Quote:
Originally Posted by wdfifteen
Sorry. Her consent was irrelevant - she was 13. The law, and I believe it is a reasonable one, says minors cannot consent to having sex. While I disagree with calling "consensual" sex with minors rape, I do contend that many, if not most, of them do not have the capacity to make such an adult decision. Might some of them? I don't know. Neither do you nor Roman Polanski. It is entirely unreasonable to expect a horny guy to make an informed, honest and reasonable determination of whether the 13 or 16 year old that he's hot to bone is capable of consenting to have sex. If he's really serious about this person he'll consent to having a psychological evaluation of both himself and the child and abide by the opinions of the experts. Somehow I don't see that happening a lot. I think the law is right to conservatively say keep your hands off or else.
|
Thank you for the first rational response here.
I don't think her consent (or lack of it) is irrelevant when the charge is rape. On the contrary it is extremely relevant for the person charged with the offense.
And bear in mind Polanski did plead guilty to sex with a minor. And had a plea deal. And spent time in prison. And then a corrupt judge decided to reneg on the deal for his own aggrandizement because he sensed a media spectacle. That's when things went downhill, and Polanski took the only rational option open to him and fled the country. I mean you'd have to be a very highly principled idiot to subject yourself to a complete kangaroo court when there is so much at stake.
In any case, I won't convince the good sanctimonious burghers of PPOT of any of this. Their minds are made up.
So I'm just going to pour myself a few fingers of single-malt, throw a log on the fire and re-read Lolita.