|
Post by valsa on Mar 22, 2010 9:22:56 GMT -5
Actually that's kind of a poor example since she really was asking for it. literally. She even claimed to be older. Also his sentence was later retroactively doubled, if that makes you feel any better. I know statutory rape is still a crime, but when people pretend it's literally the same as rape, they're not doing anyone a favor. If anything it muddies the waters and makes both issues harder to tackle. And she's ten. I don't care how badly a little kid asks for sex, it is rape (yeah, "literally the same as rape", whatever the hell that means)
|
|
|
Post by safaraz on Mar 22, 2010 17:06:08 GMT -5
Actually that's kind of a poor example since she really was asking for it. literally. She even claimed to be older. Also his sentence was later retroactively doubled, if that makes you feel any better. I know statutory rape is still a crime, but when people pretend it's literally the same as rape, they're not doing anyone a favor. If anything it muddies the waters and makes both issues harder to tackle. Yeah, it was latter doubled, but to only 4 years. Do you think that's a worthy sentence for rape? And either way the judge was still acting as an apologist for the attacker, only he was in a position on power to do something about his views, and this was not the only case in which he gave very minimal sentences to people convicted of rape. And I'm not going into the whole rape/statutory rape thing, as that is just a big can of very very sickening worms. tolpuddlemartyr: sorry, I miss understood the point you where making in your original post
|
|
|
Post by perv on Mar 22, 2010 21:47:19 GMT -5
May I see what you read, perv? All I can find out about the girl is that she was assaulted, wore frilly bras and thongs, and was 10 years old. The blog safaraz originally linked to alludes to it indirectly, by repeatedly proclaiming over and over again in bold letters that children cannot consent. That wouldn't be very relevant if it wasn't a statutory rape would it? It's an old news story though, and I'm having a hard time finding an article about the original events. But the one I linked to has a brief summary. It states that even in accepting the appeal to double his jail time, the judges agreed that her "ostensible consent" as well as her apparent age could be mitigating factors affecting the sentence. Yeah, it was latter doubled, but to only 4 years. Do you think that's a worthy sentence for rape? And either way the judge was still acting as an apologist for the attacker, only he was in a position on power to do something about his views, and this was not the only case in which he gave very minimal sentences to people convicted of rape. Is four years a worthy sentence for rape? Tricky question. Depends on what purpose the sentence is to serve. I believe in restorative justice, and from that standpoint, no sentence is worthy. It's not the kind of crime you can undo. The other purpose of laws (which I grudgingly accept for lack of a better solution) is deterrence. In that case I think yes, four years would likely be enough to deter a rapist, that is assuming he/she was rational enough to be deterred by any sentence. If you mean worthy for revenge, I don't know and I don't care. That's not what laws are for. Try an angry mob for that. You may be right about the judge, but what makes you think Keith Fenn was an "attacker"? He may be an idiot, and since the law says even a reasonable belief that she was of age is irrelevant, he is legally speaking a rapist, but none of the stories I read mentioned any attacks having happened. I'm pretty sickened by it too sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by valsa on Mar 23, 2010 4:12:00 GMT -5
The blog safaraz originally linked to alludes to it indirectly, by repeatedly proclaiming over and over again in bold letters that children cannot consent. That wouldn't be very relevant if it wasn't a statutory rape would it? The reason they bolded that part because there are still a sickeningly high number of people who believe that, if someone with diminished capacity consents to sex, it's okay. It'd be the same if he were arrested for raping a mentally ill person and they pointed out that "hey, by the way, mentally ill people can't actually consent. So the fact that woman ran around naked, screaming that tracking beacons were in her clothing, doesn't make it okay to have sex with her" Or are you okay with mentally ill people, the mentally handicapped, and black-out drunk people "consenting" to sex as well?
|
|
|
Post by shadoom on Mar 23, 2010 6:09:11 GMT -5
There's a big difference between the consent of a mentally ill person, and that of a completely sane person who happens to be under some arbitrary age limit.
I'm not saying that its ok to have sex with 10 year olds, but I can't see why anyone would think that having consenting sex with someone under 16 is the same as raping a mentally ill person.
|
|
|
Post by valsa on Mar 23, 2010 6:17:43 GMT -5
There's a big difference between the consent of a mentally ill person, and that of a completely sane person who happens to be under some arbitrary age limit. I'm not saying that its ok to have sex with 10 year olds, but I can't see why anyone would think that having consenting sex with someone under 16 is the same as raping a mentally ill person. I think it is very much the same, depending on the age of the person in question. If you have a 18 year old and a mature 15 year old, I could see letting that slide. However, this case involved two men (a 24 year old and a 34 year old) who sexually assaulted a 10 year old girl. If she "consented" (the story I read doesn't say she did), do you honestly think she is able to give consent any more than a mentally ill person who "consents"?
