Why do rapist and pedophiles have paternity rights?

reply to post by The Cold Dragon



I totally agree that the law is abused as well, to open it up to a case by case investigation would never happen due to the costs involved, you only need to look at the case of BabyP recently to this in action. 5 years ago it cost the social work approx £150 to go to court to get an at risk child taken in to care, now it costs over £4000, many cases are now looked at from a financial perspective.

A case of the law being abused, one I worked on:

An 18 year old 'man' in a nightclub, admission to club must 18 years old, he meets a girl they start to date, she tells him shes actually only 17 and in final year at school (hence the schoolbooks in her room) a month later the police arrive at his door he is arrested. the girls father had confronted her about her relationship, in an argument she said "I can sleep with who I want", he calls the police, she is only 15. end result he is found guilty of statutory rape (the girl stood in the witness box and admitted to lying about her age), put on the sex offenders register, has to visit police once a week, and has to tell any potential employer.

reply to post by whoswatchinwho


BINGO. I realize that I tend to always take the controversial and antagonizing viewpoint in many threads where sexuality is involved, but it is because of the abuses that I take these stances... not because I want kids getting raped or worse.

I want to protect everyone who is innocent, and everyone who has not harmed anyone but may have fallen on the wrong side of Secular Morality of the Moral Absolutists in our society who ignore situations like the one you just cited because they have to protect the children and damn anyone who happens to be caught up in such a situation.

Originally posted by whoswatchinwho
An 18 year old 'man' in a nightclub, admission to club must 18 years old, he meets a girl they start to date, she tells him shes actually only 17 and in final year at school (hence the schoolbooks in her room) a month later the police arrive at his door he is arrested. the girls father had confronted her about her relationship, in an argument she said "I can sleep with who I want", he calls the police, she is only 15. end result he is found guilty of statutory rape (the girl stood in the witness box and admitted to lying about her age), put on the sex offenders register, has to visit police once a week, and has to tell any potential employer.

That is something i've said for years and has no bearing on this thread in my view. It's clear he woudln't have known and shouldn't have been prosecuted. I think we're talking more about children that are groomed or a lot younger than the abuser.

There has to be an age limit otherwise people would just have sex with children through trickery and coercion. Manipulation is a classic paedophile behavior and forced attacks aren't as common as people think. The above scenario is a very clear and different situation and i'm disgusted that he was made to sign the register.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
reply to post by whoswatchinwho

 

BINGO. I realize that I tend to always take the controversial and antagonizing viewpoint in many threads where sexuality is involved, but it is because of the abuses that I take these stances... not because I want kids getting raped or worse.

Sorry no, this situation mentioned above is not the same as what you've said earlier in the thread .You were seemingly abdicating children as young as 12 having sex with adults and that's very different. Of course if there was a 12 year old who looked 18 and got into the club then again she would be falsely declaring her age and any man/woman who has sex with her shouldn't be prosecuted.

However we were talking about very different situations to the one above.

reply to post by whoswatchinwho

A case of the law being abused

I can absolutely agree in cases such as this, where the adult involved was led to believe (reasonably) that the girl was of age, the adult should not be punished. It's a case where the girl should be punished for fraud, and the laws need to be changed to reflect that.

I can also agree with IR's assessment on age spread allowances between teens. We actually have those in Alabama.

Where my dander gets up is when a mention is made that children can give sexual consent to adults, or when parental involvement in trying to prevent unwanted conduct is condemned. The act of prosecution in the case of statutory rape is, indeed, usually initiated by the parents of the minor, but who else should bear that responsibility? The child, who has already demonstrated a lack of understanding of the consequences of their actions? Someone in government who cares more about red tape than about anyone actually involved in the case?

No, we have the best system available to us. Age of consent laws have a solid basis in reality, and while there are no doubt those exceptions who do not need the laws to protect them, the greater benefit to the majority outweighs any detriment to the few. There is really no way to decide who is really ready mentally to become an adult and who is not; the proof is not in their past, but in their future.

I illustrate by the following example the message I am trying to portray: We have speed limits on our highways that apply to everyone. There are plenty of drivers who are dangerous at speeds much below the posted speed limit, and some who are actually safer than the norm at speeds in excess of it. Yet, how many drivers will admit that they have a limit as to how fast they can drive and still be safe? The final judgment of whether or not a driver is safe at 80 mph is not his/her feelings, but rather a continued lack of accidents at those speeds. Should we allow people to decide their own personal speed limit then, for fear of denying someone capable of driving faster the right to do so? Obviously not. The possibility (probability) that any given driver is unable to cope with higher than posted speeds is too great to allow others around them to suffer should their belief in their ability be far greater than their ability itself.

So it is with age of consent. The chance of teen pregnancy rates as opposed to the limited infringement of that occasional teen who shows remarkable maturity is too different in consequence (to both the child and society) and probability to ignore. We live in a society, and the needs of that society will sometimes take precedence over the desires of an individual.

And parental rights and authority must never be questioned. Ever.

TheRedneck

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Please quote where you think I said what you're claiming. I am not for abdicating parenting, I am for accepted consequence to behavior.

Nor am I promoting the idea that preteens should all go out right now and find someone to have sex with.

All I originally ask, and all I am continuing to ask for... is if the situation which created the topic was one of Statutory Rape or Actual Rape.

From the article, the Adult was found guilty of "raping" one of his daughter's friends 10 or 20 times. Not his daughter, or even a girl who he necessarily has direct influence over, some friend of his Daughter's. You would THINK that if there wasn't consent involved, the Daughter's friend would not put herself in any situation where the Predator might take advantage of.

