Hmmmm.............................

...........................einkennilegur dómur hjá íslenskum dómstólum???? Þau voru/eru nú kærustupar????

Og hérna er dæmi hjá Bandarikjamönnum:

Sex Jail and the Double Standard with Boys and Girls having sex..

Teens / Children - Teens / Children

After a 17-year-old boy had sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend, he was charged with a felony for statutory rape. When a 17-year-old girl in the same town committed the same crime, she was charged with far less. Was the boy the victim of gender bias?

Alan Jepsen was playing video games at his home in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, when the cops came knocking on his door. He was handcuffed in front of his sister and thrown in jail. In the words of his attorney, Jeffrey Purnell, “This child, this 17-year-old high-school kid, had to spend a week in jail—they locked him up and they put him in jail with grown-ups.”

His crime: Having sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend. And, perhaps, being a boy.

“These are kids,” said Purnell. “It’s ridiculous. Lawmakers criminalize common behavior among children, and it’s frustrating, really.”

The day after Alan's arrest, Sheboygan authorities arrested Norma Guthrie, also 17, for having sex with her 14-year-old boyfriend. Norma, however, did not have to spend a single day in jail. She was released immediately, on signature bond, while Alan was held on a $1,000 cash bond, which his family could not afford. Sheboygan County Assistant District Attorney Jim Haasch is handling both cases.

The disparity in the punishment of these 17-year-olds, both accused of having sex with the 14-year-olds they were dating, goes much deeper. Haasch charged Alan with a Class C felony, which, according to court records obtained by The Daily Beast, carries a maximum prison sentence of 40 years. Norma, on the other hand, was charged only with a misdemeanor, which carries a maximum sentence of nine months in jail.

The cases caught the attention of the local press, generating a heated debate over whether Alan is being given harsher treatment simply because he is a boy. “After all,” said Purnell, “this isn’t one district attorney in Tennessee and one in New York deciding how to charge these cases. This wasn’t even one district attorney in one county in Wisconsin and another county in Wisconsin. No, this was the same guy who charged these two cases.”

The district attorney’s office refused to comment, but experts say it would not be far-fetched to assume that Alan has been the victim of bias. According to Dr. Marty Klein, author of America’s War on Sex, “the double standard is not unusual. It is unusual to find such an extraordinarily clear example of it, but the philosophy behind the phenomenon is very common.”

Last month, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a 14-year-old high-school freshman accused of statutory rape was the victim of gender discrimination in a case involving him and three girls with whom he had been sexually active. Two of the girls were 12, and one was 11.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall pointed out that even though both the boy and girls involved were under the age of consent, “the boy was the only child charged with statutory rape, or any offense, as a result of the incidents alleged, and he was the only male among the four children.” Furthermore, she added, “the district attorney affirmatively declined to bring charges against the female children where the facts described by the girls could be viewed as contravening those same laws by them.”

While Suzanne Goldberg, who teaches sexuality and gender law at Columbia Law School, acknowledged that “every case has to be dealt with individually,” she said she believes “a state would be inclined to punish young men more harshly than young women because young men are often seen as aggressors in adolescent sexual contact.”

According to Dr. Klein, however, the double standard emerged from the historical treatment of women as the property of men. “Women were not considered to be sexually autonomous beings,” he said. “Their sexuality was never considered to be a weapon. It was never considered that it could damage somebody else’s property. But men have the ability to damage another man’s property with their sexuality by violating their daughter or by violating their wife. So just bring that system of thinking forward into the present day and you get 17-year-old boys that are still considered to have the potential of damaging something with their sexuality, while it’s much harder for people to imagine a 17-year-old girl causing harm with her sexuality.”

That seems to be what District Attorney Haasch had in mind when he charged Alan and Norma. There is nothing in the record to explain why Alan should be treated so severely. The difference in age between Norma and her boyfriend, for example, is actually greater than that between Alan and his girlfriend. Although both perpetrators were 17 and both victims 14 at the time of the alleged abuse, Norma is two years and 11 months older than her boyfriend, whereas Alan is two years and four months older than his girlfriend. Court records also show that Alan admitted to having had sex with his girlfriend “two or three times,” while Norma said she and her boyfriend had sex “somewhere between 10 and 15 times, but she was not exactly sure.”