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Mar 23, 2010 6:35:52 GMT -5
May I see what you read, perv? All I can find out about the girl is that she was assaulted, wore frilly bras and thongs, and was 10 years old. The blog safaraz originally linked to alludes to it indirectly, by repeatedly proclaiming over and over again in bold letters that children cannot consent. That wouldn't be very relevant if it wasn't a statutory rape would it? It's an old news story though, and I'm having a hard time finding an article about the original events. But the one I linked to has a brief summary. It states that even in accepting the appeal to double his jail time, the judges agreed that her "ostensible consent" as well as her apparent age could be mitigating factors affecting the sentence. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong, but the story you linked to basically tells me "Keep it in your fucking pants you fucking pedo." How the fuck do you mistake a 10-year-old and a 12-year-old for being 16 or older? Especially once the clothes come off? I mean, I understand that a lot of teens and women shave certain areas, but surely development in said areas would give it away? Am I just missing something here? Also about the bolded parts? Yeah, what Valsa said. Some people need to be reminded that fucking kids is neither legal nor, well, the sign of a healthy mind.
|
|
|
Post by shadoom on Mar 23, 2010 6:47:51 GMT -5
There's a big difference between the consent of a mentally ill person, and that of a completely sane person who happens to be under some arbitrary age limit. I'm not saying that its ok to have sex with 10 year olds, but I can't see why anyone would think that having consenting sex with someone under 16 is the same as raping a mentally ill person. I think it is very much the same, depending on the age of the person in question. If you have a 18 year old and a mature 15 year old, I could see letting that slide. However, this case involved two men (a 24 year old and a 34 year old) who sexually assaulted a 10 year old girl. If she "consented" (the story I read doesn't say she did), do you honestly think she is able to give consent any more than a mentally ill person who "consents"? Firstly, judging from what perv said they hardly sexually assaulted her, she asked for sex and they said ok. Secondly, if she was dressed in a way that they could reasonably assume that she was legal (which seems to be implied by perv), then they had no idea that what they were doing was wrong. I'm not saying that her consent was valid, but the way I'm interpreting this is that an apparently legal girl asked for sex and the two men agreed. Then they got thrown in jail for 4 years. Yes it was wrong of them to have sex with a 10 year old, but can you honestly expect people to ask for proof of age whenever they go to fuck someone? Of course not, if someone goes to the trouble to deceive you about their age it isn't your fault if they turn out to be younger, its they're fault for lieing in the first place. EDIT: Of course, all of this is based on the hypothesis that she convinced them she was legal, which I admit is unlikely. But from the way the law seems to work the same thing would have happened if she was 15 (or 17 depending on the UK age of consent), and that would defiantly have been unfair.
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Mar 23, 2010 6:58:33 GMT -5
I'm not saying that her consent was valid, but the way I'm interpreting this is that an apparently legal girl asked for sex and the two men agreed. Then they got thrown in jail for 4 years. Yes it was wrong of them to have sex with a 10 year old, but can you honestly expect people to ask for proof of age whenever they go to fuck someone? Of course not, if someone goes to the trouble to deceive you about their age it isn't your fault if they turn out to be younger, its they're fault for lieing in the first place. I think most guys can tell the difference between a ten year old and an eighteen year old. Ten years old is a kid, pre - pubescent kid. Not a teenager, not close to an adult, no room for saying "shit dude, she totally looked eighteen." I don't buy it for a second and I for one am glad they are locked up, far away from all the other ten year olds in the world!
|
|
|
Post by valsa on Mar 23, 2010 11:48:52 GMT -5
Firstly, judging from what perv said they hardly sexually assaulted her, she asked for sex and they said ok. Secondly, if she was dressed in a way that they could reasonably assume that she was legal (which seems to be implied by perv), then they had no idea that what they were doing was wrong. I'll try to keep this as short as possible, because this is not flame and burn. If two adults have sex with a ten year old girl- that is sexual assault. That is rape. I don't care if she said "yes" or "asked for it". I don't care what she was wearing. A ten year old girl doesn't look or act like an adult or someone capable of giving consent, because she is not. They should have gotten far more than four years. Seeing as their victim was only ten, it would have been ironic justice if they'd been kept in prison for as long as it took for her to come of age. Also, it looks like, according to a blurb linked here, that at least one of these guys also raped a 12 year old. But I suppose he's just so hot that little girls can't help throwing themselves at him and lie about their ages all the time.
