Boy Touches Breast = LIFE IN PRISON

reply to post by Mitsuskitzo


Good old ATS. When the perpetrator is male and the victim is female, the reporter's credentials, absence of facts and inconsistencies don't tend to matter much. Reverse the gender roles and an excuse will always be sought to excuse the female perpetrator's behaviour.

[edit on 13/6/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Good old ATS. When the perpetrator is male and the victim is female, the reporter's credentials, absence of facts and inconsistencies don't tend to matter much. Reverse the gender roles and an excuse will always be sought to excuse the female perpetrator's behaviour.

I'm not certain that's what's occurring here. It seems that there is a disproportionate legal sentence administered for the crimes. Even with genders reversed the punishment would be excessive.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I'm not certain that's what's occurring here. It seems that there is a disproportionate legal sentence administered for the crimes. Even with genders reversed the punishment would be excessive.

If she had finished committing the act which she was attempting (sex) would your opinion change? If she is released she will no doubt find other young boys to abuse, the difference is that she will be more careful about how she does it.

Whats happens when she reoffends? Will you be one of those people clamouring to find someone to hold to account for her release?

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by Mitsuskitzo

 

Good old ATS. When the perpetrator is male and the victim is female, the reporter's credentials, absence of facts and inconsistencies don't tend to matter much. Reverse the gender roles and an excuse will always be sought to excuse the female perpetrator's behaviour.

[edit on 13/6/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Maybe you should read my previous posts before replying. Ive already said a couple times that my views would be the same no matter if the genders were revered or not. I dont make accusations against anybody with out knowing the whole story first.

Originally posted by Mitsuskitzo
Maybe you should read my previous posts before replying. Ive already said a couple times that my views would be the same no matter if the genders were revered or not. I dont make accusations against anybody with out knowing the whole story first.

Then how would you suggest paedophiles are caught and convicted? Many chldren are abused but people are shocked when they find out about it because the child seemed fine and the person committing the abuse always seemed like such a nice man/women.

Abuse usually comes to light because a child finally gets the courage to tell someone. Without their testimony there is often no proof to convict the adult. The child might show signs of physical abuse but how can you prove it was the accused adult?

So come on, how would you catch and convict these people?

In my opinion the problem isn't that her sentence is too long. The problem is that the murderers are getting off too light.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


These laws are silly and retarded. Total revamp of laws should be done on the basis of practicality.

Originally posted by paxnatus

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
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?

Who said I was excusing it!! do i think it is worth life in prison hell No they did not have intercourse, "touch" is a very broad term.

She did not make him touch her cheak or anything as harmless as that!.This case is specific enough.

I think i stated what should happen regardless of the gender.

No you did not no'r do i believe for one second judging by your reactions that you would be advocating mental treatment and parol if it concerened a male pedophile.

You also avoided the question about this several times.

Think what you want, but for God's sake let the punishment fit the crime!!

Isnt the norm to demand hanging ,torturing and killing child abusers when they are male?



[qoute]How many Rapists, and Murderer's get off Scott free!!

Now you are really just clutching at straws.You seem very apologetic in this case.

Do you believe this caused this child irreversible harm?

Would you have asked the same question if it was a little girl? Or better yet HAVE you ever asked that question if it concerened a little girl??



(You are a bit scary imo)

There are always 2 sides to every story! I'm sure the child was not completely innocent!!

Thats a very bold statement to make.So instead of hanging and killing this particular perp you put blame on the child.Even after saying the following in the very same post:

I would say WE HAVE NOT SEEN THE EVIDENCE!!!! To judge someone and condemn them, having not heard the whole story is wrong!!

Sanity is sometimes hard to find and i cannot find much of it in your message.








[edit on 20-6-2010 by Rafe_]

Originally posted by Le Colonel

Originally posted by celticniall
and if this had been a male coercing a young child of 13, we would all be hankering for a life sentence and castration.....

She is no better than the male paedos.....my heart bleeds......

On this planet, is you are a male that coerces a young child, dont they get only a couple years of prison? What about all the catholic priests? they never get anything? Our priorities are all mixed up these days.

The woman deserves a punishment, but not life in prison.

The whole legal system is rubbish, and should be thrown out. What harm or loss did the woman cause?

This is why I advocate using only common law, and getting rid of the controllers laws entirely.

Firstly men and women are different, and their approach to sex is different. A boy is not going to get pregnant, and for many boys that age - that would have represented a fantasy come true - rather than a 'horrifying' experience.

What the woman did was socially inappropriate - thats it, nothing to punish there. Life in prison is a sick response.

reply to post by Amagnon


My perspective lies with the jury not the excessive sentence.
Perhaps if the jury had been informed of their actual POWERS said sentence would of been avoided.

fija.org...

This is what happens when penalties are left to legislators instead of juries and judges.

Legislators have every incentive to make all crimes life in prison, because that keeps the state coffers loaded with cheap slave labor and the prison guards unions happy.

The lawyer is right that this violates the constitution because it removes all discretion from the court.


Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Since the court has no discretion, it violates the 8th amendment in that it prevents the court from preventing the infliction of cruel and usual punishment.


[edit on 14-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by celticniallif this had been a male coercing a young child of 13, we would all be hankering for a life sentence and castration.....She is no better than the male paedos.....my heart bleeds......

I think 'all' is a bit of a generalization. If we literally copy what she did (putting hand to chest) it wouldn't lack the same sexual component with a man because only the female breast has been sexualized.

Obviously if some babysitting guy had gotten drunk and put a teen girl's hand to his chest and was like "enter me" I'd consider him rather disturbed and want to see him put away for a good while in an institution, but I don't think I'd consider them irredeemable.

The castration approach has alway seemed rather barbaric and I always wondered whether it actually helped. Like, just look at all the issues a lot of guys have with being circumcised against their will, I would think that if someone were violently castrated it could possibly destabilize their mind even further and make them hate and want to get revenge on society for what they'd view as a cruel and unusual punishment.

Testosterone's probably linked pretty closely with other crimes (like assault) too, so I wonder why we're only trying to assign that punishment to sexual-based offenses.