The Injustice System stopped making a pretense about "justice" many years ago. Its not about justice. It's about destroying as many men as they can. The Injustice System is a great evil that carries on the very violent and very destructive feminazi war on men. The number of men being destroyed far exceeds the medieval witch hunts, and the number will soon exceed the WW II Holocaust. They are destroyed for being men as WWII victims were destroyed for being Jews. The evil of the Injustice System can not be overstated.

The story of that young family is typical of millions.

Blessings

Bob

A reasonable question deserves a reasoned answer.

There are consequences to behaviour which are often just not anticipated. The man did wrong. Now we may point to immorality as a factor and many would dismiss it, but immorality is at the root. It is also the stem of this case.

As a grown person he knows the difference between right and wrong at least as well as a ten year old. So I cannot support the idea that the man should not suffer the consequences of his immoral action.

Consequences are not simply a 'social' issue, but a Law of Nature. An action is immoral if it breaks a Natural Law as affects the nature of human beings.

But then there is Law of Man. The law provides for an age of consent and he took the young girl's word - so he claims. As with ignoring immorality so he also ignored rationality. He took the word of a young girl and his experience ought to have alerted him to at least the possibility that she was engaging in impression management in an immoral way herself. And as it transpires, she was. So she is culpable too. It does not lessen his. He failed to protect himself. She lied. He was complicit in the lie, willingly, wantingly.

As for the extent of the 'Justice', clearly that has little to do with rationality. It ignored shared culpability. It was applied with hysterical vigour. It ignored the girl's culpability in a biased manner. Therefore in three ways at least rendering itself Unjust.

The consequences of a 'crime' ought to be visited on the criminal; that is gainsaid. As far as is reasonable, the consequences ought not to unduly damage innocent parties. The wife and children were unduly and avoidably damaged. This is Unjust.

Four ways, unjust.

A legal system that applies 'justice' in an Unjust manner is culpable itself. Justice requires that those involved in determining resonable and reasoned Justice suffer consequences of their failure to do right. That brings us back to the moral issue.

His failure was a moral failure. So was the legal systems failure.

The consequences are visited upon innocents.

Quote from Kim

.....Keep in mind that if the girl had been 18, as she'd claimed, what he would have been left to deal with was his own guilt over his infidelity. Instead, he lost everything, his current job, his career, his home, his family....
Summary...aided by the D.A., a scheming, immoral girl was allowed to destroy a family and a man's life because that translates as "justice" in our legal system.

The problem is clearly with the age of consent - many US states consider 18 year old for a woman as age limit to fully consent to sexual relationship - blaming only the man, even if he is a minor of the same age.

How old has a girl to be, to give consent, when approached by a man, OR if she goes ahead talking to boys, how young has she to be, that the man only should be blamed?

Here in Japan, often angrily mentioned by US-feminists, in this case this age-limit would be only 13 - however in Spain, which is not bashed but glorified because its feminist politics, it is also 13. In Austria in my native country it is 14, also in Hungaria, our neighbozr country, it is 14, some European countries have 15, some even 16. But I do not know even one Western country, which would consider 18 except USA.

Therefore such accusations outside of USA are rare.
Together with long prison sentences for sex-crimes from man to woman, even for boys below 18 with consenting teenager-girls below 18, this is resulting in many statutory rape charges - even for oral sex (10 years for a 17 y.o. boy with a consenting 15 y.o. girl).

In USA there are obviously no age-limits for boys regarding sex-crimes. This is even resulting in idiotic accusations considering sexual harassment, I remember cases, where the boy was 4 (! yes four years old!), 5 y.o. 6.y.o. and even rape charges against boys 9 or 10 y.o....
A 12 y. o. boy giving a girl of same age a slap on her behind is a sex-criminal...

The most idiotic case I heard about was a marriage between a 17 y.o. boy and a 14 y.o. girl - which was legal in that US-state. Interesting to notice, that the marriage was working out.
3 years later they travelled to another US-state and were checking into a hotel-room. The young man was arrested, facing rape charges with the valid marriage certificate in his hand.
'Statutory spousal rape'

Your question: Is this justice? Yes, it is justice, as it is all exactly written in the laws of that concerning US-state. Police and judges have to follow that laws...

However it is totally confusing and contradictory, as every US-state has other regulations. What is legal here, is totally illegal 5 miles over the border, like if entering another foreign country.