Boy Touches Breast = LIFE IN PRISON

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Also you say Pedophiles cant be cured. Well duh cus pedophilia isnt a disease its a mind set. you cant cure people of their sexual preference. Its like telling a gay person not to be gay or telling a straight person to be gay. Its not going to happen. That just aggrevates me when people say ignorant things like this.

reply to post by Rafe_


Preparing for a bank heist is just a little bit more complicated and time consuming than merely spur of the moment having a kid touch your breast and ask him for sex. I think it was more of in the moment type of thing. If that is indeed what happend. Like I said I dont really fully believe the offical story.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by Mitsuskitzo]

The crime here is the court system, whereas the jury was given no openly available choice for nullification of an unjust law.

You are all in "divide and conquer," land in a system that allows huge financial crimes, but punishes petty rudeness with more venom than for murder. There is no chronic behavior here, and no choice for the judge, while the jury needed to exercise their choice. The jury has no awareness that while they are "following the judge's instructions," they too are equal to a judge under law.

Maybe the Amish would shun the person for a few months, but your irrational mandatory sentencing tyranny heaps cruel and unusual punishment. Of course for it's cruelty it is the "usual," so they keep heaping abuse.

Yes there are obedient sheep chanting with an unknown official view, baa baa.

Meanwhile low IQ and ill mannered TSA goons gawk at everyone including children under their naked body scanners, and it's all for your "security."

Is this polity designed for maximum humiliation under a top heavy class system?

[edit on 11-6-2010 by SkipShipman]

Originally posted by Mitsuskitzo
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

Also you say Pedophiles cant be cured. Well duh cus pedophilia isnt a disease its a mind set. you cant cure people of their sexual preference. Its like telling a gay person not to be gay or telling a straight person to be gay. Its not going to happen. That just aggrevates me when people say ignorant things like this.

Oh dear you should really be careful calling people ignorant. I know paedophilia is a sexuality, however it is not quite compararable with hetero and homo sexuality. Paedophilia, in the best definition i have heard from a psychologist was described as a form of sexual retardation. If you want to debate that we can because i've done it here before. I've stated in the past that paedophiles can't be fixed because it's a sexuality but that is always referring to current technology.

Paedophiles always reoffend and therefore, as their sexuality directly hurts individuals (chidlren) then they should be locked up for life if they act upon their urges. When it comes to curing paedophilia it may very well be possible in the future because although it is a sexuality it is not the same as the others.

sorry feeling a bit infinteile today, but if she made me touch her breast
1, i'd be worried about getting my hand back,
2, i'd have to contemplate either killing her or killing myself

lets face it shes a minger and probably thought she could only get laid by a 13 yo - who probably also turned her down, to be honest most american lads are 6 foot at 13 and built well , probably looked 17!!!, i agree the punisment she got was major, but if you turn it around and it was a guy putting your lil girls hand on his manly parts and asking her to sleep with him i think it'd probably have been the death sentence judgung by the judge

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


I didnt call anybody ignorant. I said when people say Ignorant things. You cant cure people of who they are. you can only cure sickness, ailments, diseases, or viruses. and its very comparable to homosexuality and hetero and bi and whatever other kind of sexuality you can come up with. Theres nothing wrong with the person there not retarded (well some may be) or "sexually retarded" as you say. Humans are mammals. Mammals are designed genetically to start reproducing upon sexual maturity.

The sex offender registry is unconstitutional.

She has the right to refuse to register because it is unconstitutional.

So who's really following the constitution here?

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

they have a massively high reoffending rate and their compulsion often gets worse once they are successful.

That's a myth but if you actually believe this then give sources.

reply to post by Rafe_

As for that boy its hard to tell how it has impacted him.But i can imagine having a old drunk woman making him do things and quite forcefully advancing on him could leave him quite shocked,unless he and her had some history of mutual flirtation.

Really? how it has impacted him? He is 13 not 5! It was a breast!! This is a case of ridiculous over reaction. I'm sure he forced her! Do you realize what 13 year olds are exposed to everyday at school? Trust me it would shock you!

Most 13 year old boys are having sex! Has it occurred to anyone that he may have been the one that initiated it and got caught so he made the accusation in order to save his own butt?

We saw one clip of a verdict being read. We did not see any of the evidence presented in this case, and yet she deserves life in prison?

Was it wrong? Yes, but she needs psych. care which would be more beneficial to her than prison.

I'm sure the boy will be just fine!

reply to post by paxnatus


I've asked this already but will repeat the question again:

Can you please explain why the gender of the adult should determine whether there was actually harm done to the minor? Not even reversing the roles, let's say an adult male made a 13 year-old boy touch his penis and told him he would like to have sex with him. Would you still be excusing the actions of the adult in this situation? Would you be making claims like you just did because the adult happened to be a woman?

no wonder she did that 'cause a 13 year old boy has no sense and would do a woman like her. Now this makes sense!

Originally posted by Mitsuskitzo
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

I didnt call anybody ignorant. I said when people say Ignorant things. You cant cure people of who they are. you can only cure sickness, ailments, diseases, or viruses. and its very comparable to homosexuality and hetero and bi and whatever other kind of sexuality you can come up with. Theres nothing wrong with the person there not retarded (well some may be) or "sexually retarded" as you say. Humans are mammals. Mammals are designed genetically to start reproducing upon sexual maturity.

Yeah you said what i wrote was ignorant and yet you didn't even understand it, you leapt upon what you thought it meant.

The word retard is used commonly as slang for stupid but this is not how i am using it, the word has a very specific meaning when used in certain contexts. Sexual retardation means the paedophile started to develop sexual feelings towards his/her peers like any normal person but when others progressed, moving with their peer group and developing preferences for physically developed women, the paedophile got stuck in the initial stages.

