate girls. Maybe that will make some of these men think twice before they do so. And although it is possible for a girl to have a loving, consensual relationship with a man (a concession I'm making to one of the 23 posters below), it is very unlikely. Most men have far more power than most girls. We should enforce the statutory rape laws. Men can find women to sleep with. They don't need to sleep with girls.

(On a related note, has anyone else noticed the Tribune prints a ton of really dumb letters? As in: "I came to Chicago for a vacation. And boy, were the people nice! What a great town this is! Thanks, Chicago! Me and my wife will be back." I have much better luck with the Sun-Times printing my letters than the Trib, so you know that's why I'm paying attention to every dumb letter that fills up the Trib's page)

UPDATE: Thanks to Phocion, blog-master for the DraftVallas blog, for pointing out that Sunday's Sun-Times has an editorial on the topic. In the editorial here is news that the boyfriend was indeed charged with criminal sexual abuse and battery. Here's one challenge to conservatives: how can you justify opposing sexual education that teaches 15 year olds like this girl/mother about condoms and ways to have sex (like oral sex) that won't end up in pregnancy. I'm so frustrated by this picture and the tens of thousand of girl/mothers like this that I can understand why Clinton's first Surgeon General (what was her name? Jocelyn Elders or something?) would talk about masturbation and call herself the condom queen if it would help one of these girls avoid getting pregnant.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the concession, DJW. So now you are admittedly arguing for prosecution of an over-inclusive law? Hey the 15 year old could have loved that 19 year old guy. The parents are the ones who took out the restraining order. What if they did not because he preyed on their daugter, but rather that he was black while she hispanic. Does that change your outrage?

Anonymous said...

And D, not one comment on Tort reform, after Bush comes to our own state and taints it with his lies? He does more to put money in the pockets of insurance companies and drug companies than any other president before him, and he has the nerve to blame the rising cost of health care on us (trial lawyers)? My god. Where is the commentary DJW? You should be outraged. If Bush gets his way I'll lose my job and have to sell my soul to Kirkland with the rest of the corporate whore from u of C.

Dan Johnson-Weinberger said...

Every law is over-inclusive. That's not an argument against enforcement. That's an axiom. Racial animus is also not an excuse for men impregnating girls.

FightforJustice said...

ANon still hasn't told us where the statutory age SHOULD be set, or whether he would repeal it altogether. What is a 14 year old really loved a 30 year old. Should that be legal, too?

FightforJustice said...

Good letter, Dan. Mary Mitchell has previously called for such enforcement.

Anon should do his own blog and he could write about topics he thinks Dan should write about. Of course no one is likely to read a blog by someone named Anon.

I wonder if those who would hug a thug instead of prosecute think teachers should be free to have sex with their students?

Anonymous said...

As I noted above, the notion of consent is flexible enough to essentially include all the cases of statutory rape prosecuted today. A legal presumption against the capacity to consent if under 18 would be appropriate where the burden is on the young person to show they consented and are capable of understanding what it is they are doing, if they actually did consent, which I'm sure practically no student does. The teacher student relationship is one of a power disparity along with age, so the preumption of coersion would be even stronger. Of course, strict liability for anything pre-pubescent. But in a case of a consenting 17 year old and a 19 year old who love each other and want to get after it early in life, I have no problems with that. I do have a problem with legislation of sexual and personal behavior that smacks of legislated morality and that makes illegal the behavior that thousands of seniors in high school engage in with their freshman in college boyfriends and girlfriends. Ya dig, "justice" ? (By the way, it is all about loving, not fighting brother)
And no, I'll never blog myself nor fill out a membership. They changed it, not me.

Anonymous said...

As I noted above, the notion of consent is flexible enough to essentially include all the cases of statutory rape prosecuted today. A legal presumption against the capacity to consent if under 18 would be appropriate where the burden is on the young person to show they consented and are capable of understanding what it is they are doing, if they actually did consent, which I'm sure practically no student does. The teacher student relationship is one of a power disparity along with age, so the preumption of coersion would be even stronger. Of course, strict liability for anything pre-pubescent. But in a case of a consenting 17 year old and a 19 year old who love each other and want to get after it early in life, I have no problems with that. I do have a problem with legislation of sexual and personal behavior that smacks of legislated morality and that makes illegal the behavior that thousands of seniors in high school engage in with their freshman in college boyfriends and girlfriends. Ya dig, "justice" ? (By the way, it is all about loving, not fighting brother)
And no, I'll never blog myself nor fill out a membership. They changed it, not me.

Anonymous said...

