- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
How does one person's unsubstantiated claim debunk another's? Just because your sympathies are for the girl doesn't mean her word is sacrosanct. Rape victims lie for any number of reasons, providing they are telling the truth about being a victim in the first place.
Without a doubt. I seriously, like 95%, doubt she consented to anything.
But on that same note, when society hears the word "rape" they think violence. Force. Coercion. They don't think an 18yo with his 17 or 16yo gf on prom night. However, in many states, this is indeed statutory rape. Overuse of the word "rape" has numbed its original meaning.
And while I believe an 11yo girl can consent to sex with a same-age boyfriend, I don't believe that either of them know what the hell they're doing or getting into. But, at least in that case, neither of them is "taking advantage" of the other.
When an adult is involved with a child, the adult always looks down on the child. And the child naturally looks up to the adult. While a few preteen girls might want sex with an adult, it's up to the adult to say "No, I'm a grown up and you're a child. I know you think you want this and you probably do, but as the grown up it's my job to say, "no." It's when the adult thinks with the wrong head (or if a female, her girly parts) is when problems arise. Because the law says its rape, but society's views on rape don't involve two willing participants, regardless of age. It is confusing to an adult not thinking 100% straight and meaningless to a child, as even in their own eyes, they aren't being raped because they are consenting.
It's a conflict that will go on indefinitely until either everyone is in jail or the laws get changed. My grandmother got married at 13 to my grandfather who was 19. He was the stand up man of his community and even has a major street named after him. According to today's laws, he is a child sexual predator. That's almost so ridiculous it's funny. :lamo
That was at least 100 years ago and it's likely you don't know the whole story. Second, 100years ago is a damn site greater distance than the space between 11 and 13, Meaning even 100 years ago.... gang banging an 11 year old would still be sick, whether she consented, or not.
What does it matter WHEN it was? If its raping a child now, it was raping a child then. You're saying that the law alone defines rape, not the act? And yes, I know the whole story of my own grandparents, as I talked to my grandmother about it when I was a child!! LOL
Are you implying that an eleven year old girl wanted to have sex with 18 men and then turned around and cried "rape"?
ELEVEN YEARS OLD.
Simply under statutory rape laws, she was raped.
When an adult is involved with a child, the adult always looks down on the child. And the child naturally looks up to the adult. While a few preteen girls might want sex with an adult, it's up to the adult to say "No, I'm a grown up and you're a child. I know you think you want this and you probably do, but as the grown up it's my job to say, "no." It's when the adult thinks with the wrong head (or if a female, her girly parts) is when problems arise. Because the law says its rape, but society's views on rape don't involve two willing participants, regardless of age. It is confusing to an adult not thinking 100% straight and meaningless to a child, as even in their own eyes, they aren't being raped because they are consenting.
It's a conflict that will go on indefinitely until either everyone is in jail or the laws get changed. My grandmother got married at 13 to my grandfather who was 19. He was the stand up man of his community and even has a major street named after him. According to today's laws, he is a child sexual predator. That's almost so ridiculous it's funny. :lamo
18 people rape, 11 year old, and you challenge the victim? seriously, you need to seek help.
First of all, I do not believe they know all 18 people arrested did have sex with her. Secondly some of them were as young as 14 so it is not as simple as some portray it. Finally, I was only saying that she may not be fully telling the truth. I do find it doubtful that she would consent to sex with multiple people while being watched and recorded by several more people.
I prefer to look at the question from a perspective rooted in reality rather than laws rooted in blind emotion. That a bunch of 50 year-old people think anyone under 17 is too stupid or naive to engage in responsible sexual behavior is not relevant to reality. Of course, if a person is coerced into sex that is rape no matter the age.
The thing is that one could say it about any difference in age. Someone who is 50 might look down on someone who is 20 and someone who is 20 look up to someone who is 50. A 50 year-old may be more capable of manipulating someone who is 20. Of course, the real difference is in the mindsets of people. An astute and capable 20 year-old is capable of manipulating people many years their senior. The same would be true of even younger individuals. Yet talking about that has far less acceptance. We have separate legal systems for youth because of that very perception that someone who is under a certain age simply cannot do what someone over that age can.
There are plenty of people who challenge the 18 people more severely so one more will be of no use. I am at least not reaching definite conclusions, since publicly available evidence is sparse, unlike you assuming all 18 people are rapists just because you saw it on the news.
Trying to completely remove emotion from the laws governing an emotional people is folly.
It is not about completely removing emotion, but not allowing emotion to control the law.
First of all, I do not believe they know all 18 people arrested did have sex with her. Secondly some of them were as young as 14 so it is not as simple as some portray it. Finally, I was only saying that she may not be fully telling the truth. I do find it doubtful that she would consent to sex with multiple people while being watched and recorded by several more people.