Alan’s 19 year-old sister, Kathy Jepsen, has a simple explanation for the charges. “It’s bullshit [is] what it really comes to,” she said in an email, adding that “our court system is messed up in Sheboygan.” Asked if she believes young men deserve harsher punishment, she responded: “No, I don’t believe that; we should all take responsibility for what we do, whether you’re a boy or girl. We are all human, but where the law is concerned we are not equal. They should change that.”

According to Kathy, Alan's girlfriend told him she was 16. The criminal complaint against Alan confirms this, and reveals that his girlfriend lied to the police, as well. She was at Alan and Kathy’s apartment at the time of the arrest, and told the officers twice that she was 16. One of them “then advised [his girlfriend] that if she was not truthful with the officer, she possibly would be arrested for obstructing if she lied about her age, at which point [his girlfriend] looked down at her feet, looked back at the officer, and said she was 14. Immediately when the defendant [Alan] learned of this, his body tensed up and he got a scowl on his face.”

At that point, said Kathy, “I was pissed off and wanted to hit her, but there were three cops in my apartment, so I couldn’t.”

Kathy’s anger is understandable. “This issue has embarrassed our family,” she said. “I mean, how can you give somebody your name, or face your co-workers? People look at you different.”

Purnell shares her frustration, and points out that the root of the problem is not the double standard, but the fact that Alan or Norma could be prosecuted to begin with. “These are kids,” he said. “It’s ridiculous. Lawmakers criminalize common behavior among children, and it’s frustrating, really.”

Dr. Klein agrees. “What is fundamentally not fair,” he said, “is treating consensual sex between teenagers as a crime in the first place. Once you criminalize sex between teenagers, then it’s only a matter of how much harm you’re going to cause; how much destruction you’re going to bring into people’s lives. In the case of the 17-year-old girl, you’re bringing in a small amount of destruction into her life. In the case of the 17-year-old boy, you’re bringing a lot of destruction into his life.”

Alan has not yet been convicted, and his lawyer is negotiating a plea agreement. In the meantime, as Norma and other 17-year-olds look forward to finishing high school, Alan is left wondering if he will be able to come back for his senior year. He might be in prison by then.

Constantino Diaz-Duran is a writer living in Manhattan. He has written for the New York Post, the Washington Blade, El Diario NY and the Orange County Register.

SOURCE

Tekið af þessar síðu.

Legal Issues - Legal Issues

 

 

Mark Lunsford, The Father of This Boy, Was caught with Child Pornography on his computer when the police and FBI did a search of his home when his daughter Jessica dissappeared.

 

 

 

The investigators found Child Pornography on Mark Lunsford's Computer

The outcome of this case has caused significant controversy, especially in light of the fact that child pornography was found on Mark Lunsford's computer by police in Florida shortly after Jessica Lunsford was murdered, yet Mark Lunsford was not prosecuted for possession of child pornography.^{[14][15][16][17]}

And today, Mark Lunsford was at a National Hearing on the Sex Offender Notification Act, Begging for More Money... He has made a killing off of the death of his daughter. Now, he is trying to make more money off the tax payers of America.

While not only his Son, Joshua is exempt from the very laws Mr. Lunsford is pushing, but also He Himself is exempt... how many people do you know who can get caught with little children, naked and having sex with adults on their computers... and the Police turn their backs on it and NOT prosecute? Only people like Mark Lunsford, Judge Kent... and Mark Foley.. those with connections are exempt from their own sex offender legislation... Note, it was a Judge from Florida... Florida who let Judge Kent walk on 4 Felony Sex Charged if he confessed to 1 count of lying!

It seems Florida has a thing for protecting their own SEX OFFENDERS LIKE Mark Foley, Mark Lunsford and Judge Kent!

 

This Guy's Dad, is the Dad who got Jessica's Law put into place!

Jessica's Law is the informal name given to a 2005 Florida law, as well as laws in several other states, designed to punish sex offenders and reduce their ability to re-offend. A version of Jessica's Law has been introduced on the federal level, known as the Jessica Lunsford Act.

