15 Year-Old BackPage Prostitute Sentenced To 9-years In Prison

Tommy Monk wrote:Is it possible for a 12/13 year old girl to have consensual sex with a 12/13 year old boy?


If you say no then you are a liar...


If you say yes then you have just contradicted your claim that the 'other' MUST have been a man...!!!



Most amusing!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:More waffle and speculation...


Still didn't answer the question...


Try again?

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Is it possible for a 12/13 year old girl to have consensual sex with a 12/13 year old boy?


If you say no then you are a liar...


If you say yes then you have just contradicted your claim that the 'other' MUST have been a man...!!!



Most amusing!!!

Once more you are ignoring what I said and just putting your own slant on it.

I said a 12 year old girl CANNOT give consent to sexual intercourse.
Had the father also been 12 do you not think social services would be involved?
Make sense instead of waffling on clutching at straws.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:

Once more you are ignoring what I said and just putting your own slant on it.

I said a 12 year old girl CANNOT give consent to sexual intercourse.
Had the father also been 12 do you not think social services would be involved?
Make sense instead of waffling on clutching at straws.

Can a 12/13 year old girl have consensual sex with a 12/13 year old boy?


Yes or no?

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Can a 12/13 year old girl have consensual sex with a 12/13 year old boy?


Yes or no?

Legally NO...which I already answered  an hour and a half ago. .

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:

Legally NO...which I already answered  an hour and a half ago. .

So if this girl has had 2 children and is still under 16... and has not made any claim of being raped or abused by anyone else...


She should be arrested and prosecuted for having sex while underage...?

Syl wrote:Ruth Ellis the last woman to be hanged in the UK was certainly  shown no mercy.
There is no way she would be hung today even if the death penalty was reinstated.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

No you and others started it by making unsubstantiated claims that she was raped and/or that the father/s were adults who took advantage of her!!!

Wow...talk about twisting words to suit your own agenda.

I answered Rags point that she didn't learn by her first pregnancy by saying..."We don't know the circumstances, she COULD have been raped for all we know" I have never mentioned her father either.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


So if this girl has had 2 children and is still under 16... and has not made any claim of being raped or abused by anyone else...


She should be arrested and prosecuted for having sex while underage...?

Are you for real?

We don't know what the circumstances of her having 2 young kids by the age of 15 are.....but whatever they are SHE is not the one who would be arrested.
If it was another 12 year old (highly unlikely) but if it were social services would have been involved.
If...as is far more likely it was an adult male (possibly her father after reading the link) but any male over the age of consent....it is HE who should be arrested.

Now answer me a question....why do you blame a child instead of an adult when a minor is raped?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:Ruth Ellis the last woman to be hanged in the UK was certainly  shown no mercy.
There is no way she would be hung today even if the death penalty was reinstated.

Really? She went to a pub with a gun and shot a man in cold blood. She even chased him round the car and shot him when he tried to escape. Then she fired three more bullets into him when he was on the floor.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Are you for real?

We don't know what the circumstances of her having 2 young kids by the age of 15 are.....but whatever they are SHE is not the one who would be arrested.
If it was another 12 year old (highly unlikely) but if it were social services would have been involved.
If...as is far more likely it was an adult male (possibly her father after reading the link) but any male over the age of consent....it is HE who should be arrested.

Now answer me a question....why do you blame a child instead of an adult when a minor is raped?

So you think that a girl of 12 who has sex with a 12-year old boy is a victim, but a boy of 12 who has sex with a girl of 12 is not?

Tommy Monk wrote:The point is that this girl has never made any claim of being raped or abused!!!


Why would a 12/13 year old boy be guilty of anything for having sex with her?

If she would not also be just as guilty of the same thing for having sex with him...!?


Social services would of course be involved regardless... but have deemed it perfectly ok for her to carry on with the children... not just after the first but also with the second one too!!!



You have presented no facts or evidence about anything that you have been speculating about!!!

