THIS...

Angry are you from NC ?

 

I have no clue until this thread I have heard nothing about Lunsfords son.

 

The depressing part is that the guy I mentioned didn't even touch a child, yet is treated like he raped one. The legal system doesn't discriminate: it eats everyone.

I hope the new posters calm down a bit. They went a little haywire for a minute there.

 

Born and raised! I've passed through 40/42 many times on the way out to Fayetteville on business.

 

There are some things in society...in life...that are acceptable, and some things that aren't. Murder is not acceptable. There are no take-backs in murder. And there are no take-backs when it comes to robbing a child of their innocence.

If there is one thing that we adults are absolutely, positively responsible for, it is to protect children from predators. Predators can range from someone who wants to say and do things that will emotionally scar them for life...to those who want to kill them.

When it comes to children, adults must protect them at all costs - even if that cost includes the adult perpetrator being labeled for life. And that's because...

...some mistakes we make, we can recover from. Others we cannot. Preying on a child is one of those mistakes that is so heinous, so horrid...that recovery of the perpetrator's standing is not even a comparable consideration, compared to the protection of the child - and other children.

Any 17-year-old that would have sex with a 13-year-old has put his/her desires ahead of making the right decision. Yes, some young girls and boys look older than they are, but common sense says to check things out first. Anyone of that age who would be so careless, so thoughtless and so "desire-driven" is indeed a danger to other young girls or boys.

So...just as murder is something that cannot be considered nor excused, neither can inappropriate contact with a child. There are no excuses, there are no "yeah..but" responses that can possibly justify any type of inappropriate contact with a child. Even if that child is hyper-sexual, all adults know better and should have the common decency to say "no thank you." To say "she came on to me" or "he wanted it" is not an excuse.

Yes, I'm sure there are "stupid mistakes" made one time, and there are some that feel they should not be labeled, however, I think most of us know that there are way too many instances that are not like that. We cannot sacrifice the safety and protection of children just to give the benefit of the doubt to a handful of adults. The fact is that, no one other than the perpetrator knows his intentions. And because of that, it's a risk we cannot take with our children.

Every adult knows the boundaries. Any adult that crosses that boundary deserves the consequences. It's as simple as that...there are no grey areas.

 

Lunsford details

Here you go!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-31-lunsford-arrest_N.htm

Lunsford's brother charged with a sex crime

SPRINGFIELD, Ohio (AP) — The son of a man who became a national crusader for tougher sex-offender laws after his 9-year-old daughter was kidnapped, raped and killed has been accused of sexual conduct with a minor, authorities said.

Joshua Lunsford, 18, son of Mark Lunsford, was arrested May 18 after a woman accused him of fondling her 14-year-old daughter twice, at a skating rink and outside a shopping mall, according to police. He has pleaded not guilty to the felony charge.

Mark Lunsford's daughter, Jessica, was kidnapped from the bedroom of her Florida home in February 2005, raped and buried alive. The exact family relationship between Joshua and Jessica was unclear Wednesday night.

After his daughter was killed, Mark Lunsford traveled the country, testifying before state legislators on bills that would toughen laws against sex offenders that prey on young children. More than a dozen states have passed versions of Jessica's Law.

The girl Joshua Lunsford is accused of fondling was a willing participant in the contact in March, according to a statement by the girl's mother to the German Township Police Department. Ohio law prohibits anyone 18 or older from having sexual contact with anyone younger than 16.

Mark Lunsford, of Homosassa Springs, Fla., told The Tampa Tribune it has not been proven that his son has done anything wrong. Even what has been alleged cannot compared with the crimes of the pedophiles he has helped put in prison through his work with the Jessica Marie Lunsford Foundation, he said.

"We're talking about Romeo and Juliet here, not some 36-year-old pervert following around a 10-year-old," Lunsford said.

