 | | Re: Girlfriends Guardians!!! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) I was thinking of posting about being leery of age of consent issues myself, but you have hit it on the head, James... The age of consent in Michigan is 16. Unless you're both 16 or older you are in a world of trouble if they want to *make* (...) (23 years ago, 1-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Girlfriends Guardians!!! —Rick Hallman
|
| | | | | (...) We are both over age 16. She is 18, turned that today did she. :) (...) She is 18, as I said before, and if i understand what you and James are saying this makes her an adult and willing to do as she pleases. And my parents love her, I just (...) (23 years ago, 1-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Girlfriends Guardians!!! —Aaron Dalan
|
| | | | | | (...) Just noticed this thread while trying to find info on clones, but anyway. I am an attorney in Washington State. It sounds like you would be safe from any criminal prosecutions if you had sexual relations (although she would not necessarily (...) (23 years ago, 1-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Girlfriends Guardians!!! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | This doesn't really apply to the root question anymore, but... (...) I've wondered about that as well. On one hand, if a medically demonstrable risk continues to exist that an individual will commit a crime again, is it not in the public's interest (...) (23 years ago, 1-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Girlfriends Guardians!!! —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | (...) Yes. (...) Yes. (...) But why should the rest of society have to live with the possibility that the offender's behavior may not be controlled? Or the possibility that the offender may decide not to show up for his Depo Provera treatment (or (...) (23 years ago, 1-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Girlfriends Guardians!!! —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) I don't think so. But only because I think that they should remain in treatment until they do not pose a credible threat. (...) They need more help than punishment if that's what you you both mean. (...) What's the difference between them and (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Girlfriends Guardians!!! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Do you allow for life-long treatment, even if that treatment necessitates incarceration? I ask because if there's an organic flaw in the brain chemistry, then the individual is realistically a threat forever. (...) By "stringent controls" I (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Girlfriends Guardians!!! —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) I think so. I mean, if they're a threat, then we can't very well let them just hang out and hurt people. If we can fix them, then obviously we do. But in most cases I think psychiatry is a waiting game until they just get over it...if they (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Girlfriends Guardians!!! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) When I said "that" I was referring to someone being tagged as a sex offender (for statutory rape if both parties "consent", that is, no violence was involved, and both parties are under age. (yes they might be below the age of consent...)) for (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
