[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
There’s a political party in Holland that wants to make pedophilia legal.
You’re kidding, right? Let’s see some references (no Ann Coulter please).
The trouble with this debate is the arbitrary age of consent. Technically, if you have sex with an 18 years old in Indonesia, you are a pedophile. Same thing with 17 years olds in many places. On the other hand, sex with a 12 year old in some places is considered normal.
If I was in charge, I’ll take away the arbitrary age, commission a large study about when people hit puberty, take the average of the nation, add a year to that number (to round it up) and declare it national age of consent.
From a pragmatic point of view, I think promiscuity is an even bigger problem for society. Morally of course, kiddie rapists are right up there with killing babies and torturing puppies.[/quote]
Well, it looks legit. Of course people are outraged and stuff and it’ll never actually work, but they have one; which under Dutch law has a right to exist.
[quote]lixy wrote: DNA test clears man of rape 26 years later
[i]DALLAS - Three times during his nearly 27 years in prison, Charles Chatman went before a parole board and refused to admit he was a rapist. His steadfastness was vindicated Thursday, when a judge released him because of new DNA evidence showing he indeed was not.
The release of Chatman, 47, added to Dallas County’s nationally unmatched number of wrongfully convicted inmates.
“Every time I’d go to parole, they’d want a description of the crime or my version of the crime,” Chatman said. “I don’t have a version of the crime. I never committed the crime. I never will admit to doing this crime that I know I didn’t do.”[/i]
Off topic, I know, but what do you think the penalty for the bitch who ruined this guy’s life should be?[/quote]
Well, in the case of children there will be less of a chance of a mistake, in my opinion. Consider, that eye witness testimony may not be relied on at all, DNA testing is used extensively in this day and age, etc.
I this case, if it is determined there was malicious intent, meaning she wasn’t raped but want to bring this guy down or something, then she should serve two years for every year he served. If it was just mistaken identity, then what can you do? It sucks, but if she honestly thought she had the right guy…what can you do. In that case, the attorneys on both sides then have culpability and should be investigated for flagrant mistakes in the case that ruined a person’s life for no fucking reason.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I’d really like to know how you (or the relevant authority) came up with that figure.[/quote]
Oh, it’s simple. You take the rate of rapes reported in an anonymous survey of a large sample group in the population, and then compare that to the number of rapes reported to the police in the same population.
Police-Reported Rapes per 1,000
-------------------------------- = Rape report rate
Survey-Reported Rapes per 1,000
[quote]pat36 wrote:
I this case, if it is determined there was malicious intent, meaning she wasn’t raped but want to bring this guy down or something, then she should serve two years for every year he served. If it was just mistaken identity, then what can you do? It sucks, but if she honestly thought she had the right guy…what can you do. In that case, the attorneys on both sides then have culpability and should be investigated for flagrant mistakes in the case that ruined a person’s life for no fucking reason.[/quote]
That’s nice and all in theory, but short of a confesion, it’s impossible to establish malicious intent.
I think the problem lies with the system wherein the accused is considered guilty until proven innocent. I support maximum punishment for established rapists (be the victim a kid or a grown-up), but I also believe in granting benefit of doubt. All that fancy DNA wizardry is pretty useless when it comes to establishing if a rape occurred. I mean, how hard is it for a gal to get a dude’s sperm? All you can establish with technology, is that there was sexual encounter. The chick (think a vengeful ex) can then get a few bruises (easy peasy!), and go to the cops in tears. A girl confessed to me (in a boastful way) that she did that. Needless to say that it was the last day I saw her.
I’m all for empowering women, but giving them a send people to jail free card is pretty irresponsible. I want to treat the kids’ cases differently (seeing that they’re prone to be victimized), but I’ve been a kid myself and know how manipulative one can get.
Orion speaks of 50% false rape accusations, but does it really matter? What would be a reasonable threshold? 25%? 10%? 5%? This is not a DUI or a drug dealing charge. It’s far far worse. If I had to choose, I’d rather be convicted of homicide than (child) rape.
My opinion on this is loaded. Even though I find the subject just as repugnant as everyone else, I’m going to try and break it down.