Attorney Mark Gelman, who was a liaison between the Lunsfords and authorities during the investigation into the death of Jessica Lunsford, said Mark Lunsford was not Joshua's custodial parent.

"I've always heard that Josh is a good kid. I would just tell people not to jump to any conclusions," Gelman said.

A woman who answered the phone at Joshua Lunsford's home Wednesday said he had no comment. A message seeking comment was left for Mark Lunsford.

John Evander Couey, who lived in a mobile home 150 yards from the Lunsford home, was convicted of killing Jessica Lunsford in March, and a jury has recommended the death penalty.

 

Any body know any body guards for hire? j/k

 

He should get the death penalty imo .

 

Please give me your interpretation of what happened with Debra LaFave. She admitted to the sex crime, yet the charges were still dropped, even though she confessed.

Why did she go free, while other (primarily male) teachers having sex with their high school students go to jail and get labeled?

Like I've said before, every situation is unique, and making generalizations like the above are dangerous. In my not-so-humble opinion, if inappropriate sexual conduct happens within the family, it should be up to the family to decide the ultimate fate of the person instead of a prosecutor. I think that the person who the offense is committed against should have some say-so, rather than the courts making all the decisions. If the family wants the guy locked up, that should be the sentence. If the family wants to try to get through it, that should be their option.

But if pre-treatment programs exist like I wish they did, the offense might never happen in the first place, because once a red flag flies up, the family can seek treatment for the member's own good, rather than ignoring it for fear of losing that family member, until some line is crossed and it's just too late.

 

Has anyone else clicked on this link?

 

I assume you mean John Couey, and you're right.

That doesn't excuse the fact that there's the unexplored possibility that Couey might have been prevented from offending had treatment programs been available to him. It's hard to explore that path, because it would essentially require that politicians admit that their one-way approach to sex offenses (tougher punishments) is not the way to prevent sexual crimes. It would require that people in high places admit they were wrong.

I doubt we'll ever see it happen unless the people of the nation force the issue.

 

yes, I mean John Couey and I am most of the time right . " stupid uneducated people " can be right from time to time .

 

That's your opinion, and you have every right to it! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Yeah, I deserved it. :neutral:

 

yes you did

 

Well at least I admit it!

 

I'd admit it to if I was wrong.But I'll send you snaps for admitting it lol

 

Magnolia, I disagree that "children" need their innocence (virginity) protected from them when those children are actually teenagers and are making decisions for themselves that they do not want yours or my protection. I do not advocate teenage sex, but I do respect the RIGHT of teenagers to engage in it to the degree they choose, and with partners of their choosing, not mine.

You cannot put an "age" on when a person is ready, nor when a partner is appropriate or isn't, and totally ignore the maturity level AND prior sexual experience of both players.

There is simply no rational logic to it, only gross assumptions that have little basis to them.

 

The problem with this definition is the subjective definition of the term "murder" which is a form of killing that is illegal. The legal killing is not unacceptable but sometimes the determination of what is legal is difficult to divine. I believe the generalization of punishment is the point being discussed so the more appropriate comparison would be "killing" in place of "murder".

Except, of course, from those who would label them as sexual predators in the attempt to 'protect' other children?

Including those who are 18 +1 day or even younger who are tried as an adult?

Common sense for an adult or a child who thinks they are an adult? The hormonal influence. lack of experience, and the fear of looking like a child all come into play in this case. How many adults ask for verification of age/identity?

Actually smacks of circular logic since the definition of 'murder' is subjective.

Actually, ALL adults do not know better, but that is the basis of your position.

Or at least there will be such an assumption since there is no provision for statistics to support the claim.

Right, so every adult is treated as a child molester, got it!!!

Right, so no adult can ever be alone with a child to be sure ....

Except for the 'adult' thing and the 'boundary' thing, which are again a bit subjective .....

 

I didn't feel like stepping in it anymore because I'm a bit tired. Thanks for doing the breakdown for me.

 

Can someone under 16 be charged ?