[quote]This is an (alleged) case of forcible true rape, rape-rape in the classical sense of the word “rape”, Not one of the dozens of new versions of re-defined *rape.
A child of 13 years breaks into a house, robs, burglars, abducts and rapes an old lady. Shocking in every respect. A nightmare. In her own house she gets robbed and raped. The kid deserves strict punishment, and society deserves to be protected from such animals
Strict liability laws for statutory rape
But the 90 year old lady had sex with a 13 year old child. In many US states, this is a *strict liability crime.
So the poor old lady could be charged with child rape. Due to the extreme circumstances of the case, prosecutors were wise enough not to press charges, so our analysis is theoretical.
If you have sex with a person under the age of consent, you are a child rapist
“Strict liability crime” means: if you commit an act, (e.g. if you have sex with a mnior) you are guilty and will be convicted. Mens rea, criminal intent is not required , no knowledge needed that you are committing a crime.[/quote]
I personally think that this woman is nowhere near a rapist, as she was the one being raped. What do you people think? Should this woman be prosecuted, or should this woman not be convicted even if she enjoyed it. (she didn't though)
Rest of the story with a slight of bias (I didn't find any other website) [url]http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality/burglary-robbery-rape-of-90-year-old-woman-by-13-y-old-child-by-strict-liability-she-is-a-statutory-rapist[/url]
The kids just fucked up, no the lady is not even close to being a rapist. Hell, the kid should be charged with rape.
No. She didn't force herself onto the kid, it was the other way around.
The kid is obviously in the wrong here, so it's pretty straightforward.
Also, who goes in to 90 year old's houses and rapes them? That's really dodgy.
[b]SKIP TO 1:30[/b]
[video=youtube;5FsfLPohZ_c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FsfLPohZ_c[/video]
my fucking automerge
[QUOTE=Liem;37395930]The kids just fucked up, no the lady is not even close to being a rapist. Hell, the kid should be charged with rape.[/QUOTE]
He's going to be prosecuted and he will ultimately face 15-20 years in prison, where he would spend the rest of his "childhood" in juvenile hall and then some in prison once he's old enough, now the question is, If she enjoyed it, would she still be innocent? (I think so)
also why would she be a rapist? shes the one who got raped how the fuck is that even a legitimate question?
my fucking automerge
Due to Strict liability, she could be charged for rape, and thus makes me question the US government and law system once again, It makes me want to move to another country, as long as she didn't force herself onto him then she will always remain innocent until guilty in my eyes, unlike the strange guilty until proven innocent process I see so much.
As Slipknot once said: [b]All your laws and rules are outdated![/b]
Oh gods - this is not a strict liability case. As the old lady was (in what is legally often defined) a living tool, not doing the actions that would create the liability herself.
A strict liability case generally happens in cases were you have a liability stemming from an obligation - the obligation being to not willingly have sex with a minor, even under the influence of a drug. It's obvious that whoever saw the case does probably have a limited legal understanding.
In her case she fullfilled this obligation.
Hell you could even use an example of a strong 13 year old kid raping a twenty year old. The case would be the same.
[QUOTE=andololol;37396121]He's going to be prosecuted and he will ultimately face 15-20 years in prison, where he would spend the rest of his "childhood" in juvenile hall and then some in prison once he's old enough, now the question is, If she enjoyed it, would she still be innocent? (I think so)[/QUOTE]
Enjoy it or not, Rape is still rape.
Enjoyment doesn't equal consent
[QUOTE=Liem;37396341]Enjoy it or not, Rape is still rape.
Enjoyment doesn't equal consent[/QUOTE]
If only this definition was the only definition, as feminists have put up 19 more definitions to 'rape', sorry if I'm 'bashing' you with human stupidity but [url]http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/social-rules-habits/manipulate-language/rape-is-rape-is-rape-is-a-lie-joe-biden-20-different-types-of-rape[/url]
you'd have to be incredibly stupid to think she's somehow done something wrong by [b]being forcibly raped by a burglar[/b]
this would either get thrown out of court immediately, or anyone audacious enough to take this case seriously would (hopefully) be looking at a disbarment in the very near future
Oh god why is this even being considered
[QUOTE=C0linSSX;37396988]Oh god why is this even being considered[/QUOTE]
Yeah, really.
It's forcible rape regardless of whether or not the kid was under-aged. If he raped somebody his age range it would be rape.
If an 8 year old chokes a man to death, did the man abuse the child with his neck?
[QUOTE=Andokool12;37397047]Yeah, really.
It's forcible rape regardless of whether or not the kid was under-aged. If he raped somebody his age range it would be rape.
If an 8 year old chokes a man to death, did the man abuse the child with his neck?[/QUOTE]
Nope, but society [b]Might[/b] come up with a reason why he killed him, I'm only telling you because of my (very small) experience with laws and court things.
Wow, now this is what i can called, fucked up shit.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
