OK I've read the piece and it seems to apply to children under 13, but what is their definition of an adult? Would this law kick in for someone 13 years and a day old and someone 1 day off their 13th Birthday?

Also I'd like to note - I love the inverted commas round "french kissing" in Kerry's post. As if she can't quite bring herself to type these words unrestrained in the sentence, for fear that they might interefer with the other words, so has locked them up with commas.

Rather creepy story about the babysitters husband mind.

OK I've read the piece and it seems to apply to children under 13, but what is their definition of an adult? Would this law kick in for someone 13 years and a day old and someone 1 day off their 13th Birthday?

Also I'd like to note - I love the inverted commas round "french kissing" in Kerry's post. As if she can't quite bring herself to type these words unrestrained in the sentence, for fear that they might interefer with the other words, so has locked them up with commas.

Rather creepy story about the babysitters husband mind.

Oopps sorry about the double post.

"Also I'd like to note - I love the inverted commas round "french kissing" in Kerry's post. As if she can't quite bring herself to type these words unrestrained in the sentence, for fear that they might interefer with the other words, so has locked them up with commas."

No, it's just garden-variety grammar rules. Quotation marks are appropriate (as is the phrase "so-called") when making reference to colloquial language. There's nothing, as far as I know, particularly French about the practice, so I assume this is not an official designation of some sort. In other words, it's slang.

If I don't want to use words, I simply don't use them. The use of quotation marks does not inoculate the rest of the sentence somehow.

As to the age, I find it curious that you would assume that it would apply to someone thirteen plus one day, since that would not be an adult in any US jurisdiction. Anyone who would consider the average American teenager an "adult" has never met one.

And, to give you the details, Virginia House Bill 34 adds the following to the Virginia Code:

"18.2-370.6. Penetration of mouth of child with lascivious intent; penalty.

Any person 18 years of age of age or older who, with lascivious intent, kisses a child under the age of 13 on the mouth while knowingly and intentionally penetrating the mouth of such child with his tongue is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."

Kerry, not that I disagree with you on this particular issue, but your definition of a "child" seems to be somewhat dependent on the context of the discussion. I'm curious about your idea of child in the following cases:

[url=http://www.sptimes.com/2005/06/02/Hillsborough/What_to_do_if_7_year_.shtml]Case 1[/url}

[url=http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-flbjuviemurder0108sbjan08,0,6271129.story?coll=sofla_tab01_layout]Case 2[/url]

[url=http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080308/NEWS01/803080336/1002/CUSTOMERSERVICE02[/url]

The legislation is good and I'm happy to see that "statuatory kissing" isn't considered a sex offense. I've known plenty of 19 year olds dating 16 and 17 year olds. I don't find this offensive, but the law does if someone decides to pursue it.

"Kerry, not that I disagree with you on this particular issue, but your definition of a "child" seems to be somewhat dependent on the context of the discussion."

Well, I'm glad you agree with me, but in this legislation, the definition of "child" is statutory--not mine at all.

"I'm curious about your idea of child in the following cases:"

Okay. Shoot (so to speak.)

"[url=http://www.sptimes.com/2005/06/02/Hillsborough/What_to_do_if_7_year_.shtml]Case 1[/url}"

This one, I think the 7-year old should be placed in a mental institution until he is 18, at which time he should be re-evaluated and, if competent, tried for murder. If he is remorseful, he should be offered a deal in lieu of trial that still gets him some jail time as an adult. If he is still crazy, he stays in.

"[url=http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-flbjuviemurder0108sbjan08,0,6271129.story?coll=sofla_tab01_layout]Case 2[/url]"

In this case, I would have a competency hearing first, and if he is competent to stand trial, I would try him as an adult. If not, I would do the same as in the first case.

"[url=http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080308/NEWS01/803080336/1002/CUSTOMERSERVICE02[/url]"

In this case, I would charge both the 16 and the 17 year old with first degree murder, unless they were determined to be mentally incompetent to stand trial. In this one, I would not go for the determination, but if the defense insisted on a hearing (which it would surely do), I would use it only to determine how long a period of time to request they be incarcerated. If they were mentally competent, I would go for murder one with aggravating circumstances, and do whatever I could to make sure they get the spike.

"The legislation is good and I'm happy to see that "statuatory kissing" isn't considered a sex offense. I've known plenty of 19 year olds dating 16 and 17 year olds. I don't find this offensive, but the law does if someone decides to pursue it."

Not this law. This one is very, very clear.

"Not this law. This one is very, very clear."

No, not this law. I was referring to statuatory rape. I've known one person who was 20 and was charged with statuatory rape of a 17 year old. It was consentual and they ended up getting married. He is, however, considered a sex offender and must register.

I like the idea of it being a class one misdemeanor, but not so much the idea of it placing one on a sex offender registry. Those things are for generally for life (assuming this is a state registry), and have a huge impact on you. I don't think this warrants that.