It's not about controlling law....emotion can not be removed from law or it will be crueler than any crime.
I am not sure I agree with that, but I do think that emotion cannot be removed from law since humans create laws and humans are emotional creatures. The two are intertwined, and no matter how logical we want to be, some core of us is emotional. When we hear that 82 year-old granny was robbed and raped and killed by some thugs, we apply our logical side to create a consequence for the thugs, but we are also disgusted by the behaviour, we are angered by their actions, etc. We can apply the law as neutrally as we can, but there is still emotion. Seeing, thinking, smelling, touching... all create emotional responses. We see the bad guys and an emotional response ensues. We hear them defend themselves, or their lawyers, and an emotional response ensues. We think about what has transpired and apply the law and an emotional response ensues...
It's not about controlling law....emotion can not be removed from law or it will be crueler than any crime.
If emotion controls law then it will also be crueler. Certainly emotions like compassion for people who have been hurt and people who might be hurt is important, but things like anger and hatred only corrupt the process.
If emotion controls law then it will also be crueler. Certainly emotions like compassion for people who have been hurt and people who might be hurt is important, but things like anger and hatred only corrupt the process.
That's not what I said. Emotion can not be removed from law.
Oh, good grief, you don't even want them to have to register?It MUST be removed from law if by "law" you mean sentencing, and pretty much, it is.
With people talking about cutting off people's dicks (what do you do about a woman child molester?) and killing people who touch kids, that's pure emotion speaking, rational thought has left the building. We don't mutilate people for crimes. If the rightwingnutjobs want that so much, then they would be VERY happy in Iran. While people have every right to get emotional over such a thing, that emotion has no place in the courtroom. The law is about punishment for a crime. That punishment does not go up or down with whether people are emotional about it or not. Since emotion can't affect prison sentencing, people have invented a new method of punishing people like that, the sex offender registry. Since there hasn't been a single study that concluded the registry has protected anybody from anything but have been numerous studies citing its extreme cost, lack of accuracy, broad reach, harming the children of sex offenders whos friends ridicule and tease them because their loved one was discovered on the registry, etc etc as inhibiting its original intent to the point where it's almost useless, it can be said that doing away with the registry or keeping it out of the public's eyes can and should be considered. However, people will be punished with retroactive increases in length of registration without due process, which of course is illegal and unconstitutional and is being found so in cases across the country.
For example, life in prison (safety) vs the death penalty (revenge).
ith people talking about cutting off people's dicks (what do you do about a woman child molester?) and killing people who touch kids, that's pure emotion speaking, rational thought has left the building.
The death penalty is about revenge as much as life in prison is. They are both equal in there logic or emotional stance.
Absolutely incorrect. When arguing that a molester should be put to death, I am being completely logic and making an ethical argument, not an emotive one.
It MUST be removed from law if by "law" you mean sentencing, and pretty much, it is.
With people talking about cutting off people's dicks (what do you do about a woman child molester?) and killing people who touch kids, that's pure emotion speaking, rational thought has left the building. We don't mutilate people for crimes. If the rightwingnutjobs want that so much, then they would be VERY happy in Iran. While people have every right to get emotional over such a thing, that emotion has no place in the courtroom. The law is about punishment for a crime. That punishment does not go up or down with whether people are emotional about it or not. Since emotion can't affect prison sentencing, people have invented a new method of punishing people like that, the sex offender registry. Since there hasn't been a single study that concluded the registry has protected anybody from anything but have been numerous studies citing its extreme cost, lack of accuracy, broad reach, harming the children of sex offenders whos friends ridicule and tease them because their loved one was discovered on the registry, etc etc as inhibiting its original intent to the point where it's almost useless, it can be said that doing away with the registry or keeping it out of the public's eyes can and should be considered. However, people will be punished with retroactive increases in length of registration without due process, which of course is illegal and unconstitutional and is being found so in cases across the country.
Most people don't give a rats ass about someone growing pot and smoking it themselves, yet get caught doing that, and you go away for a very long time. There is almost neutral emotion to that crime, yet the sentence is off the charts. I know child molesters who did 3 months in jail and 5 years probation, and child porn downloaders who, for a first offense, did 10 YEARS in a federal prison with lifetime probation. There is something wrong with that picture. While I don't like to quantify "badness" of crimes, at some point, a rational person would say that someone who actually touched a child should do far longer than someone who did nothing but click a computer mouse. At least that's how I feel about it. And I don't mean production or distribution, I mean simple possession.
Actually, it could be either depending on the content of the argument.
absolutely agreed, just in my case it is the former instead of the latter...
Oh, good grief, you don't even want them to have to register?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?