18-Year-Old Boy Gets Jailed for ‘Seducing an Unmarried Woman’?!
Brett, a reader, sent me the incredible blurb below, from the Lansing State Journal (1/18/08). Please read it and tell me if I’m missing something.
“Dontrel Marquis Birge, 18, 2000 block of Stirling, Lansing, seducing an unmarried woman, 120 days in jail, two days credit, 30 months probation, maintain legitimate employment, comply with DNA testing, no indirect or direct verbal/written/electronic/physical contact with victim, $300 supervision fee, $250 attorney fee, $60 state cost, $60 to Victims Fund.”
As an aside, the “offender” here is obviously black and I suspect that the “victim” is white.
“Seducing an Unmarried Woman” is a crime? Can anybody make sense of this? Perhaps this was a plea bargain of some kind?
|
| More from Glenn Sacks
Stumble It!
January 21st, 2008 at 8:13 pm
One searches in vain for ’sense’, but we are talking of a corrupted Judiciary that wallows in hysteria and irrationality. It is only when the Judge is asleep at the gavel or masturbating behind the bench that little damage is done.
January 21st, 2008 at 10:02 pm
It’s a crime in Michigan, and a felony, at that. From IdiotLaws.com
(http://tinyurl.com/2kd2fv):
750.532 Seduction; punishment.
Sec. 532.
Punishment?Any man who shall seduce and debauch any unmarried woman shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 5 years or by fine of not more than 2,500 dollars; but no prosecution shall be commenced under this section after 1 year from the time of committing the offense.
History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;–CL 1948, 750.532 .
Former Law: See section 7 of Ch. 158 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, ? 5862; CL 1871, ? 7697; How., ? 9283; CL 1897, ? 11694; CL 1915, ? 15468; and CL 1929, ? 16823.
I surrender….
January 21st, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Any man who shall seduce
Wait a moment…this law is biased and it is discriminatory in that a lot of women seduce men too yet it says nothing about that.
It would seem that to be constitutional, it should say….anyone who shall seduce and debauch any unmarried person…..
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:12 am
When marriage really existed and birth control barely existed, this made some sense.
OK. We have a system which balances the rights of men, women, and children. It is called marriage. This is how you have children. This is where you have sex. This way we know the children will have both fathers and mothers. This way women will have husbands and husbands wives. We will have economic and societal units (families) that benefit all.
Now, we have women who have very effective birth control and have nearly complete “choice” on whether to have birth, who to have sex with (usually multiples of men and women often concurrently), whether to continue pregnancies, etc. In this scenario, this makes no sense at all.
Women are completely free to have sex whenever and with whomever they wish. How does it make sense to criminalize sex for men outside marriage? Exactly who are these women to have sex with?
This is the ultimate screw job for men. Not only do they get “screwed” if they marry (especially if they have children), they get “screwed” if they don’t get married. They literally cannot win. They are totally screwed. They only way they avoid being screwed is to not screw at all and of course this means they are screwed also (denying a fundamental need).