|
Post by davedan on Mar 23, 2010 17:50:46 GMT -5
DPD and Valsa you're stretching here. The judge sentenced on the basis that she was sexually precocious wearing frilly bras and provocative clothing is part of that. Doctors examined her and considered that she was in her mid teens. If a Doctor considered she was a mid-teen then I think it is fair to say that it would be reasonable for other people to mistake her age.
That aside, the fact that she did not understand consent, when asked by the police whether she consented she said, 'I don't know I was in the middle', is reason enough for them to be charged and convicted of rape and receive a substantial jail sentence. Personally I think if you're over 20 and both these men were (one was over 30) then you shouldn't be trying to pick up 16 year olds in the park anyway and any form of conversation with her would have revealed that while she may have had the phsyical appearance of a teenager she did not possess those mental faculties.
On another note Valsa, your stance on mentally handicapped people would seem to deny them the ability to have sexual relationships because any partner would have to be viewed as a rapist.
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Mar 23, 2010 18:23:46 GMT -5
DPD and Valsa you're stretching here. The judge sentenced on the basis that she was sexually precocious wearing frilly bras and provocative clothing is part of that. Doctors examined her and considered that she was in her mid teens. If a Doctor considered she was a mid-teen then I think it is fair to say that it would be reasonable for other people to mistake her age. I honestly do not want nor intend to attack anyone in this thread, but if I've crossed that line, I apologize profusely. I'm intensely, emotionally involved with this (ridiculous, yes, especially since I have no 'reason' to be) and thus, obviously react emotionally. I respect everyone who's posted here and their opinions, and I apologize if I've acted contrary to that. I still don't see how the blame can be passed to an extent that someone who fucked a ridiculously underaged child gets off so lightly. I also don't see how frilly panties contribute to being promiscuous. Frankly, I blame the two grown men for the whole thing; as I stated before, verify ages before you fuck someone. If you haven't acquainted yourself with the person enough to verify how old they actually are, you shouldn't screw them. I mean...really, seriously, don't. If they get offended and storm off, I would be reeeeally wary, but that's just me. I disagree, Perv, with your statement that statutory rape shouldn't be considered rape. Rape evokes an image of violence, but you don't need violence in order to have rape. The overgeneralizing was out of hand, yes, and I apologize for that, but at least at first blush (if not second, third, and fourth) would you not agree that the judge seemed very dismissive? "Oh hey frilly panties? Psh she was asking for it." Sorry for my kneejerk reactions again...I'm trying my best to not be overly emotional with this, but all I want is to strangle the judge. Maybe I need to stop reading about the case. >_>;
|
|
|
Post by Spark on Mar 23, 2010 19:14:42 GMT -5
While those quotes do look pretty bad, he also said that what those two did was clearly a crime. The judge was mentioning the way she dressed as one of the reasons the men believed her claim of being sixteen, along with her physical development. I don't see that as the same as saying she deserved it for "immodest dress." Only that she didn't look underaged; not even to the doctors who conducted her medical examination.
I don't think it was unreasonable to see it as him accusing her of wrongdoing based on the quotes in isolation. I also believed he was blaming her at first, so I really should have expressed that more clearly. I was just attempting to express frustration after reading several blog entries on this, entries in which very few authors posted what he said in context.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Mar 23, 2010 19:32:51 GMT -5
My first instinct on hearing 'frilly panties' is to hang the judge. The actual facts of the case make me feel that the decision itself was not unreasonable. Punishment is supposed to reflect the seriousness of the crime and the amount of damage done. In this particular instance, the victim was a willing participant who was deceptive about her age with a prior sexual history (which is only mentioned as a factor due to her very young age because it shows that she wasn't being lead blindly down the garden path). Basically, If she wanted to do it, there was very little harm done. (I know, there is harm, but I mean there is no more harm done by him then by a kid the girl's age who couldn't be charged)
In addition to this, punishment is to serve as a deterrent. I strongly suspect that this guy will have learned his lesson. He was sentenced to four years in jail for what he thought was a legal piece of tail and will forever be a child rapist. I think he will ask for I.D. next time.