As I noted above, the notion of consent is flexible enough to essentially include all the cases of statutory rape prosecuted today. A legal presumption against the capacity to consent if under 18 would be appropriate where the burden is on the young person to show they consented and are capable of understanding what it is they are doing, if they actually did consent, which I'm sure practically no student does. The teacher student relationship is one of a power disparity along with age, so the preumption of coersion would be even stronger. Of course, strict liability for anything pre-pubescent. But in a case of a consenting 17 year old and a 19 year old who love each other and want to get after it early in life, I have no problems with that. I do have a problem with legislation of sexual and personal behavior that smacks of legislated morality and that makes illegal the behavior that thousands of seniors in high school engage in with their freshman in college boyfriends and girlfriends. Ya dig, "justice" ? (By the way, it is all about loving, not fighting brother)
And no, I'll never blog myself nor fill out a membership. They changed it, not me.

FightforJustice said...

Seventeen is the age of consent in Illinois, so your example of the high school senior and the college freshman isn't germane. I take you believe there should be an age, just lower than it is today.

Phocion said...

The Sun Times ran an editorial today on this very topic, including the letters they received about the photo.

Anonymous said...

Fight For Justice, you're not too smart, I like that in a man (name that movie). And just becasue my example is not "germane" in Illinois becasue the age of consent is 17, does not mean that it isn't "germane" in a state that has 18 as age of consent, nor does it prohibit you to strain mentally and substitute "junior" and "senior" or "sophmore" and "junior" into the example. Arguing my point is worthless because I was off on the age of consent is intellectual cowardice. Further, if you could read I'm arguing that there should be no discreet statutory age at which one can consent. Puberty is my only absolute boundry. Can you read, did you read? And Dan you are right, but I don't think even the repubs on this blog would side with the religious freaks about "teaching" (if you can call it that) abstinence in lieu of meaningful information about sexuality.

Anonymous said...

Dude, please don't turn this comments section into a pointless pissing pool by insulting religious believers and others you don't agree with. Dan's got a nice little blog here.

Anonymous said...

Dude, relax, it's a blog. And dude, I'll insult religious believers all I want, thank you. If you are so narcissistic that you think we are made in God's image or that he has intent and consciouness and actively controls our lives and has a strict set of morals that you have the audacity to believe you could know, I'll insult away. Opiate of the masses? Yes. Moralility of fearful slaves? you bet. 2000 year old cults? No thanks. Go read "why I am not a Christian" by Betrand Russell Right now. I'm sorry if my comments upset your convenient comfort zone you remianin my lyingt to yourself. I know dealing with the truth of your existential situation is tough, but I encourage you to have the courage to confront it. It doesn't preclude God, just religion.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I'm relaxed. I just don't like to hang out with bigots. It's disappointing that Dan's blog is attracting folks like you.

Anonymous said...

Wow, what a frickin coward. The Republican Christian throws the bigot card down? Weak. Actually no, I'm not the bigot, because my criticism is founded in reason. I'm not a bigot because I condemn murderers. Why not? Because my condemnation is founded in reason and ethics. Actually, you are the bigot because you believe that any non-christian will rot in eternal hellfire. You see where the real bigotry lies all latent and sugar coated? Yes with you my friend and your resgignation and sublimation to irrational authority. See how easy it is to drop the bigot card, bigot? Why don't you defend yourself and your irrational and unsubstantiated beliefs rather than the cowardly path you chose. What would Jesus do? Oh yea, turn the other cheek. Right? oh wait, that would mean our supposedly Christian President is not behaving in accordance with Jesus' teachings. I guess he's just more old testament, right? Eye for an eye stuff. At least he has some sac. Coward. The future of an Illusion indeed.

Phocion said...

No problem Dan. Just next time, don't mention me in the same discussion as oral sex and masturbation.

Anonymous said...

So Mr. Religious freak guy, do you think teaching ignorance and lies to teenagers is a good idea? Tears can transmit AIDS? 25% of gay teenagers have AIDs, or whatever your lying Christian textbooks said. Do you object to showing kids what a condom is and how to put one on properly, and teaching them actaul science rather than lies about pregnancy and STDs? Aren't you going to defend your fellow Religious freaks and argue that God's law trumps reason and science, so teenagers should have information withled from them for the sake of one group's morality? Please do justify your position on "teaching" abstinence, becaue I promise you the only ones who advocate for this are people who belive God actually impregnated a girl with his child, and then sacrificed him to absove the common man's sins. The same people who beleive the Earth is only 6000 years old and that man and Dinasaurs walked the earth at the same time. Are you one of these people, Mr. Bigot?