Judicial Outrage of the Day

Discussion in '2006 Archive' started by elijah_lives, Feb 10, 2006.

  1. elijah_lives

    elijah_lives
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    472
    Likes Received:
    0
    Judge: No credible evidence underage sex always harmful

    ROXANA HEGEMANAssociated PressWICHITA, Kan. - A federal judge hearing a constitutional challenge to a Kansas law requiring doctors, teachers and others to report underage sex between consenting youths said the state presented no credible evidence that underage sex is always harmful.
    U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten stopped short of issuing a decision from the bench, but he repeatedly interrupted Thursday's closing arguments by Assistant Attorney General Steve Alexander to challenge his assertions.
    "Motives are irrelevant - I want to deal with facts," Marten said. "Where is the clear, credible evidence that underage sex is always injurious? If you tell me because it is illegal - I reject that," Marten said.
    The lawsuit filed by The Center for Reproductive Rights, a New York advocacy group, stems from a 2003 opinion issued by Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline's opinion requiring health care providers and others to tell authorities about consensual sex by underage youths.
    The group contends that forced reporting discourages adolescents from seeking counseling and medical treatment and violates their rights to informational privacy.
    The Attorney General's Office contends the statute requires mandatory reporting because sex is inherently harmful to underage children. In Kansas, the age of consent is 16.
     
  2. TaterTot

    TaterTot
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

  3. larry9179

    larry9179
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    While underage sex is nothing new, it's clear that the judge wasn't basing his decision on law but on his personal opinion. I'd like to see judges hired, not elected or appointed for life. If they can't uphold the law, fire 'em.
     
  4. hillclimber

    hillclimber
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do not like to see sexually active kids 16 or 17 years old facing the horrible consequences of the laws as they now read in some places. It is just plain wrong. A 16 year old boy facing a lifetime as a sexual preditor for having sex with his girlfriend is morally reprehensible. And it could be totally destructive. In the past it was dealt with and no one suffered lifelong consequences.

    Society has shoved promiscuity to an ever lowering age group, from primary school onward, and now wants to impose great penaltys for it. Stupid.
     

Share This Page

Loading...