Skip to main content

Sometimes the Law is just Plain Stupid

Caution: Sensitive Material discussed below.
Welcome Dear Reader,
Today I'd like to chat with you about the sheer stupidity of some of our laws.
To set the scene, let me tell you a story....and unfortunately it's all true.
Last year in Texas, the good ol' Lone Star State in the US of A, a 51 year old man was slapped with a felony charge of 'sexual performance by a child and possession of child pornography'. The man was caught after an investigation by the Houston Independent School District police found inappropriate messages and lewd photos of a 17 year old girl on his phone.
Well done, I say, to the Police. Let's give him a fair trial and if he's found guilty, send his sorry ass to some skanky ol prison where he gets to see what it's like to be the victim of abuse for a change.
But wait, there's more. Apparently, it was even worse. Not only was he 'sexting' this girl, but he was also in an intimate relationship with her. Ok, now that's got to be a lot worse yeah? Hit him with sexual assault charges as well I reckon. But they didn't.
Why? Well, as it turns out, the legal age of consent to engage in an intimate relationship in Texas is...16. So, according to the good old rule book, you know, the Law, him and her in a sexual relationship is all just fine and dandy. Go ahead, nothing to see here.
So now I'm confused. The Law says he can see her nude for real all he likes, as long as she consents. And he can even do physical, intimate stuff with her as much as he wants, again as long as she consents. But. If he talks suggestively to her on the phone or she sends him topless photos on the phone like other legally consenting couples are allowed to do, well.....he's just broken the Law, even if she consented.
Because the law says that under 18 she's too young to give consent when it comes to texting and photos. That's called Child Exploitation. Them's the rules fella, and you just broke them.
So, off he went to court, where he admitted their relationship and plead guilty to the charges. The girl even sat with him and gave him encouragement through the process. And the court finding? Guilty of course. I mean, he even admitted it, so that was an easy one. The sentence? 5 years in jail, deferred adjudication. 'Deferred what?' Apparently that means that he has to pay a fine, do 250 hours community service and basically be on probation for the next 5 years. If he's a good boy, the case is dismissed with no conviction whatsoever on his record. Slap on the wrist. But if he's naughty? Automatic up to 20 years in jail.
And in some kind of wierd way that admitted the situation was just plain wrong, the judge told him he had to stay away from her for a year. Yep, stay away from someone who is legally allowed to be with anyone she pleases. Hmmmm. And now? Well, she is now 19, he has been a good boy till now, and they are still a couple. (I wonder if they use their phones much anymore?)
So, what have we learnt here? That after this happened, the decision makers would get together, realise this situation is just plain stupid and fix it? Nope. Just slap him on the wrist because 'we all know you broke the law mate but you didn't really break the law did ya'. How the hell do they just let this slide?
Or maybe we've learnt that those silly old Texan legislators are just plain crazy, because that wouldn't happen here would it? Um, sorry, that's wrong too. These stupid discrepancies in the law regarding the necessary protection of minors are everywhere, even in our dear old Australia.
Yep, according to Australian Law, in particular the Criminal Code Act 1995 section 473.1, child abuse material refers to any depiction or representation of any person under (or implied to be under) the age of 18. So, pretty clear isn't? Under 18, no suggestive words or intimate piccies yeah.
But the age of consent? Well, that's an individual State thing, with each of them having their own ideas. In general, however, you can say that the age of consent is the same as good ol Texas. Yep, 16, except for South Australia and Tasmania where the age is 17.
So, sorry Aussies, you can't bag Texas for being the only stupid ones here who can't sort out their bloody laws. Join the club.
But here we are, in this mess. How in the world did we end up in such a stupid place where we, as a smart, logical and moral society, make laws that say any adult can have an intimate relationship with another person as long as they're over 16, but don't you dare talk sexy on the phone to them or, heaven forbid, send or ask them for a sexy photo. Now, I'm not a lawyer (yay!!), but I would have thought that if we reckon that talking dirty to, or looking at nude photos of, a 17 year old is just plain wrong (here I agree) then how the bloody hell is having a relationship with them ok? It can't be can it? What bloody craziness are we dealing with here?
Now I know some of you out there might reckon the age of consent is set at 16 so that young kids doing what young kids do won't get into legal trouble if/when they muck around with each other (and yes, I'm sorry, it does happen. Remember when we were that age?) Not so the case. In Australia, for example, each of the States have specific rules in regard to 'underage' (under 16) relationships, ensuring that youngsters playing around is not treated the same by the law as some gross old grangpa hanging out with a teenager. Nope, 16 is the agreed age for 'adult' relationships.....but not for piccies.
Here is where I call stupidity by it's real name....Bulls**t!
How hard could it be for our exalted legislators to get together and sort out this mess? To get off their arses and do what we pay them for....make rules that are sensible, logical and moral. Not that bloody hard mate! Protect our children, give them the flexibility to be able to muck around within their own age group and keep the bloody predators away from them. Wouldn't have thought that was asking too much....but then again.
Ok, that's enough from me today. Thanks for tuning in.
And please, Be Nice to Each Other


Popular posts from this blog

Remember, we only kill Black People

Hello again Dear Reader, If you've been following my blogs, you probably know by now that I usually like to be nice and rational in my blogs (well I try to anyway), just flow along and rely on the evidence to gently lead you to what I hope is a logical conclusion. Without emotion yeah. Purely objective. Usually. However.
But sometimes I get cranky and just have to raise my hand and call out hatred and plain old bigotry for what it is...evil. And yes folks, that's exactly what I mean and exactly how I feel right about now. I'm confused, I'm amazed and I'm bloody angry.
For those of you who read my blogs (do you exist?), you know I'm a big fan of the USA, it's people, it's culture and it's total acceptance of us Aussies in their land. So, how do you think I feel when I watch a for real video of an American Police Officer saying to a white, female civilian at a traffic stop, 'Remember, we only kill black people'?
What the hell? Did you really…

The ABC of Stupidiity

Hello again Dear Reader,
Nice to be back after a while.
Today’s comment in the daily Australian news was so bloody comical, I just had to put my toe back in the blogging pond and have a bit of a chuckle at the mindless stupidity of some of our highly paid professionals.
In this case, I draw your attention to the recent sacking of the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) managing director Michelle Guthrie. She was terminated halfway through her $890K job with immediate effect by the national broadcasting authority on 24 September 2018. Obviously, as any reasonably sane person would be, she was almost certainly mightily pissed off when the hammer came down.

Keeping in mind that in many cases people are misquoted by the local tabloids (sometimes accidentally, more often deliberately), I found the following quote by Michelle absolutely hilarious.....
While my contract permits the Board to terminate my appointment without cause and with immediate effect, I believe there is no justification …

Fantasising online. Is it a crime?

Hello again Dear Reader,
Today I would like to start by offering you a hypothetical. Let's pretend that you are a senior judge in your country's judicial system (and if you really are, just go along with it!).
A person has been brought before you charged with a serious crime. After a thorough investigation by the police, this person was found to have engaged in online discussions with like-minded adult individuals in chat rooms where they discussed their desires and fantasies for carrying out acts of the most vile and unspeakable type. Acts which if carried out or if even only planned would clearly be illegal under your country's criminal law code.Now, this person has not to date acted on any of these depraved fantasies, has not carried out any overt planning that would tend to indicate their intention to commit this act soon, but has spoken of their desire to do these things online on numerous occasions over a long period.
You are the sole decider of this person's fate b…