Ill. Supreme Court: Sex With 17-Year-Old Was Legal. What do you say?

in some states 17 is legal.

In my state, 16 is the legal age of consent. But, I would have major issue with this guy coming near my child, as he is almost twice her age. Massively creepy.

The court is correct because it ruled by the laws that are on the books.

However the laws are not in sync with each other. If it is OK to have sex with a 17-year-old, then it should be OK to photgraph it.

According to court ruling, yes it was okay. Yet for the rest of us who know better and don't try to make excuses, it was wrong. Law or not, it needs to be changed. I wish that the entire country would make 21 or 22 the legal age for becoming an adult, period.

There is too much promiscuity in the world, and our world population is out of hand. We already aren't producing enough food for everyone, and our sources for fresh water is fast depleting.

The Court applied the law.. I may not like that a 30-something had sex with a 17 year old and photographed it, but if the state's law did not forbid it, c'est la vie. Get mad at the Ill. legislature, not the court.

Different states have different ages of consent, all depends on the state. The pics are an other thing all together.

Laws were followed. Justice prevailed.

I've had sex with girls under 18 loads of times in the past. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. I've never known why the age of consent is so high in so many parts of America, when in the rest of the world it's usually 16 or under.

Unless the statutory rape laws changed when I wasn't looking....

I've changed a lot since I was 17, but I don't think that I've turned into more of an adult. 17 is pretty mature mentally, I think.

The bottom line here is that kids are much more aware and sophisticated when in comes to sex and this has probably been coming.

They followed the law. What else could they do. They didn't have a choice.

For the most part I agree with it.
In the Bible the age was 12 and they lived to be over 100. I really don't think it is cool with a 12 year old or 13 or 15.
I graduated from High School at 16 almost 17 so I was old enough to live on my own.
Courts will emancipation a teen age 16, meaning they are legally an adult and responsible for themselves.
Some states you can legally marry without parental consent at age 15.

Of course it is right. The age of consent varies from state to state. Illinois has set it at 17, so it is perfectly legal.

So it's perfectly legal to have sex with a 17 year old but it's illegal to photograph the act. Obviously the right hand doesn't have a clue what the left hand is doing.

I say if that is true than I only need to wait one more year! Naw, i'm just playing. I think its wrong.

I don't care what the damn court says she is still under age

Two different sets of laws serving separate purposes. As Roze said with her usual brilliance, you don't like the laws, change them.

that's disgusting...he's thirty two and she's seventeen. now if the guy was eighteen or twenty ish then yeah that would be fine...but THIRTY TWO! and he took pictures...that's just...blegh

Well, seeing as the age of consent in Illinois is 17...

different states have differenct ages for when a person is old enough to consent

Depends which country you are in. 12 is OK in Vatican City..., 16 in the UK.

It was the State Supreme court and state laws so yes it was right in the letter of the law and glad he got 8 years for the photo's which will also register him as a sexual criminal.

Now is it morally right for a 32 year old person to have sex with a 17 year old....in my opinion no it is not morally right.

This ruling, while legally correct, demonstrates the stupidity of the laws being applied. It cajnnot be rational or logical that you can have sex with someone legally, but cannot take photos of them because they are too young for erotic photography. At the very least, this application of the law demobnstrates legalistic cretinism, since the law against photographing persons under 18 was designed to prevent them from being exploited commercially. Since the man in question sent the photos only to the girl herself, where is the commercial exploitation the law was designed to prevent?

Commercialization has nothing to do with it.

Care to elaborate? Why would you have a law against photographing someone, if it wasn't about commercial (or even non-commercial) exploitation?

Seriously? AGPhillbin said "photographing persons under 18 was designed to prevent them from being exploited commercially". Do you know what those words say? They say it's ok to take provocotive photos of children as long as there is no intent to sell them. It says as long as you are only taking them for yourself, or passing them out your friends for free, you can take all the nude pics of 12 year olds you want. It's only wrong if you sell them or use them for blackmail or the like.

The State of Illinois said having sex with a 17 year old is legal. It tried to prosecute this man for taking pictures of that act. Pictures which to my knowledge he only shared with the woman in question. The mother surreptitiously obtained copies of the pictures which she shared with the police. The State of Illinois then tried to prosecute the man for taking private pictures...pictures they had no right to even know about. The Supreme Court merely protected this man and his lover's privacy.

I tend to think it should be illegal for a 33 year old to have sex with a 17 year old but apparently the State of Illinois does not concur so the Supreme Court couldn't rule on the legality of the sex act itself....only on the pictures which IMO were legitimately protected.

He's in jail for the pictures, not for having sex with someone under the age of consent. The mother had every right to obtain the pictures, and every right to turn them over to authorities.
The two justices who dissented have no business being judges in that jurisdiction because they don't understand their own laws.

Really....exactly what right did the mother have to the pictures?

Answer carefully remembering that the basis for the mother's invasion of her daughter's privacy may be the basis on which you lose your right to privacy as well.

It's a huge contradiction to the consent laws, I realize that, but the girl is under 18. She has no "right" to privacy from her parents. Different laws for different reasons.

Rules are rules I guess. If they don't like them, then they need to find a way to change them.

Matters what state tell you the truth

The laws are flawed and sending the wrong message. They do nothing to protect children from monsters. I believe arbitrary she limits for sex is bad. It makes criminals of high school sweethearts and protects true predators. The ruling was accurate as far as current law states, I feel, but that doesn't make it right in my opinion.

I would vote that the court is wrong but someone reading the title would assume I'm referring to that. I believe the court is wrong on the issue of the pictures. Based on the law of Illinois, he legally had sex with the 17 year old girl. So that was never really the issue. If she's considered old enough to consent to sex, even if he's 32, then what if she wants to have pictures of that moment to remember later on? I understand the concern that it could come back to bite her in the ass but that could happen regardless of how old she is.

So yes, I believe the court is wrong, but for their decision on the pictures and not for the misleading title question you posted.

According to the law, the court was right. Tis a bit silly though. You'd think they'd have the ages stay the same. I'm sure not many people will miss the guy though. It's not his first offence.

Sorry should have pick , None of the above

The ages of consent in North America for sexual activity vary by jurisdiction.

The age of consent in Canada is 16. All U.S. states set their limits between 16 and 18.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

As long as the other person wasn't over 19.