I'm ignoring the stuff that seems metaphysical or nonsensical. Feel free to reiterate if you think I missed something that was useful.
Well as long as YOU know it wasn't sexual, I guess the fact that this poor b*stard has to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life doesn't matter? The fact that he was CONVICTED proves the current law is too ambiguous, unless we believe he was RIGHTLY convicted.
This doesn't prove the law is ambigous; it proves the person judging the law isn't competent. Like I said, that's indecent exposure. Also, if you know the intimate details of the case, you should show them.
So an 84 year old woman who sexes up a 70 year old man is a statutory rapist? Interesting theory, please subscribe me to your newsletter.
Don't see how seniors are the same as teenagers.
Please cite a source for this.
http://www.edinformatics.com/news/teenage_brains.htm
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/pspi/pspi7_1.pdf
Part that gets me is that in it there was a statement that risky behaviors go down when teens are being monitored. Now if it takes a law because some parents aren't doing their jobs, cool.
Again, I'll have to see the study that shows a statistical difference in say, 16 vs 18 year olds, or 15 vs 16 year olds.
Actually, it's answered in the first source since a normal brain matures till the early 20's. So as the a child gets older, they get a little less impulsive.
There is no evidence that allowing citizens to purchase cars that are capable of driving over 85 mph "benefit only a certain segment of society. So truthfully, I can't see where it's a bad law" to proscribe their sale.
No, but there are speed limits that were put in place first because of gas of consumption, and second because of the risks of driving at a high speed. I mean, you can buy a fast car, but that doesn't mean you're a great driver. Anybody can put a pedal down to the floor, but it's another thing you hit a skid at 70 miles per hour and have to know what to do afterward. That's the way I see this law.
There is a strong history in American law that says it's better for 1000 guilty men to go free than a single innocent man be punished. I believe this is a gold standard worth living up to. I'd like to see the idea of "child molester" restricted to people who are clearly children, and if we decide to legislate for older minors, we should differentiate the two, and if we want to punish things like indecent exposure, that should be clearly under a different umbrella as well.