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Really? She went to a pub with a gun and shot a man in cold blood. She even chased him round the car and shot him when he tried to escape. Then she fired three more bullets into him when he was on the floor.

She did.....she shot her violent lover who had beaten her up so badly she had recently  lost the baby they were expecting.
She certainly would not be hanged today even if the death penalty was active.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Wow...talk about twisting words to suit your own agenda.

I answered Rags point that she didn't learn by her first pregnancy by saying..."We don't know the circumstances, she COULD have been raped for all we know" I have never mentioned her father either.

She could have been, but a second time?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

She did.....she shot her violent lover who had beaten her up so badly she had recently  lost the baby they were expecting.
She certainly would not be hanged today even if the death penalty was active.

It was no excuse. It was not self defence, and she should have dumped him long before any of that happened. She had an abortion previously, so she should have been more careful. He wanted out but she went looking for him to shoot him. She would certainly have got a very long prison sentence today.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It was no excuse. It was not self defence, and she should have dumped him long before any of that happened. She had an abortion previously, so she should have been more careful. He wanted out but she went looking for him to shoot him. She would certainly have got a very long prison sentence today.

Prison yes....death sentence No...It was a travesty of justice. If we had such a thing as a crime of passion that is what this would have been.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Prison yes....death sentence No...It was a travesty of justice. If we had such a thing as a crime of passion that is what this would have been.

She would have got a long prison sentence today because we don't have the death penalty any more.

It was cold-blooded murder - there's no two ways about it. All she had to do was walk away from him.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

She would have got a long prison sentence today because we don't have the death penalty any more.

It was cold-blooded murder - there's no two ways about it. All she had to do was walk away from him.

Easy to say...obviously if it was as easy to do there would be no battered wives/husbands or repeat  domestic violence of any nature.

Tommy Monk wrote:Guilt is decided by jury on evidence  

The award of sentencing is down to the judge.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Guilt is decided by jury on evidence  

The award of sentencing is down to the judge.

Not in the US.  Remember, this is a US case.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:And the likelyhood of her being a willing and consenting participant and the other being of similar age is undisputed...


Is there any evidence to the contrary?


Has she ever claimed otherwise?

As she would have been a 12 year old when she first became pregnant, she would have been in law unable to give consent to sexual intercourse

But talking to the man who cited the dragons den perverted paedophile who got away with having sex with a  4 ft something, six stone 13 year old....I'm not surprised we cant agree seeing as you have set the bar so low..

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Not in the US.  Remember, this is a US case.

Care to elaborate?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Care to elaborate?

Yes, tommy was quoting British law.  This was not a British case.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, tommy was quoting British law.  This was not a British case.

So would you like to elaborate on what Tommy was mistaken about? In other words, who decides the guilt and the sentence in the US?

eddie wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:

  

Hint hint!
Moved to criminology

Conflicts Still on the Books
Four other states -- Maryland, Florida, Oklahoma and Kentucky -- still have conflicts between their laws on statutory rape and underage marriage in the case of pregnancy.

Maryland allows pregnant 16 and 17 - year - olds to marry without parental consent. A pregnant 15 - year - old can marry provided a parent agrees to it.

Judges in Florida, Oklahoma and Kentucky can grant or refuse a marriage license to a pregnant minor of any age, regardless of their parents' consent.

County clerks and family law attorneys in some of these states told Women's eNews that the legal contradiction was not an issue, either because it applied to too few marriages or because nothing had brought the conflict to legislators' attention.

"Sometimes legislative priorities are driven by circumstances," says Cindy Callahan, secretary of the Maryland State Bar Association's family and juvenile law section council. "In some ways it's not an issue because it hasn't been raised."

Conflicts between marriage and criminal codes can, however, embarrass a state when a case receives national media attention.

Georgia eliminated the pregnancy provision from its code in 2006 after 37 - year - old Lisa Lynette Clark was charged with child molestation, statutory rape and enticing a minor days after marrying the 15 - year - old who impregnated her.