First question: Practically what is the difference between assault and rape? My answer would be that rape has traditionally been seen as a more serious offence because there is the possibility that someone will be impregnated, and also arguably that males are biologically hardwires to claim all the women they can for themselves. There are probably also distinctions drawn by religion and natural law, but I’m not an advocate of either.
Second question: Hypothetically if a rape results in no psychological damage, is there any reason why it should not be tried as an assault? In many societies it is not considered wrong for minors to get married or have intercourse with adults. This suggests that our view towards children and sex-related offences is a social construction.
My conclusions are:
Hypothetical scenario #1. Where there is psychological damage, IF rapists should be killed, then assaults against children with a strong psychological aspect should also result in the death penalty
Hypothetical scenario #2. If there is physical harm/discomfort with no psychological damage, IF child rapists should be killed then assaults towards children should also carry the death penalty
Hypothetical scenario #3. Where there is a rape but no psychological damage or physical harm/discomfort, we may be justified in killing a child rapist, but it would be strictly because they ARE a child rapist, not necessarily because they have caused harm. My only concern here is that if we are justified in killing people for this, why aren’t we justified in killing people for ‘being’ homosexual or ‘being’ obese. In short this results in fascism
I want to make it clear that this is just my attempt to separate an analysis from my emotional knee-jerk reaction. Just because I didn’t shout “BURN THOSE FUCKERS” doesn’t mean that I condone child rape in any way. I hope people are smart enough to see that.
Given the repugnency of the crime, people tend to assume the worse when accusations are made. Even someone cleared of wrongdoing will be held in perpetual suspicion by the community after allegations of molestation. Given how hard it is to prove incontrovertibly so many molestation and rape cases, and further given the tendency of people to assume the worst of those accused and their desire to exact a terrible punishment, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to predict that there would be a significant mistakes made, many never even being discovered.
I also don’t think juries, prosecutors, or the public would be able to show the discipline to limit the use of the death penalty to just those cases in which there was something close to absolute proof. There’s too much emotion tied to this subject for it to be handled in a sufficiently objective manner.
Good point etaco,
However I know in Australian rape law it’s usually the case that it’s harder to prosecute than defend.
On the other hand, both our legal systems are in part based on Blackstone’s principle that it is “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” I tend to agree with him.
There’s also a stigma of being labeled negatively by society even if a court finds you innocent. A similar stigma prevents people from actually reporting rape cases.
Bottom line is that this is just a damn contentious issue in terms of evidence and public opinion.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
There’s a political party in Holland that wants to make pedophilia legal.
You’re kidding, right? Let’s see some references (no Ann Coulter please).
[/quote]
“Court refuses to ban Dutch pedophile party
Published: TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2006
THE HAGUE: THE HAGUE:A Dutch court refused Monday to ban a political party whose main goal is to lower the age of sexual consent from 16 to 12. The judge said it was up to voters to determine the appeal of political parties.”
[quote]Legionnaire wrote:
On the other hand, both our legal systems are in part based on Blackstone’s principle that it is “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” I tend to agree with him.
[/quote]
Good point. Can you ever reimburse a dead person if they’re found innocent posthumously?
I’m not sure what my feelings are exactly about the death penalty; however, what tends to unnerve me in debates such as these, is the methods of punishment suggested.
I think that, if the death penalty is deemed warranted in a particular case of sexual assault on a minor, there should be no different procedure than is performed in any other execution.
[quote]Legionnaire wrote:
Good point etaco,
However I know in Australian rape law it’s usually the case that it’s harder to prosecute than defend.
On the other hand, both our legal systems are in part based on Blackstone’s principle that it is “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” I tend to agree with him.
There’s also a stigma of being labeled negatively by society even if a court finds you innocent. A similar stigma prevents people from actually reporting rape cases.
Bottom line is that this is just a damn contentious issue in terms of evidence and public opinion. [/quote]
My point though was that I think the stigma is so much stronger in child molestation cases and the issue so much more emotionally charged, that Blackstone’s formulation could easily fall by the wayside in some cases. Procedural checks are too easily overwhelmed by social pressures in the midst of hysteria. This is my issue with capital punishment in general, but especially with crimes like these.
Wasn’t able to read each post, but here’s my two cents.