|
|
|
Post by perv on Mar 23, 2010 19:51:24 GMT -5
I disagree, Perv, with your statement that statutory rape shouldn't be considered rape. Rape evokes an image of violence, but you don't need violence in order to have rape. I didn't exactly say that. In fact up to a point I agree. There are many kinds of rape that don't involve physical violence. It's the specifically the "ostensible consent" thing I find problematic. Clearly a rape accomplished with willing victim is a very special kind of rape, and I think it would be better if there was a separate name for it. Because when someone says "rape" without further qualification it's just not what you think of, and generalizing on the assumption that it is the same as any other rape is just plain incorrect. Perhaps the biggest difference, and the one relevant here, is that it's possible to commit that crime accidentally, unlike a "normal" rape. Which, supposedly, is what happened in this case. And I don't think it's unreasonable that a crime of negligence gets a lessor sentence to a crime of malice. Frankly, so many of the reports have such a heavy "angle" that is hard to get a clear picture of what the judge actually said, and in what context. I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt (possibly more than he deserves), just because almost all the stories are slanted the other way. My understanding is that the clothing was only brought up in the context of partly explaining why Keith Fenn mistook her for 16. But it's entirely possible that the judge made some inappropriate off-topic remarks as well.
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Mar 23, 2010 21:55:55 GMT -5
Not that bad in comparison to what some judges have said in the past. There was this one victorian judge who had some beauties including and I am paraphrasing because I can't be arsed digging them out:
"No doesn't always mean no"
"provided there is consent, whether that consent is provided by some coercion or accompanied by preceding tears or pressure, provided that there is ultimately consent it is not rape."
These were from the 1990s mind you not the 1890s
|
|
|
Post by valsa on Mar 24, 2010 0:26:28 GMT -5
DPD and Valsa you're stretching here. The judge sentenced on the basis that she was sexually precocious wearing frilly bras and provocative clothing is part of that. Doctors examined her and considered that she was in her mid teens. If a Doctor considered she was a mid-teen then I think it is fair to say that it would be reasonable for other people to mistake her age. I'll address the other stuff later (late for school, late for school!) but, taking into consideration his history when it comes to child rape, I'm taking this particular judge's "Gosh, well a doctor thought she was in her teens" the same way I would an uncited source from Skyfire. I didn't see anything in any of these articles that actually came from the doctor who examined her. As for her dressing provocatively and acting precociously, the first thing I thought of was that she's been sexually abused before. Sexually inappropriate behavior and dress in little girls is actually a warning sign of sexual abuse.
|
|
|
Post by jinxxed on Mar 24, 2010 19:14:36 GMT -5
DPD and Valsa you're stretching here. The judge sentenced on the basis that she was sexually precocious wearing frilly bras and provocative clothing is part of that. Doctors examined her and considered that she was in her mid teens. If a Doctor considered she was a mid-teen then I think it is fair to say that it would be reasonable for other people to mistake her age. I'll address the other stuff later (late for school, late for school!) but, taking into consideration his history when it comes to child rape, I'm taking this particular judge's "Gosh, well a doctor thought she was in her teens" the same way I would an uncited source from Skyfire. I didn't see anything in any of these articles that actually came from the doctor who examined her. As for her dressing provocatively and acting precociously, the first thing I thought of was that she's been sexually abused before. Sexually inappropriate behavior and dress in little girls is actually a warning sign of sexual abuse. No it isn't, not at all. It depends more on what group they are involved with than anything else. Which is why sheit like "the promise" always fail. Regardless of what, raping a child should lead to extreme torture ending in death, when i was in Afghanistan i met the kind of people who could do that just right, i suggest we send all pedophiles to them. If nothing else, the nitrogen rich meat could fertilise their ground.
