Confessed rapist gets 45 days. Judge "14 year old victim wasn't as innocent due to sexual history.

originally posted by: Pimpish
a reply to: iosolomon
I'm guessing you're well on your way to being banned.

I sure hope not! I haven't done anything that was ban-worthy. I merely offered insight onto a clearly misguided view.

but the victim's promiscuity still doesn't come into play.

But it does come into play. If the victim is known to be promiscuous, and the victim initiates foreplay, that lowers the degree of culpability then if the rapist just drags her onto the floor. What is so hard to understand about the two different situations? The two rapists deserve to be punished differently.

Hey, if you don't like what I'm saying, change your Constitution. Okay?

a reply to: iosolomon

Here's an idea - stop calling people SLUTS for a start.

I seriously cannot believe there are people on this forum starring ANYTHING you have said. I was raped while drunk. I said no. He continued. But what, because we kissed earlier in the night before he raped me - I am a slut that led him on? Should I have been more sensitive to HIS poor drunk feelings and put out, because that would have been the polite womanly thing of me to do?

Mods, I'm sorry but I need to say it - Bull#.

Your rape apologist attitude sickens me. I hope your wife, kids or any of your female family don't have anything like this happen, because I'm sure they won't get any sympathy from you - or maybe if they do, it'll finally open your eyes to the subject.

originally posted by: DilligafMisfit
a reply to: iosolomon
and you really need to stop with the whole "its my fault if my children become rapist's" crap. Like I stated before I can teach them, but they make there own decisions.

No, if you cannot raise your children to know better than to rape, that IS your fault. I am sure your children didn't grow up to be rapists, did they? If your children rape, YOU did something wrong as a parent. There's no arguing against that. That's basic psychology for you.

How very egotistical of you to think you are better than me in telling me how to think. You accuse me "AS AN AMERICAN" of being a sheeple yet you WILL TELL ME WHAT I SHOULD BE THINKING? listen here BIG BROTHER

How many times have capitalism failed in American history? 47. And you, YOU, are A-Okay with trying it again for a 48th time. Wherever you get your thinking from, it's wrong. And you would be wise to listen to me.

This is sounding more and more like we're dealing with someone with a very third-world, old-testament-style theological attitude towards rape, which has no place in a thread about a case in the American justice system. Take your bigotry and backwards attitude elsewhere, please.

a reply to: bkaust
AMEN SISTER!!!!!

originally posted by: bkaust
a reply to: iosolomon
Here's an idea - stop calling people SLUTS for a start.

I was making a comparison. Using slut is against this website rules? I will promptly edit it. I was NOT calling anyone on here a slut.

I was raped while drunk. I said no. He continued. But what, because we kissed earlier in the night before he raped me - I am a slut that led him on? Should I have been more sensitive to HIS poor drunk feelings and put out, because that would have been the polite womanly thing of me to do?

If you said "no," there is NO excuse for his actions. I hope that he was punished.

However, when a woman drinks, and consents to sex, she should not be allowed to cry rape (if she voluntarily drank). We hold people responsible for laws they break while drunk, so the same should be applied to women (or men) who willingly have sex while drunk. That's called the Fourteenth Amendment.

Now, again, if someone says NO, the rapist should be prosecuted and punished. Depending on the circumstances should determine the sentence.

or maybe if they do, it'll finally open your eyes to the subject.

Wow thanks for wishing ill on my family!

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes
This is sounding more and more like we're dealing with someone with a very third-world, old-testament-style theological attitude towards rape, which has no place in a thread about a case in the American justice system. Take your bigotry and backwards attitude elsewhere, please.

Actually, my attitude towards rape (and all crime) is founded in the United States Constitution. I do believe it says "due process." And due process means, the punishment should fit the crime. But that's okay. We all know that Americans don't read the Constitution.

a reply to: iosolomon
You assume to much guy. you dont even know me and I don't know you nor do I ever care to, so stop with the insults for real!! And I choose not to listen to your egotistical maniacal wisdom. go spew your drivel somewhere else. If that makes me unwise than guess what ?!?! read my name: DILLIGAF!! have a nice day!

a reply to: iosolomonThe point is, you think that a woman who is promiscuous deserves less consideration in a rape case than a woman who is not. You call both promiscuous women AND rape victims sluts. You referred to the bible repeatedly. All these things label you as someone from a very backwards society who is attempting to project your extremely backwards sense of "justice" over a clearly secular justice system.

a reply to: iosolomon

You are calling rape victims sluts, there are rape victims on this site, therefore you are calling members sluts. It is highly disrespectful and completely unnecessary.