The name is also used by the media to designate all legislation and potential legislation in other states modeled after the Florida law. Forty-two states have introduced such legislation since Florida's law was passed.^[1]

The law is named after Jessica Lunsford, a young Florida girl who was raped and murdered in February 2005 by John Couey, a previously convicted sex offender. Public outrage over this case spurred Florida officials to introduce this legislation. Among the key provisions of the law are a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years in prison^[2] and lifetime electronic monitoring^[3] of adults convicted of lewd or lascivious acts against a victim less than 12 years old. In Florida, sexual battery or rape of a child less than twelve years old is punishable only by life imprisonment with no chance of parole.^[4]

SOURCE

But look what Being Connected to the Famous will get your son in America...

Mark Lunsfords son will spend the next 10 days in jail, but will not be registered as a sex offender after being sentenced Monday for having unlawful sexual contact with a 14-year-old ...  Watch the Video.

The question is NOT is is ok in some cases for an 18 year old to have sex with a 14 year old. The Question is Why, Mark Lunsford, who went all over the nation speaking out about Sex Offender laws.. getting tough laws put into place, can get his son off on this charge of Child Molestation, when HE is the one who helped put these laws into place.

Again, the connected go free, and the rest go to prison and on the Sex Offender Registry to be shamed and punished for life. I would love to hear your thoughts on this video.

In another case, a 17 year old boy had sex with a 13 year old girl He has Lifetime Registration as a Child Predator... even though the girl Lied and said she was 16! OMG!

Ironically, almost two years after Mark Lunsford's nationwide campaign to significantly increase the sentences and release conditions for sex offenses, Jessica Lunsford's older brother, Joshua Lunsford, was charged in Clark County District Court with "unlawful sexual conduct with a minor." The incident involves a 14-year-old girl outside of the Upper Valley Mall in Springfield, Ohio.^[7][8][9] Joshua Lunsford was 18 at the time.^[10] Joshua wore a shirt emblazoned with a photograph of his slain sister to court on the day that he originally plead "not guilty",^[11] which has become a source of significant criticism against the Lunsfords.^[12] In July 2007, Joshua Lunsford accepted a plea bargain in which the original charge of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, a felony offense subject to sex offender registration, was dropped to a misdemeanor charge of unlawful sexual conduct.^[13] He was ordered to undergo "sex offender assessment," but the law under which the plea was made does not call for mandatory sex offender registration. The outcome of this case has caused significant controversy, especially in light of the fact that child pornography was found on Mark Lunsford's computer by police in Florida shortly after Jessica Lunsford was murdered, yet Mark Lunsford was not prosecuted for possession of child pornography.^{[14][15][16][17]}

 John Walsh of America's Most Wanted and Bill O'Reilly of The O'Reilly Factor have been vocal proponents of Jessica's Law, arguing that children have to be protected and that child sex offenders have to be held to a much higher standard. O'Reilly points out that the states of Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Hawaii and Vermont have shown reluctance and refused to pass a Jessica's Law in their respective state legislatures.^[8] He claims that Utah, North Carolina and New Mexico are inconclusive while all other states are either moving in the direction of passing a Jessica's Law or have already passed some form of it. North Carolina passed the Jessica Lunsford Act in 2008.

Why are children who fall under the very same law which Lunsford's Father had put into place, NOT being protected from these laws?

Because their is a double standard. The politicians and those connected to them, are exempt from their own lawmaking.

 

 

Advocates for convicted sex offenders claim that the civil rights of convicted persons and their non-offending family members is forever affected, long after the punishment has ended. Internet publication of sex offenders home addresses continues to be upheld by the court in the name of public safety, although April 2006 vigilante type murders in Maine^[6] have brought new concerns of misuse of the registry and for the safety of nonoffending family members by private parties. Missouri civil rights attorney Arthur Benson currently waits decision from the Missouri Supreme Court regarding the Sex Offenders Registration Act SORA Litigation, Jane Doe I, et al. v. Thomas Phillips et al. ^[7] which "contends the act violates substantive due process rights and equal protection rights because it infringes on fundamental liberty rights, imposes a lifetime stigma, has no express purpose and, even if it serves a compelling interest, is not narrowly tailored or rationally related to that interest. They assert that, if the act is deemed to be criminal in nature, it violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws because it imposes an additional punishment, thereby altering the consequences for a crime for which they already have been sentenced."