Legal History
Rigel Oliveri, associate professor of law at the University of Missouri, says the history of statutory rape laws helps explain how these states have come to sanction and condemn the same act.

Oliveri, an expert on statutory rape laws, says the laws, which entered the U.S. legal system by way of English common law, were first intended to make men "take responsibility for a problem they created."

Today, she says, one of the legal rationales for statutory rape laws is to protect minors from predatory adults. But the laws' original intent of limiting out - of - wedlock births was complemented -- rather than contradicted -- by pregnancy exceptions that states placed on age restrictions on marriage.

Marriage is a permissible defense to statutory rape in all states and most legal cases. But it is not always successful, adding to the legal muddle over statutory rape and legal grounds for marrying a minor.

**Koso began dating a 12 - year - old when he was 20 and he impregnated her when she was 13. They then married in May 2005, shortly after her 14th birthday, by crossing into Kansas because the state, at the time, set no minimum age for marriage if the minor had parental permission. (That has since changed; Kansas instituted a minimum age of 15 a year later, in May 2006.)

But Nebraska's Attorney General Jon Bruning charged Koso with breaking the state's statutory rape laws and charged him with first - degree sexual assault in July 2005. Last month Matthew Koso, 24, was released from a Nebraska prison after serving 15 months for statutory rape. Critics attacked Bruning for prosecuting a man they said was shouldering responsibility for the child he fathered.  Boulden has heard similar arguments since he began pressing for change in Delaware.

People told him to "leave well enough alone," that if "a gentleman wants to step up and take responsibility and form a family unit, who is government to get involved in that process?"

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
Really? She went to a pub with a gun and shot a man in cold blood. She even chased him round the car and shot him when he tried to escape. Then she fired three more bullets into him when he was on the floor.

She did.....she shot her violent lover who had beaten her up so badly she had recently  lost the baby they were expecting.
She certainly would not be hanged today even if the death penalty was active.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So would you like to elaborate on what Tommy was mistaken about? In other words, who decides the guilt and the sentence in the US?

It's a mixture in the US.  Sometimes the judge, sometimes the jury, sometimes the jury gives an advisory recommendation, sometimes the legislature attaches a mandatory sentence, and sometimes it depends upon the charge.  

For example, in capital punishment cases juries are typically left with the decision as to whether death is appropriate.  Also, when a statute sets out factual circumstances that can produce a harsher sentence (for example, the use of a weapon in the commission of a crime), a judge cannot impose the harsher punishment unless the jury concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the circumstances were present.

There are 50-plus jurisdictions in the US.  Each with its own set of laws.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

As she would have been a 12 year old when she first became pregnant, she would have been in law unable to give consent to sexual intercourse

But talking to the man who cited the dragons den perverted paedophile who got away with having sex with a  4 ft something, six stone 13 year old....I'm not surprised we cant agree seeing as you have set the bar so low..

That's not the issue.  She was arrested for armed robbery and kidnapping.  Her status as a minor is only relevant to the issue of whether she should be tried as an adult.  

Paedophilia is not an issue.  If you want to change the law, start by writing your legislator.  Good luck.

If you think someone else should be prosecuted, for whatever, write to the relevant Michigan county prosecutor.  That's not a defense to her case.

4EVER2 wrote:

Syl wrote:
She did.....she shot her violent lover who had beaten her up so badly she had recently  lost the baby they were expecting.
She certainly would not be hanged today even if the death penalty was active.

GEEZE LOUISE, people; between trying to keep this USA case out of the British legal system standard law books and some of you good people dredging up some ole cases that --- well, I'm as confused as if my short term memory just went hay wire/ape shit nuts!   
I'd say 'don't drive me crazy - but that's more like a PUTT, not much of a DRIVE!'  

Could it be possible for all of us that enjoy picking at these legal cases to gently agree to some ground rules, like:
1.) keep it to this one case at a time
2.) try to avid mixing British Law with USA law and twisting the topic further
3.) conversations are going to flow and questions get raised but going off topic with some many other 'old cases' that none of us Americans are familiar with --- adversely we Americans could start rattling off multiple court cases that none of you British are aware of and that would just convolute the topic.