Second, the constitution has nothing to do with the punishment for raping A WOMAN, that's what the laws and legal codes are for. Please quote the section in the constitution specifically relating to the punishment of rape.

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes
a reply to: iosolomonThe point is, you think that a woman who is promiscuous deserves less consideration in a rape case than a woman who is not. You call both promiscuous women AND rape victims sluts. You referred to the bible repeatedly. All these things label you as someone from a very backwards society who is attempting to project your extremely backwards sense of "justice" over a clearly secular justice system.

Well-said. I appreciate your respect in replying back.

I do not think a promiscuous victim deserves less consideration than a victim who is not. As you (or someone else said), the crime is the act of rape. What I mean to say, if the victim initiated the foreplay with a known history of promiscuity, then that deserves less consideration than a virgin victim. You might rebut that I just contradicted myself. No, what I am saying is in regards to the rapist's intent, and the victim's trauma, which are both taken into consideration for sentencing, the sentence should be lighter for the rapist of the promiscuous victim.

However, if a promiscuous woman was just raped because she dressed "slutty" or was thrown aside or whatever, her promiscuousness should NOT come into play. It should only come into play if she initiated. But I do not want anyone to misconstrue that as meaning promiscuous victims deserve less consideration. (Also, man can also be used here. I use woman because that is the victim in the aforementioned case.)

originally posted by: iosolomon

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes
a reply to: iosolomonThe point is, you think that a woman who is promiscuous deserves less consideration in a rape case than a woman who is not. You call both promiscuous women AND rape victims sluts. You referred to the bible repeatedly. All these things label you as someone from a very backwards society who is attempting to project your extremely backwards sense of "justice" over a clearly secular justice system.

Well-said. I appreciate your respect in replying back.

I do not think a promiscuous victim deserves less consideration than a victim who is not. As you (or someone else said), the crime is the act of rape. What I mean to say, if the victim initiated the foreplay with a known history of promiscuity, then that deserves less consideration than a virgin victim. You might rebut that I just contradicted myself. No, what I am saying is in regards to the rapist's intent, and the victim's trauma, which are both taken into consideration for sentencing, the sentence should be lighter for the rapist of the promiscuous victim.

However, if a promiscuous woman was just raped because she dressed "slutty" or was thrown aside or whatever, her promiscuousness should NOT come into play. It should only come into play if she initiated. But I do not want anyone to misconstrue that as meaning promiscuous victims deserve less consideration. (Also, man can also be used here. I use woman because that is the victim in the aforementioned case.)

The stuff after "however" doesn't matter, because obviously. These rules are already in place. Although cases are mis-called frequently, women are not meant to be allowed to simply call "rape" after consensual sex just because they regret it/want revenge down the line/etc.

This does not excuse your paragraph before the "however", however. Once again a "slut," as you so freely call them, suffers no less simply because she has already had sex. Again, the fact that you seem to think so clearly marks you as someone from a society that represses and shames women. The word "slut" is nearly always offensive, and is doubly so when discussing rape.

originally posted by: DilligafMisfit
a reply to: iosolomon
You assume to much guy. you dont even know me and I don't know you nor do I ever care to, so stop with the insults for real!! And I choose not to listen to your egotistical maniacal wisdom. go spew your drivel somewhere else. If that makes me unwise than guess what ?!?! read my name: DILLIGAF!! have a nice day!

I really did not meant to offend you. I'm really sorry if I did. but you are correct, I am egotistical and maniacal (but not in a violent way). I would set myself on fire to make a political statement, like a Buddhist monk.

originally posted by: Jennyfrenzy
a reply to: iosolomon
You are calling rape victims sluts, there are rape victims on this site, therefore you are calling members sluts. It is highly disrespectful and completely unnecessary.
.

Your point is well-said and valid. I used a poor choice of words. I was just trying to make an example. I do NOT think that anyone deserves to be raped, no matter what.

originally posted by: blackthorne
what the heck is with judges and rape sentencing lately? this is disgusting. just because the girl had a child and did not cry out or resist enough, this FEMALE judge gives her rapist, who CONFESSED, only 45 days in jail! if this punk did this to my daughter, he would become a eunuch!