Some controversy exists regarding how a person becomes labeled as a sex offender. Most Americans believe that the registry lists convicted child molesters when in actuality, some offenders listed on the Registries have been convicted of non-violent offenses, which involve no visible victim or no physical contact. An example of such would include online talk with an undercover police officer posing as an underage minor. Teenagers involved in a consensual sexual relationship, known as "Romeo and Juliet" relationships, with the male or female partner considered underage in the eyes of the law, may also be listed as sex offenders on the nation's registries. However, they would not be affected by a Jessica's Law such as the one in Florida, since such laws only apply to pedophiles who have committed offences with victims under the age of 12. Most charged persons lack adequate funding for a legal defense to fight such charges. The result is a plea bargain, which in some states, is followed by automatic sexual-offender registration regardless of judicial discretion, such as decreed by Florida Statute 943.0436 ^[5]. Registration is for life or 20 years, whatever comes first. Advocates against such legislation believe politicians have run unchecked with this issue, due to guaranteed press coverage, easy votes and the guarantee of federal funding for law enforcement with the passage of one new sex offender law annually. An overhaul of the nation's registries through the incorporation of a tier level system is advocated as a method which would allow the public to more accurately determine the risk of a registered offender living in their neighborhood while allowing law enforcement to more effectively supervise those considered truly dangerous not only to children but also to women and the elderly.

References

1. ^ Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly's official website keeps track of states either moving towards or against the passage of a Jessica's law. See BillOReilly.com: Jessica's Law
2. ^ Florida Statute 800.04
3. ^ Florida Statute 947.1405
4. ^ Florida Statute 794.011
5. ^ Welcome : Online Sunshine
6. ^ Benson & Associates
7. ^ Supreme Court Home Page
8. ^ "http://www.billoreilly.com/outragefunnels" BillOReilly.com: Jessica's Law

• Arthur A. Benson II. Jane Doe I, et al. v. Thomas Phillips et al. (Case No. SC86573). May 2006.
• Carl Jones. "Porn Law Goes Too Far". Daily Business Review. April 10, 2006.
• Internet Broadcasting Systems and Local6.com. "Groups Propose Tier System For Sex Registry". May 2006.
• Rebecca Van Drunen. Confederation College. "Outcast Society: A Closer Look at North American Sexual Offenders in the Twenty-First Century". May 5, 2006.
• Sharon Wilson. "Sex Offenders: The Other Side". Orlando Sentinel. 10/23/2005.

Tekið af þessari síðu.

 

Dæmdur fyrir samræði við 14 ára stúlku

Athugasemdir

[Fannar (IP-tala skráð) 26.3.2009 kl. 23:11]

Einkennilegur dómur hjá íslenskum dómstólum spyrðu, svarið er nei, dómari þessa máls gat ekki dæmt vægari refsingu. 2007 var þessi aldur færður upp um 1 ár úr 14 í 15 og sú grein sem ákært er fyrir í máli þessu og viðurkennt að hafi verið brotið gegn hljóðar svona:

Hver sem hefur samræði eða önnur kynferðismök við barn, yngra en [15 ára],¹⁾ skal sæta fangelsi [ekki skemur en 1 ár og allt að 16 árum].¹⁾ …²⁾ [Lækka má refsingu eða láta hana falla niður, ef gerandi og þolandi eru á svipuðum aldri og þroskastigi.

 Þarna er hugtakið svipaður aldur hugsað til að koma í veg fyrir að 15 ára strákur í 9 bekk sem sefur hjá 14 ára kærustu sinni í sama bekk væri dæmdur.  Hinsvegar hafa mörkin verið dregin við 18 ára aldurinn, eða sjálfræðisaldur nema um sérstakan vanþroska sé að ræða.

Í þessu máli dæmir dómarinn því drenginn í lægstu leyfilegu refsingu fyrir "glæpinn" og skilorðsbindur hana að fullu. Þá dæmir hann drenginn auk þess til að greiða 0.kr. í bætur þar sem ekki hafi verið sýnt fram á neitt bótaskylt tjón af hálfu stelpunnar.

 Spurning þín ætti því frekar að vera hvort lögin séu einkennileg.

[Gunni (IP-tala skráð) 27.3.2009 kl. 03:49]

það er samt ekki rétt... "Maðurinn þarf hins vegar að greiða rúmar 400 þúsund krónur í sakarkostnað." rúm hálf milljón er soldið mikill peningur fyrir tvítugan strák !