Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments
I don't think that's correct in this case. Sex with someone who is between the ages of 14-16 years old would only be legal for someone who is married to the teenager or who is no more than 5 years older than the teenager. Otherwise, it's a first degree sex assault. I am assuming Rep. Bertram's friend wasn't married to the teenager he allegedly tried to solicit nor was he under the age of 20. I seem to recall they built in this "step" in the age of consent law to take into account teenagers who may think they've fallen in love (or lust) with each other and thus have sex together but still exclude adult sexual predators from targeting minors.
As to whether it should still be a crime if no child was actually hurt ~ that is an interesting point with child pornograph as well where the porn is computer generated or generated by means other than using actual children. Some argue that no actual child was harmed in producing that kind of child porn while others argue that the harm is in encouraging an interest in child porn and that protecting children from that kind of potential harm is such a serious concern that it outweighs anyone else's "rights" to produce or view child porn even if no child was used to make the porn. I suspect the solicitation law falls on the side that doing all that can be done to prevent children from being targeted sexually outweighs people's "rights" to try to solicit children even if they never meet up with the children.
Originally posted by scrivener
View Post
As to whether it should still be a crime if no child was actually hurt ~ that is an interesting point with child pornograph as well where the porn is computer generated or generated by means other than using actual children. Some argue that no actual child was harmed in producing that kind of child porn while others argue that the harm is in encouraging an interest in child porn and that protecting children from that kind of potential harm is such a serious concern that it outweighs anyone else's "rights" to produce or view child porn even if no child was used to make the porn. I suspect the solicitation law falls on the side that doing all that can be done to prevent children from being targeted sexually outweighs people's "rights" to try to solicit children even if they never meet up with the children.
Comment