"On Thursday, 32-year-old Daniel Ozuna was sentenced to life in prison by 391st District Court Judge Tom Gossett for indecency with a 7-year-old child by sexual contact. Ozuna already was serving a 5-year sentence for a similar crime.And what is this business about "consent?" While we have seen stories written over the last two years about "what the child wants" from the "ad litem" perspective and what children cannot consent to, suddenly, it seems we have two "consents" now. The consent that a child cannot give, on which the whole "sexual assault of a CHILD" is based, and then the fact that, "oh, yeah, they gave their consent," meaning they gave every indication in language and body that they granted consent, except, they weren't old enough for those words to mean anything.
Lesser sentences can come from situations when there is not a large age gap, such as between a 19-year-old and a 15-year-old person, Morris said.
Morris also said that if the parties consented, the sentence may be more lenient, even though consent is no defense for the guilt-innocence phase of the trial.
'It’s not a defense, but it’s certainly something (jurors) can consider in punishment,' (Gerry) Morris said."
What incredible hypocrisy. Are we to believe now that chilren actually possess a "consent" that should be considered and a lawyer can now argue that the kid "loved it" and that is a reason to go easy on the perpetrator? First we base the law on the idea that a "child" is a person below a certain age, and that a "child" cannot give "consent."
How about the fact that Mr. Ozuna was already serving a 5 year sentence for a similar crime? Similar in my mind means another child in the single digit age category for which Mr. Ozuna was sentenced to only FIVE YEARS.
And now the point your Modern Pharisee has been making for two years about polygamy and "sexual assault" of "children:"
"The penalty becomes a first-degree felony if the defendant is legally prohibited from marrying, purporting to marry or living with someone under the appearance of being married.Why then was Lauren Cosgrove not charged and sentenced as a 1st degree felon? Lauren was "legally prohibited from marrying" her 13 year old victim, not because Texas prevents 13 year olds from marrying 30 year olds but because she was married already." Her lawyer, in case you forget, argued that her 13 year old victim "wanted it" and got standing with his peers for bedding an older woman and in this age of equal rights, that "it's different for boys than it is for girls."
A first-degree felony is punishable with five to 99 years or life in prison and the fine of up to $10,000."
The polygamy of the FLDS involving children is not wrong because it involves children. Clearly, even the law recognizes (though seldom fairly applies) the fact that adults can marry "children." The law further declares that "children" magically gain the intelligence to give consent, once they have been legally married.
Kid without a marriage certificate? = Can't give consent.
Kid WITH a marriage certificate? = Can consent to any act with anyone.
Difference? A piece of paper. Basically, the equivalent of a car registration. A point your Modern Pharisee has also made.
Thus the case can be made that it's POLYGAMY they're after, not really "sexual abuse of a child," because if it wasn't polygamy they were after, it would be legal, and a polygamist could legally marry the "child" they were "assaulting" and produce the appropriate papers necessary not to go to jail for life. If it wasn't polygamy they were after, Janet Parker would be in jail right now, and so would Rebecca Ann Bramlett. If you want to "do it" with a 14 year old. Go get a piece of paper.
How sick is it that you can marry the 14 year old girl and have an affair with a 30 year old and nothing happens, but if you are married to the 30 year old and have an affair with at 15 year old, you go to jail for life?
Sphere: Related Content
No comments:
Post a Comment