|
|
|
Post by perv on Mar 23, 2010 13:50:59 GMT -5
Firstly, judging from what perv said they hardly sexually assaulted her, she asked for sex and they said ok. Secondly, if she was dressed in a way that they could reasonably assume that she was legal (which seems to be implied by perv), then they had no idea that what they were doing was wrong. That's all I was trying to say. I'm not defending people who intentionally have sex with 10-year-olds. What really irritates my are the people who say "it's rape, period" and then based on that equivocation construe the first judge's comments to mean he thinks anyone wearing frilly underthings deserves to be raped. That isn't what happened! (Bold due to the sickeningly high number of people who do this.) Actually no, the AoC is 16, but the cutoff for the reasonable belief defense is 13. I don't really understand the logic on that one. Since the law already specifies it must be a reasonable belief, the age cutoff seems redundant. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong, but the story you linked to basically tells me "Keep it in your fucking pants you fucking pedo." More like "Keep it in your fucking pants you fucking reasonably mistaken person", but they still concluded that consent and apparent age were mitigating factors just not " that mitigating". Since I've never seen the girls in question (especially with their clothes off) I can only speculate, but they were almost certainly pubescent (it's not that rare, and it would also account for their interest in sex) beyond that I don't know but there's enough variation between individuals that I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand as an impossible mistake. I don't buy it for a second and I for one am glad they are locked up, far away from all the other ten year olds in the world! Actually they should be out by now. Also, it looks like, according to a blurb linked here, that at least one of these guys also raped a 12 year old. But I suppose he's just so hot that little girls can't help throwing themselves at him and lie about their ages all the time. I think you misread that. It was two separate cases, one guy in each.
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Mar 23, 2010 15:24:32 GMT -5
Yes it was wrong of them to have sex with a 10 year old, but can you honestly expect people to ask for proof of age whenever they go to fuck someone? Uhhhh. YES. YES, YES, YES. Yes I expect people to act like they have some fucking sense. On my fucking college campus they caution freshmen about the on-campus high schoolers, telling them to make sure that they're not trying to entice a prematurely developed 14-year-old into a date (let alone bed). 10-and-12-year-olds can not legally give consent. How then is it their fucking fault when they're fucked?
|
|
|
Post by Spark on Mar 23, 2010 15:35:47 GMT -5
construe the first judge's comments to mean he thinks anyone wearing frilly underthings deserves to be raped. That isn't what happened! (Bold due to the sickeningly high number of people who do this.) This. I've seen a lot of people take snippets of what he said and then act as if there's a "she was asking for it" tone in his words. www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/1494590.judge_claims_paedophile_victim_dressed_provocatively/Since I've never seen the girls in question (especially with their clothes off) I can only speculate, but they were almost certainly pubescent (it's not that rare, and it would also account for their interest in sex) beyond that I don't know but there's enough variation between individuals that I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand as an impossible mistake. Her advanced pubertal development was the reason the judge sentenced them the way he did. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6237480.stmFrom what I've read about him so far, Judge Julian Hall appears to be an ass with a history of giving ridiculously lenient sentences to sex offenders, but this case alone isn't evidence of that. There are far better examples to use. This one for example: www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/1164836.sex_attacker_spared_jail/ETA: One of the things that bothers me about this (the 10 year old's case) is that the girl said she "I don't actually know" and that she was "in the middle" when the police asked if she'd given consent. This in combination with her actual age is probably the reason the judge sentenced them any jail time at all.
|
|
|
Post by valsa on Mar 23, 2010 15:38:40 GMT -5
A ten year old cannot consent to sex. Period. If someone has sex with a ten year old, even if that ten year old said it was okay, they've committed rape.
The judge in this case appears to have said that this little girl was not raped (or at least, let the rapist off lightly), partly based on the fact that she wears frilly underwear, despite the fact that she was raped. It's not that much of a stretch of the imagination to think that he might extend that theory to other women who've been raped. Which basically means that, according to him, if you wear frilly underwear, you can't be raped (or, if you are, your rapist should get a light sentence because of mitigating circumstances)
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Mar 23, 2010 16:06:01 GMT -5
construe the first judge's comments to mean he thinks anyone wearing frilly underthings deserves to be raped. That isn't what happened! (Bold due to the sickeningly high number of people who do this.) This. I've seen a lot of people take snippets of what he said and then act as if there's a "she was asking for it" tone in his words. Her advanced pubertal development was the reason the judge sentenced them the way he did.Please tell me how I'm supposed to interpret it, then, when a judge blames the whole situation on her wearing fancy bras, frilly undies, and "acting mature".
|
|