Therefore this is not comparable to hetero, bi, or homo sexuality (although a paedophile may be hetero, homo or bisexual within the framework of paedofilic attraction). Hetero, homo and bisexuality are normal because they do not include a retardation of sexual development. The paedophiles condition is closer to a mental disorder than it is to the other sexualities and while it is not currently treatable it may very well be in future.

reply to post by Dark Ghost


I have asked that as well twice now. No one cares.

A woman made a boy touch her “he wanted it and must have enjoyed it” (not the exact words used but certainly some have posted similar). I am reminded of the people saying that about a woman that is dressed provocatively and being raped, though more people still call for long sentencing then.

Raist

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

they have a massively high reoffending rate and their compulsion often gets worse once they are successful.

That's a myth but if you actually believe this then give sources.

It's not a myth, it's difficult to get figures on the true reoffending rate for several reasons.

1. The statistics often put all sex offenders together in one group which skews statistics.

2. The reoffending rates are often based upon reconviction rates and obviously not every paedophile is caught abusing.

3. The figures are not able to reflect those who contiinue to use chld pornography as this can go undetected.

A range of international studies have put re-offending rates for sexual offenders at between 15% and 43

Source

If we take amiddle of the road figure that means roughly 35% are caught reoffending. Estimates of actual reoffense rates can go much higher. Furthermore if you know anyone who works in a prison on the wing housing paedophiles ask them about what the prisoners decorate their cells with.

Generally they decorate them with children cut out of clothing catalogues and things like that. They are allowed to do this because the pictures are not actually illegal so it can't be stopped but it shows a clear danger. When getting out of prison it seems obvious they would abandon these legal pictures as no one would be seeing what they download online.

If one is trying to assess the effect [or lack thereof] this will have on a [this] adolescent's mind this is essentially impossible.

Knowing the contents of anyone's mind/mentality is virtually impossible.

We can only try to estimate some rough average for someone of his 'categories'. [age, gender, orientation, culture]

The ASSUMPTION this is going to radically warp &/or wreck his brain i think is quite low on the probability scale,

Unless of course he hears all your vitriol & hyperbole before he has found his own delicate way through it with some careful, considerate adult counselor, if he [his parents?] even feels the need to.

It would probably upset him most if he is gay [bi?] & worried about being 'exposed' over 'performance' issues.
That isn't to say there aren't a good proportion of sensitive heterosexuals who could find this also somewhat traumatizing.

But it is society's publicly displayed [as opposed to deeper reality] outrage that tends to amplify it into more than it most likely is.

This is a PERSONAL experience for this kid,
and should not be taken as a LICENSE for a bunch of you MORALITY DISPLAYING PEACOCKS.

Get your own freaking ego out of it. Quit trying to steamroller & wildly, ignorantly PRE-assigning absolute vindication & guilt.

Get off of your freaking MORALITY MELODRAMA and calm down & come down to the intricate, delicate neurology of REAL people & quit
CASHIERING his actual experience into your
MACHINE HYPERREACTIONS.

Probably a Million innocent people are dead in a war over non-existent things, where there were no terrorists all as a result of your country's actions,

Yet you INSTINCTIVELY like a bunch of animals react to this, and DON'T seem to react at all to the other.

YOU are INSANE & neurotic in your wild, disproportionate applications of SUPPOSEDLY righteous outrage.

You will probably be the doom of the human species.

Why do people react wildly more strongly to sex than to murder?
I understand that sex has to do with delicate, important motivations & mentality, especially for young impressionable minds,
but murder is a complete extinguishment of all of that for some person.

Honestly i think you people are crazy.

and BTW quit trying to own other people's lives & experience.
Dummies like you are CLUELESS & a reckless endangerment to boot.
You are of the mind to get an ax because there's a flea in Lizzy's ear.

To see supposed adults responding so irrationally is what is truly traumatic to me & any sensible person, perhaps including this young guy.

reply to post by slank


I don't get why people say these things. People bring forth controversial issues on this forum all the time and discussion is expected. Would it be much of a discussion if everyone just said "no harm done, the lad and his parents can sought it out"? I don't see the logic in accusing people of trying to impose their morals on others by simply discussing the topic. Why is stating one's opinion placing oneself on a moral pedestal of sorts?

[edit on 12/6/2010 by Dark Ghost]

reply to post by Dark Ghost


Well said. Most miss out on this point in many other threads here as well.

Raist

When blind, thoughtless, irrational vitriol has been implemented into LAW it is a lot more than just 'discussion'.

Bill Clinton was impeached for having SEX, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary.

There is NO sense of proportionality,

Which means people are NOT intelligent.

Their frame of reference, if they had any in the first place, flies right out the freaking window.

And frankly we probably won't survive that level of stupidity.

It is like focusing on trivial or relatively trivial things, while Rome burns around you.

But by all means, fiddle on.

Don't allow impending reality to impede you an ANY way.

reply to post by slank


I see so because wars are going on and millions are dead we should ignore other issues like paedophilia. Look it is possible to pay attention to the war and this issue.

As i stated earlier, the suicide rate amoong abuse victims is much higher than the non abused person, abused people also tend to drink more, take more drugs, have more destructive relationships etc etc. This is an important and your complete disregard of other peoples opinions as "reactionary" or "disproportional" is unfair at best.

Some of us didn't simply react with emotion, some of us take a very considered response to this issue, realise the damage paedophiles do and want such people locked away where they can't hurt anyone. It is not unreasonable to enact laws and punishments to protect society from a real, tangible danger that happens every day.

Oh and as for Clintons impeachment, yeah that was ridiculous, amercians are often rather prudish, it's quite sad. However it is not prudish to think paedophilia is wrong and should be dealt with using harsh measures.