MovieChat Forums > Look (2008) Discussion > Criminal punishment is wrong (spoilers)

Criminal punishment is wrong (spoilers)


California state law, the maximum sentence for statutory rape is 4 years, so the lawyer was wrong.

reply

how do you know this movie took place in CA? if there was a clue i guess i missed it

reply

I remember hearing a reference to LAPD either during the car chase or the interrogation of the teacher. Until then, it wasn't clear where the film was taking place.

reply

It was on the police video

FUGITIVE AT LARGE MUTHA F%@KER

reply

how do you know this movie took place in CA? if there was a clue i guess i missed it
==================
Well, considering they are standing right in front of the Beverly Hills PD when the goofey store clerk gets his reward check I think it is safe to say it was CA.

And yes, the 10 year sentence was for dramtic effect. Even if there was a possibility of 10 years (there wasn't) they would never give such a long term to a first time offender.......

reply

in the CCTV filmed inside the police station I remembered somewhere in the corner it stated "los angeles".

reply

Besides the several other clues already mentioned, the mall scenes were filmed at Northridge Fashion Center in the San Fernando Valley. The name "Northridge" is right there in huge letters on the outside of the mall and repeated on little signs inside the mall. There was no effort to hide the filming locations. So, yes, viewers are intended to know the film is taking place specifically in Los Angeles, California. I guess they exaggerated the penalty for dramatic effect.

reply

Yeah, I thought the same thing.

http://www.ageofconsent.com/california.htm

In other states, the teacher would have served even less time... or none at all. Though he would never have taught again, no matter where he was.

reply

according to that site, the information is from '99. things may have changed.

also it is possible that there are additional statutes involved since he was a teacher.

"in this world there's two kinds of people ... those with loaded guns, and those who dig."

reply

also it is possible that there are additional statutes involved since he was a teacher.
===============
Wrong.

Being a teacher means nothing under the law.

California Penal Code Section 261.5

(d) Any person 21 years of age or older who engages in an act of
unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age
is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished
by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by
imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.


California Penal Code Section 261.5

reply

"... unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age ..."

Didn't they say the girl was 16? Does this law even apply?

reply

I think there is something really wrong with the age of consent laws varying from state to state. In Maryland where I live for example, I think the age of consent laws are fair as written (16 is the age of consent), but I've read of cases about teachers being arrested for sleeping with 16 & 17 year olds which I think is wrong. Here are my problems with that.

1) If a non-teacher can sleep with a 16 year old legally, then a teacher should be allowed to as well. It is a matter of work ethics, not criminal behavior. If sleeping with a student is unethical, then you risk losing your job, but leave the courts out of it as long as the age of consent laws are met. Now I think when it comes to coercion by a person of authority (doctor, teacher, etc), that should be handled as well, but not with the assumption that the adult has always coerced the student into unwanted sex. If there is any evidence that it was consenual or the student even initiated the relationship, then no crime is committed.

2) It doesn't seem right that you can become a registered sex offender whose reputation, career, and life are ruined in one state for an action that is perfectly legal in another state. I mean really you are either a sex predator or you're not. In cases like this movie shows, there is injustice here.

reply

The reasoning behind such laws is that a teacher, just as many other positions this law makes illegal, are an authority figure. They are in a place where they can abuse that if they chose to. Therefore it would be difficult to prove consent sometimes due to the fact that the teen involves could have felt pressured. So all someone has to do to not get one of these charges is keep it in their pants...is that really so hard? If they actually loved someone they shouldn't, well they could just wait a few years right?

reply

It is hard to put on hold your feelings you have for someone you see every day, especially when they are mutual. I just don't think having a position of authority makes one a rapist when another adult could very well legally be with that same teenager.

I feel bad for many of the female teachers who are arrested because often its the teenage male that hits on them first. In these cases, there is no victim and I am completely against making criminals out of people when there is no victim.

* Now just to clarify, I'm only talking about relationships of 16+ year olds and adults. I think there certainly is a line no adult should cross with children and younger teenagers.

reply

Hey I too think if someone really loves another they should be able to do any consensual act they like under the circumstances you mentioned. I think it's sad when "non-criminals" get put in jail too. I was just pointing out the reasoning in that specific law...the idea that authority can cloud consent especially in immature or naive individuals. But, as in the case of this movie, the guy and the girl were both jerks.

reply


Heh, maybe the lawyer was lying to make it seem later like he got the guy a good deal.

reply