Watching a BBC special about rape, there was an interesting point made. The victom in many cases, due to trama, is not able to successfully identify there attacker, they paint a picture of what they want the attacker to look like, thus there are many wrong accusations. This has lead to people being sentanced to jail for crimes they did not commit, as lixy showed in that little blurb he posted. IMO those people who have been convicted of rape, but are actually innocent, are worth more than sentancing all rapists or child rapists to death.
I also think it would be a better punishment to send rapists, murders, and many other criminals to do manual labor for the rest of their lives with no luxuries. These days your able to get a college eductaion in prison. Don’t get me wrong, prison is horrible, but a college education come on, and this is at the expense of the taxpayer.
Plus, the people we really have to thank for that there are no more child rapes are the pedophiles themselves.
Most of them know it is wrong and simply do not act on their urges- Since around 20% of men seem to have pedophile fantasies (though I guess that depends on what you call a pedophile) there would be no way to stop them if they all acted on their impulses.
[quote]orion wrote:
Plus, the people we really have to thank for that there are no more child rapes are the pedophiles themselves.
Most of them know it is wrong and simply do not act on their urges- Since around 20% of men seem to have pedophile fantasies (though I guess that depends on what you call a pedophile) there would be no way to stop them if they all acted on their impulses.
[/quote]
I think this is the key to that 20% number.
By American legal standards, it would possibly be a ‘pedophilic fantasy’ to look lustfully at a 16 y.o. girl, and I would wager that a lot more than 20% of men have been guilty of this.
On the flip side, I don’t think anywhere close to 20% of men have ever been sexually attracted to a seven y.o…
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
orion wrote:
Plus, the people we really have to thank for that there are no more child rapes are the pedophiles themselves.
Most of them know it is wrong and simply do not act on their urges- Since around 20% of men seem to have pedophile fantasies (though I guess that depends on what you call a pedophile) there would be no way to stop them if they all acted on their impulses.
I think this is the key to that 20% number.
By American legal standards, it would possibly be a ‘pedophilic fantasy’ to look lustfully at a 16 y.o. girl, and I would wager that a lot more than 20% of men have been guilty of this.
On the flip side, I don’t think anywhere close to 20% of men have ever been sexually attracted to a seven y.o…[/quote]
Now, had I written by American standards I would have been accused of being anti-American for the umpteenth time.
I’m generally anti-death penalty. Of course, if one of my own was the victim of child rape, I’d see differently. But I think the odds are innocent people would get the chair and that is unacceptable. I also don’t think a child rapist is a rational person, so the death penalty would not work as a deterrent.
[quote]orion wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
orion wrote:
Plus, the people we really have to thank for that there are no more child rapes are the pedophiles themselves.
Most of them know it is wrong and simply do not act on their urges- Since around 20% of men seem to have pedophile fantasies (though I guess that depends on what you call a pedophile) there would be no way to stop them if they all acted on their impulses.
I think this is the key to that 20% number.
By American legal standards, it would possibly be a ‘pedophilic fantasy’ to look lustfully at a 16 y.o. girl, and I would wager that a lot more than 20% of men have been guilty of this.
On the flip side, I don’t think anywhere close to 20% of men have ever been sexually attracted to a seven y.o…
Now, had I written by American standards I would have been accused of being anti-American for the umpteenth time.
The legal age in Austria is 14.
[/quote]
I’ve been trying to figure out what your avatar is ever since you switched from the fuzzy purse.
I swear it looks like a chicken dressed up for Louis XIV’s court.
My point though was that I think the stigma is so much stronger in child molestation cases and the issue so much more emotionally charged, that Blackstone’s formulation could easily fall by the wayside in some cases. Procedural checks are too easily overwhelmed by social pressures in the midst of hysteria. This is my issue with capital punishment in general, but especially with crimes like these.[/quote]
I suppose the jury would be very susceptible to this. Since the jury decides the ‘facts’ in rape/child-molestation case with little evidence, a group of persons without any objective filter are in a sense left to decide someones fate.
Whereas the problem of evidence in traditional rape cases can sometimes be one testimony against another, trying to exact a solid testimony from a child would be extremely difficult. In many ways they cannot distinguish the ‘real’ from the ‘imaginary’ or ‘implied’.