![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
Let him free. That is the 41 year old man who had carnal knowledge of a 12 year old girl. He is now held under an unconstitutional law, so let him go. And lets hope there is someone waiting with a shotgun...
Ok, I haven't seen many newspapers recently but I would have presumed the childrens omsbudperson would have be making many statements on this issue. If we are allowing people who are considered juveniles by law, who cannot vote, or drink to have sex then what image is that portraying to them? I would have expected to hear more from the church too on this issue.
So what would I like to see?
I'd like to see kids growing up with an understanding of their bodies and of the opposite sex's bodies. I would like to see them understand the consequences of any actions they take. I would like to see parents take an active role in helping kids understand their sexuality.
Of course what I'd like and reality are two different things.
Anonymous
May 30 2006, 13:59:49 UTC 5 years ago
At times the law is an ass!
Anonymous
May 31 2006, 10:06:19 UTC 5 years ago
Earhart
Firstly - the word is Ombudsman. It is Latin, I think, and is gender neutral.Secondly - the man was held under a bad law (apparently the legal term) and therefore is entitled to be freed. He can not be charged under a new law - as it was not illegal at the time.
Judicial review is badly needed.
How did a man, who pleaded guilty to unlawful carnal knowledge of a 12yr old, get away with 3yrs in prison? Lets sort this out!
There is evidence of many studies and recommendations given to government regarding this law. Unfortunately, it takes something like this to prompt change.
May 31 2006, 10:28:43 UTC 5 years ago
Re: Earhart
ombuds-whatever....Yes, he is entitled to go free. I was just expressing wishful thoughts.
I want to know why he was charged with statutary rape and not rape and sexual assault of a child.
Anonymous
May 31 2006, 12:26:43 UTC 5 years ago
Re: Earhart
He wasn't charged with statutary rape he pleaded guilty to unlawful carnel knowledge. Speculation on the radio about this is that if he was charged with a more serious crime then the child in question would have to testify in court. This way the child was spared the trauma in court and her identity was protected.I was watching the news last night and saw a hooded figure leaving court. Presumably if RTE did get a clear shot of his face they couldn't broadcast it anyway because his identity is protected and ergo the identity of the child is protected. RTE mentioned that they spoke to him so I assume they know who he is.
John B.
Anonymous
May 31 2006, 13:58:55 UTC 5 years ago
Re: Earhart
It's often accepted that criminals plead guilty to the lesser charge of FUCK so that the child is spared testifying and they don't go through the trial process. Also, they get the lesser sentance of 3yrs or so.Anonymous
May 31 2006, 14:11:31 UTC 5 years ago