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Man this is gonna hurt.......l

... Yeah. Gonna keep that one to myself

If it hasn't been posted already..this link below is an excellent insight into the extent of the attribution error this judge has made. Why he is so wrong.

Maybe if this idiot had read this and all the child psychology that supports it - data that is freely available to anyone working with children in any capacity mind you - he wouldn't have made this disgusting judgment and let a rapist go without penalty.

Imo, this judgement is just one more visible proof of the existence of westernized quasi " sharia law" aka the law being run by the twisted logic of abusers, who gained power to set legal precedent and are being permitted by ignorance fear or silence, to undermine and make a joke of justice - legal and otherwise. We have a system of state sanctioned abuse perpetuation that I've experienced first hand, and victims of sex crimes globally have been facing for generations. It is one cog in what keeps the abuse cycles on our world going.

A person's innate right to say no to sex and to expect equality in personal security exists regardless of age, parenting, sex, status, work or lifestyle choices. The right to not have your body violated, is a human right, period. Not a right named as a right because someone gave it to us, but because we all in our guts know it to be true, all of us.

Imo, in this context, this judge is not just wrong he is actually facilitating abuse perpetuation....As he is apparently an educated person, in his position, I can't see how he could have 'missed it' so badly and so I can't see how it could be anything but conscious decision he and others are making to add to the elongation of abuse and cycles of suffering in the world.


Myth of the Teenage Temptress


Rosha

a reply to: iosolomon

I have to say you are one sick individual, and your views are extremely disgusting and deeply disturbing.

a reply to: LadyJae
What a shame....expecting humans to be rational and take the responsibility of their safety rather than expecting others to do that for them, amounts to blaming the 'victim'??
Thank god that our ancestors were not this stupid...
Regarding your rape, i can never know what happened other than your version of events...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: iosolomon

I have to say you are one sick individual, and your views are extremely disgusting and deeply disturbing.

Nice logical argument......
Your feelings cannot be the determinant of what is right and what is wrong..

I haven't read over every post, but the few I did read makes me wonder if anyone actually read the full article?

The girl had texted Young asking him to spend time with her; the girl had agreed to have sex with him but just didn’t want to at school; medical records show the girl had three sexual partners and had given birth to a baby; and Young was barely 18 at the time.

She and Young testified last week at his trial that she had told Young “stop” and “no” numerous times before and during the attack at Booker T. Washington High School for the Performing and Visual Arts, where both were students.

oung pleaded guilty to raping the girl in a music practice room at the school when he was 18. The girl testified that the two had discussed sex but all she wanted to do was kiss.

So this happened while they were both in school. The girl wanted to have sex with him, but not in the music room at the school (or so she says.)

Kind of sounds like one of those "choosing not to consent after the fact." She still went into the music room, or stayed in there with him while others were gone, claiming she only "wanted to kiss." But, most girls (especially ones that are sexually active) know where things end up...

That being said, she says she said "no" and "stop" and he either continued or was engaged in during that. In the end he takes responsibility and admits to it.

A lot of people say "no" and 'stop" but it's more like, "Oh this is bad, we shouldn't do this here...etc"

We really don't know if it's like that or, "NO!" "STOP!" the latter of course being clear and obvious. Myself, I have said "no" and "stop" plenty of times to my girlfriend when I'm not in the mood, but after a minute or two of her not giving up I usually go along with it...

That being said, this kind of thing is not, -Dude hanging out in the bushes pouncing on a schoolgirl-, it sound much more ambiguous, and given the circumstances and perhaps the age and other factors, the judge may be making the right call. The line in the sand for rape sometimes gets really, really washed out.

In this case, the kid took responsibility, the girl gets recognition, and he goes on to pay back society with his light sentence, probation and community service. Sending him away for 20 years doesn't seem like it would benefit society or make it better for anyone involved.

Young testified last week that he had a job that was to begin this week. But he did not give any details except to say his boss knew about his legal troubles. He also testified that he is engaged and his fiancée is pregnant. They plan to get married on her birthday in November.

Since the incident he's gotten married and he's employed. He doesn't sound like threat or fit the profile of some habitual rapist.

Conclusion: Given the facts, and most importantly the complete lack of, making any kind of concrete judgement on this case is silly. And if it really ignites your emotions, it's because you read too many headlines without reading the body.