So could we agree to keep the cases as snugged into just the one-at-a-time-per-topic?
PLEASE???

4EVER2 wrote:

Syl wrote:
She did.....she shot her violent lover who had beaten her up so badly she had recently  lost the baby they were expecting.
She certainly would not be hanged today even if the death penalty was active.

GEEZE LOUISE, people; between trying to keep this USA case out of the British legal system standard law books and some of you good people dredging up some ole cases that --- well, I'm as confused as if my short term memory just went hay wire/ape shit nuts!   
I'd say 'don't drive me crazy - but that's more like a PUTT, not much of a DRIVE!'  

Could it be possible for all of us that enjoy picking at these legal cases to gently agree to some ground rules, like:
1.) keep it to this one case at a time
2.) try to avid mixing British Law with USA law and twisting the topic further
3.) conversations are going to flow and questions get raised but going off topic with some many other 'old cases' that none of us Americans are familiar with --- adversely we Americans could start rattling off multiple court cases that none of you British are aware of and that would just convolute the topic.

So could we agree to keep the cases as snugged into just the one-at-a-time-per-topic?
PLEASE???

Raggs stated > Sure, when you stop going off topic in order to start a personal fight with someone.

4EVER2 wrote:

Raggs stated > Sure, when you stop going off topic in order to start a personal fight with someone.

Well, well --- and this is where you started; it would appear that you and your TROLL buddy HT have an agenda this fine morning of just trolling my every post and maintaining your pack attack methods   

And your brilliant self-inflicted hypocritical post right   would need to be explained to you in graphic detail    Life must be very boring for you and that is just SAD. 

4EVER2 wrote:TOUCHÉ and TY, for continuing to prove my point.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's not the issue.  She was arrested for armed robbery and kidnapping.  Her status as a minor is only relevant to the issue of whether she should be tried as an adult.  

Paedophilia is not an issue.  If you want to change the law, start by writing your legislator.  Good luck.

If you think someone else should be prosecuted, for whatever, write to the relevant Michigan county prosecutor.  That's not a defense to her case.

I am aware of this Quill. I was answering questions that Tommy was repeating (several times over) about the girl in the OP having sex at an age below consent.
He cited a case that happened here in the UK.....which is what that post was about.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:
I am aware of this Quill. I was answering questions that Tommy was repeating (several times over) about the girl in the OP having sex at an age below consent.
He cited a case that happened here in the UK.....which is what that post was about.

Yes, my post was directed to tommy as well.  I was frustrated at the discussion being distracted by a point that confuses the issue.  Certainly, it is equitable to say that there are other crimes taking place, but they are not a defense to the one.

Original Quill wrote:She is charged as an adult by prosecutorial discretion.  In most jurisdictions, then, a court will pass on the decision.  She doesn’t have the choice of “being tried separately as a juvenile.”

A ‘plea’ is an agreement between the prosecutor and the accused.  The bargained-for-exchange is that the accused admits to the crime (pleads), and the state promises some reduction of charge, or leniency (or other consideration) in sentencing.  The stakes are simply, you could lose and end up with a worse result.

The “horrible history” is relevant only to the sentence.  It has no bearing on the liability for the crime.

I personally think the kidnapping charge scared her more than the armed robbery.  Her attorneys could have argued to the jury all the things we have considered—compressed air gun, not firearm, etc.—but kidnapping (with a possible gun enhancement) is a pretty serious matter, with some possible stiff penalties.  It’s also a federal crime.

Without all the nonsense about her being a ‘poor, vulnerable child,’ she did do some pretty bad things.  Nine years ain’t bad.  With time off, she’ll serve three, at best.

Tommy Monk wrote:A 12/13 year old girl and boy can end up having sex together and both being willing participants.


You don't know that this isn't the case it with this girl.


However it is irrelevant to the crime of premeditated armed robbery.