Posted on 02/26/2004 6:26:20 AM PST by A. Pole
Somehow I'm not surprised YOU would have to "wonder" about that. That speaks volumes about you!
You apparently deny the phenomenon of raging adolescent hormones. Further, the answer arising from your denial is three years imprisonment for a seventeen year old kid as opposed to old fashioned parental intervention.
That speaks volumes about YOU.
Texas also has 3 year law, so the boy would have been on safe legal ground.
"Whether or not in those times, girls were married at 12 or 13, is irrelevant."
Well, I think it's relevant in that today we're trying to say that teenagers are children, when biologically they are of marriageble age. When our ideas are out of step with biological reality, policies based on those ideas aren't going to work very well.
"Are we or are we not going to support a parent's right and responsibilities to determine the best course for their children?...Because this kid wouldn't obey the law, this father should now knock this kid on his butt a few times and risk assault charges so the HE's in jail for assault on a minor?"
I think we should support the father by not bringing him up on assault charges for that.
One effect of this panywaist, "Oh, you can never hit anyone," idea that has had sway for decades is that we have eliminated lesser measures and lesser punishments. You have to go straight from civil speech to three years in jail. It was much better when we had a graduated scale of measures between disagreement and prison.
"Disproportionate or not, that's life."
It is one of the fundamental principles of our justice system that the punishment fit the crime. Sentencing a teenager to three years for fooling around with another teenager is unjust, IMO.
"In this day and age, a parent can't go knock someone around without going to jail and at the same time, the courts don't come down on the creeps. Parents lose both ways."
Yes, that's true, and I think that's one of the objectives of the "no hitting" weiners. Part of the attack on the family. However, I don't think we should respond to that with long prison sentences for horny teenagers, buy by freeing parents to protect their kids themselves.
Judge: "What happened here?"
ACLU DA: "This brutal man struck this poor 17-year-old child right in the mouth."
Judge: "Why?"
ACLU DA: "For trying to nail his 14-year-old daughter, and refusing to stay away from her."
Judge: "You are disbarred. Case dismissed."
"This time a parent got the support he deserved."
Another way to look at it is that the state substituted itself for the father, after depriving him of his natural right to protect his family as he sees fit.
i agree.
but this is still is the only time i've seen where the justice system, which took power away from the family, at least backed the family. about damned time, i say.
Probably.
It was my pleasure. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.