694
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2024
694 points (99.2% liked)
politics
19239 readers
1970 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Fixed: Matt Gaetz, former Trump AG pick, ha~~d sex with~~ raped an underage girl while in Congress, House Ethics report says
A minor cannot consent.
In Florida a 17 year old can consent.
Matt Gaetz being older than 24 is the illegal part. He groomed a young girl.
Also, because he paid her, then the offense involves the procurement of a person who is under 18 years of age, so the charge increases to a second degree felony, which can result in up to 15 years of imprisonment, a fine of up to $10,000, or both.
No she couldn't consent to anyone over 24, which he was. Also, I would have to play catch-up, but if this is one of the girls he flew to New Jersey to have sex with... It's sex trafficking a minor right?
I think consent is the wrong word here. A 17 year old can consent to a subgroup of people (under 24). Therfore she is above the age of consent.
The girl has full control over her decisions but, more importantly, should not be charged with any crime.
Gaetz on the other hand ...
If it only costs $10,000 to do that then it's only illegal for poor people
Welcome to America.
Where "Speeding fine" has totally opposite meanings depending on how rich you are.
Isn't it a felony above a certain amount of speed, though?
That needs to be proven. An expensive traffic ticket attorney could get the charges dismissed (scrutinize the evidence, challenge the officer’s observations, find fault in equipment etc.).
https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96698
I think 25+ is wreckless endangerment or some such and more illegal than other types of speeding. This is all based on my shitty memory. I just generally don't speed.
I don't know about this case, I can definitely imagine him raping that girl.
But from a European perspective, saying minors cannot consent is definitely one of these very stupid US takes. It is honestly insane that in the US 18 is treated like a god, and if one partner is some months older, it's illegal.
Obviously, minors can generally be influenced more easily than older people, and it's important to have safeguards in place, but such a statement is just genuinely ridiculous.
That’s not the case in this scenario, and rarely is. It varies by state, but Romeo and Juliet laws are common, which cover these kinds of circumstances.
Basically, the law will set an acceptable age gap where consent can happen; If the gap is 5 years, then a 17 year old won’t be able to consent to sex with a 30 year old, but can with an 18-22 year old. So it helps maintain the “this is obviously a child who was groomed by a creepy middle-aged person” statutory rape laws, while still allowing kids to date each other.
In some states they just straight up do the European thing where all that matters is being at least 16. In my state the age of consent is 16 and that's also the age where you can be tried as an adult. They recently voted on whether or not to raise the age, and they decided no.
There is still push for that to be changed, though only for the age of being tried as an adult. The former they're kinda keen on keeping where it is.
You'll be relieved to know that this is never the case.
Let me tell you about Wisconsin: We regularly bump 17-year-old offenders into adult court. So, yes, we have had cases of 17-year-old couples tried as adults for having sex with a minor after they had sex with each other.
If the implication of that fact hasn't sunk in I'll make it explicit: We treat them as adults for the purposes of being a criminal, and a minor for the purposes of being a victim.
Ok that one is on me. I don't know why I expected Romeo and Juliet clauses to have some level of consistency in all states.
Actually it happens all the time