So I have QUESTION as to the validity of it being termed "Rape". I have reasonable doubt in the case of "Rape". Now, Statutory Rape? There wouldn't be any question whatsoever that it would be classified as that. I don't particularly believe in Statutory Rape laws, but I'm not going to be changing anyone's minds in this discussion or elsewhere.

I am not, never have been, and will never be fore forced or coerced victimization. I merely recognize that ALL situations are not uniform, however some here would like to believe they are.

Because some judges use drugs.

Well there is also another issue, if the victim realized that having the child would mean a lifetime connection with the rapist, and that the child would grow up admiring the rapist as his father, the only other choice would probably be to abort. I am pro-choice, having said that the victim should have the choice to bear her own offspring without ties to the beast that raped her if she wants too.

If the rapist has visitation rights as the father, that means he would also have the right to refuse to relinquish the child for adoption. He could insist on raising it himself. Imagine if the victim realized this when she was 6 or 7 months along in the pregnancy.

[edit on 21-11-2008 by Sonya610]

If I was a rape victim, there is no way on earth I would EVER inform that person that I was pregnant to begin with and I would terminate the pregnancy. I could not live with the thought of that child knowing he/she was the result of a violent act. I can't imagine how that would affect a child's well-being.

I know a woman (I worked with her) who was raped when she was 20 and conceived a child because of it. She decided to keep the child because of her religion and the rape haunted her or years. She eventually came to terms with it through years of counselling and kept the truth from her son by telling him his bio father had died. But he eventually found out the truth as a teenager when he overheard a conversation between his relatives and was devastated and extremely angry at his mother for not telling him earlier and holds extreme rage for his father.

His mother says he has never been the same since. I would rather not put a child through that.

reply to post by swinggal



What a sad story! I think it would far more traumatic for a male child, that poor kid probably grew up thinking his father was this "perfect, generous, loving guy" only to have his dreams shattered, and a horrible curse laid on him.

That would have to mess a boy up bad, I think it would easier for a female child to adjust too simply because she would not identify or feel she is modeling herself after her fantasy father figure.

I don't think gender matters. No child should have know that their conception came to be because of a rape.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Where my dander gets up is when a mention is made that children can give sexual consent to adults, or when parental involvement in trying to prevent unwanted conduct is condemned.

Can Preteens and Teenagers GIVE CONSENT to other Preteens and Teenagers?

The act of prosecution in the case of statutory rape is, indeed, usually initiated by the parents of the minor, but who else should bear that responsibility?

Ideally? A suit should only be brought by an aggrieved party who was party to the incident (As in one of the two involved in the sex) or on behalf of an aggrieved party (As in there must be a grievance from one of the participants, a PARENT should never bring a suit because they don't like that their daughter/son had sex with someone over 18).

The child, who has already demonstrated a lack of understanding of the consequences of their actions? Someone in government who cares more about red tape than about anyone actually involved in the case?

There are hundreds of thousands of adults in the U.S. alone that lack an understanding of the consequences of their actions, yet they are allowed to have sex freely whenever they like. There are adults that are as emotionally and mentally mature as children that are allowed to bump uglies. Why should the LAW single out a class of society which is not uniform in this respect? Just because society itself deems them incapable of consenting, even if that is completely inaccurate?

No, we have the best system available to us.

Not only no, but hell no and I should never, ever have to illuminate why that is the case. It should be self-obvious.

Age of consent laws have a solid basis in reality,

Which reality? They do not reflect individual differences in maturity or awareness of repurcussions. Age of Consent is a catch all which, as I stated before, exists only for economic reasons in that it would be cost-prohibitive to consider all cases on a case-by-case basis.

and while there are no doubt those exceptions who do not need the laws to protect them, the greater benefit to the majority outweighs any detriment to the few.

Rule of the Majority IS Tyranny of the Minority. The U.S. is intended to be a representative republic founded on protecting those "Exceptions" from the "Mundanes".

There is really no way to decide who is really ready mentally to become an adult and who is not; the proof is not in their past, but in their future.

Most adults aren't adults, and there ARE ways of gauging a persons maturity level. Acceptance of responsibility, awareness of repercussion, and demonstrably sound action are signs of adult maturity.

Should we allow people to decide their own personal speed limit then, for fear of denying someone capable of driving faster the right to do so?

I actually think there needs to be a level based classification for driving, so that people who operate flawlessly at higher speeds may have a different license and be allowed to navigate at a different speed.

A car analogy. It would figure we'd have one by now.

So it is with age of consent. The chance of teen pregnancy rates as opposed to the limited infringement of that occasional teen who shows remarkable maturity is too different in consequence (to both the child and society) and probability to ignore. We live in a society, and the needs of that society will sometimes take precedence over the desires of an individual.

Teen Pregnancy rates are almost entirely effected by how much Sex Ed and Birth Control are promoted in a society.

The needs of a society should never take precedence over an individuals rights. It just happens to be that it has in the case of teenagers and pre-teens (Because their rights were stripped from them around the Industrial Revolution).

And parental rights and authority must never be questioned. Ever.

TheRedneck

Again, not only wrong but Hella-Wrong. Every individual should have their authority questioned... Children should question their parents authority because it is a sign of mature intellect to NOT be indoctrinated by your parents and walk around like brainless clones of them.

If you are remarking about OTHER people questioning parents authority, people without kids shouldn't think they know better than parents, and people who are parents shouldn't think they know other parents children. IN that, I will concede that each parents rights shouldn't be infringed upon by other adult individuals.



[edit on 25-11-2008 by TheColdDragon]