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Mar 24, 2010 19:47:48 GMT -5
I'll address the other stuff later (late for school, late for school!) but, taking into consideration his history when it comes to child rape, I'm taking this particular judge's "Gosh, well a doctor thought she was in her teens" the same way I would an uncited source from Skyfire. I didn't see anything in any of these articles that actually came from the doctor who examined her. As for her dressing provocatively and acting precociously, the first thing I thought of was that she's been sexually abused before. Sexually inappropriate behavior and dress in little girls is actually a warning sign of sexual abuse. No it isn't, not at all. It depends more on what group they are involved with than anything else. Which is why sheit like "the promise" always fail. Regardless of what, raping a child should lead to extreme torture ending in death, when i was in Afghanistan i met the kind of people who could do that just right, i suggest we send all pedophiles to them. If nothing else, the nitrogen rich meat could fertilise their ground. As much as I totally agree with the sentiment, I've always opposed punishment that could end in death because legal systems are human institutions and can always fuck up. Sending an innocent man to that fate would not be just. That said I do think that in my country at least pedophiles are treated too leniently. If guilty someone should simply not be released, they are too much of a danger to the community to allow them to live with people. The moronic state government in NSW once placed a notorious pedophile in public housing in an inner city area only a short walk away from not one but several primary schools, this while whole families remain homeless. The fuck? I've been homeless, I spent several weeks crashing wherever would have me, sleeping in parks and squatting until I finally got a room in an overcrowded men's hostel filled with ex - cons, guys fresh out of rehab, guys fresh out of the psych ward where I had to sleep with an iron bar in my hands out of fear of being bashed. And they give fucking child molesters swank inner city town houses? How the hell does that work? Same goes for prisons, they put these monsters in "protective custody" but some dumb as a plank young criminal can get chucked in with the hardcores and beaten and raped because they stole a car, probably under the influence of smack or crack. Not saying that those sort of idiot young criminals are innocent, but they protect frigging child molesters. Why? I don't know if governments elsewhere in the world have this bizarre double standard but it shits me to tears!
|
|
|
Post by Spark on Mar 24, 2010 22:09:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by perv on Mar 25, 2010 18:31:34 GMT -5
I'm not sure why you're arguing about that. It was already stated that they girl had prior sexual experience. That would necessarily have been abuse, at least in the same sense that what she did with Keith Fenn was rape. It's also totally irrelevant to the case since he knew nothing of it.
I get the impression some people are still reading it as though the girl's morality that was being questioned. Nobody is claiming Keith deserved a lessor sentence because she wasn't "virtuous" enough or something. No. Her behavior and appearance was only significant as it applies to whether Keith could have "reasonably" mistook her for 16.
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Mar 26, 2010 13:51:53 GMT -5
I get the impression some people are still reading it as though the girl's morality that was being questioned. Nobody is claiming Keith deserved a lessor sentence because she wasn't "virtuous" enough or something. No. Her behavior and appearance was only significant as it applies to whether Keith could have "reasonably" mistook her for 16. Which I still think is a load of bollocks, but I really can't say for sure since I've never seen her picture and am not either of the two men. I also think that anyone who's going to bonk anyone they don't know well should check ID. Period. Maybe that's just crazy talk, but I would at least be worried about STDs (if one wants to go for the "well she was sexually active before, which is where the men heard about her from" angle).
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Mar 26, 2010 18:10:33 GMT -5
There is no such thing as "rape". The only guilty party are the woman's parents or male relatives for failing to restrain the women. Let's take this to F&B mofo and I'll show you how much rape doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Mar 26, 2010 18:23:58 GMT -5
Nuked the obvious Alexius troll. Please people, do not feed the troll, and report all sightings of said troll to a nearby mod.
Anyone caught feeding troll will be warned. So do your duty and help the mods kick this troll permanently from the forums.
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Mar 26, 2010 18:38:52 GMT -5
Sorry, my bad. >_>; *zips the lips*
|
|