25
   

Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"?

 
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 09:22 pm
@JustBrooke,
Thank you hon, but it doesn't bother me anymore. Girl, that is one awesome post you just made. You go girl! Very, very well put and thought out and I'd say you pegged Bill and Hawkeye perfectly!
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 10:25 pm
@JustBrooke,
Right on!

You have summed it all up perfectly.

I really hope that Hawkeye and Bill will find some other place to play. It feels so good just to be able to have an adult conversation in here that is not being constantly disrupted by two people determined to prove they have no respect for women.

I hope this thread has done some good. I think it's important to try to keep it going.



Intrepid
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 11:29 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Now the question is should I allow this thread to die out by no longer postings to it?



YES!


Your postings have been excessive. Your contribution has been nil. You have, however, reinforced the fact that rape laws are needed and necessary to protect women from scum like you.

0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2010 11:40 pm
@JustBrooke,
Just two words......

Excellent post!
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2010 04:39 am
@JustBrooke,
Your post should be banner headlines, everywhere. Hopefully some guys who tend to be jerks will get the message and change their ways.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2010 09:04 am
@firefly,
I have thoroughly enjoyed the discussion with "those" that actually discussed. I did get a bit miffed earlier in the thread. But so much useful information has been posted and I am very grateful for it.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2010 09:25 am

SAD VERY SAD FOR ALL THREE CHILDREN


Appeal Court judge condemns decision to try two 10-year-old boys for rape at Old Bailey
By Rebecca Camber
Last updated at 4:44 PM on 29th July 2010
Comments (0) Add to My Stories Lord Justice Hughes said that the youth court had ample powers to deal with the case
An Appeal Court judge condemned the decision today to try two boys aged 10 accused of raping an eight-year-old girl at the Old Bailey.

In an extraordinary case that sparked a review of how children are treated in a criminal court, the two boys, now aged 11, became Britain's youngest sex offenders when they were found guilty of attempting to rape an eight-year-old girl earlier this year.

But today judges at the Court of Appeal criticised the decision to bring the case to the highest criminal court in the land, saying the youngsters should have faced the trial at the youth court.

The Court of Appeal dismissed an application to overturn the boys' convictions today.

Their barristers argued that the trial judge should have thrown out the case when their eight-year-old victim admitted in cross examination that she had lied about the attack.

But Lord Justice Hughes, Mrs Justice Rafferty and Mr Justice Maddison ruled that it was right for the trial judge to allow the case to continue for a jury to consider even though the girl's evidence was contradictory.

The two boys were accused of luring the eight-year-old girl away from her home in Hayes, west London on October 27 last year.

The boys allegedly dragged their victim around a block of flats and bin sheds where they repeatedly exposed themselves, yanking down the girl's underwear despite her protests.

Then they led her to a field where they 'helped each other', taking turns to carry out the sexual assault.

After a two-week trial at the Old Bailey, a jury cleared them of rape in May this year.

But they found them guilty of attempted rape by a majority, even though the victim admitted that she had lied as she feared her mother would deny her sweets if she found out she had been 'naughty' with the boys.

Yesterday appeal judges said they had been troubled by the case and criticised the decision to bring it to an adult court.

Lord Justice Hughes said: 'We should say that, like the judge, we have found it a painful case to consider and a difficult one in which to apply the rule of law which we are obliged to apply.

A court sketch, shows the case at the Old Bailey where two boys, aged ten and 11, were found guilty of trying to rape an eight-year-old girl
'We are unable, however, to leave this case without recording our dismay that it became necessary for two 10-year-olds and an eight-year-old, all of impeccable upbringing, to be the key participants in a trial before the Crown Court.

'We are particularly concerned about the effect of a publicly staged trial in this arena on the ability of a little girl to move on with her life with minimum adverse impact.'

The judge went on to say that the youth court had ample powers to deal with the case, adding: 'We are unable at present to see why it could not be tried at a youth court.

'We are told that the view was taken by the Crown Prosecution Service that as rape was a 'grave crime', the necessity for (the Crown Court) followed.

'That, however is not the test. Those who are under 18 and particularly children under 15, should, wherever possible, be tried in the youth court.

'It is the court which is designed to meet their needs'.

He added: 'We do hope that if similar proceedings should arise again these principles should be kept in mind.'

The two boys are due to be sentenced next month.

Questions have been raised over whether the case should have been brought at all.

The Ministry of Justice has now announced a review of how children are treated in a criminal court after senior figures amongst the police, judiciary and children's charities expressed concern about the case.

Critics including the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken MacDonald said it should never have been held in an adult criminal court.

Britain's most senior police officer Sir Paul Stephenson also spoke out, saying: 'We need to look at how we deal with children of such a tender age through the court process.'

Whilst Maggie Atkinson, Children's Commissioner for England said the current court system was inadequate.

Print this article Read later Email to a friend Share this article: Facebook Twitter Digg it Reddit Fark Del.icio.us Newsvine Nowpublic StumbleUpon MySpace We are no longer accepting comments on this article.
Ads by Google
A 9mm is False ProtectionDiscover What Survivalist Masters& The Army Don't Want You To Know
www.CloseCombatTraining.com

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1298124/High-Court-judge-condemns-decision-try-10-year-old-boys-rape-Old-Bailey.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#ixzz0wV3ZT2ik
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2010 10:14 am
I knew it was too good to be true.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2010 10:21 am
He's baaaaack! Shocked

Who wudda guessed? Drunk
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2010 12:43 pm
@Intrepid,
And he's still not making a point.

The conviction in the case was not overturned.

The issue was simply whether they should have tried them as adults or not. In a juvenile court the trial would not have been public. No one is dismissing the incident as "children being children".

We try children as adults all the time in the U.S., particularly for murder. We have 13 year olds sentenced to life in prison. What to do with children who commit adult crimes is a difficult choice for society to make.

But I also recently posted the story about the group of boys (some as young as 9 and 10, I think) in the U.S. who gang raped a little girl. They were charged with rape, among other things, although some are making plea deals. This is not normal childhood behavior. That little girl was raped. What should we do with these children? Why do such young children even do such things? Where do they get the idea that rape is acceptable?

As usual, BillRM misses the point.

He must have nothing else to do with himself, if he hangs out in here knowing he is clearly unwanted. That's rather pathetic.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2010 02:19 pm
@firefly,
In Canada, we have the young offenders act. Young people under the age of 12 are never charged. Under extreme circumstances, a 16 year old may be charged as an adult.

The maximum sentence for murder and sexual assault (rape) was 3 years from 13 to 18 years of age. A few years ago they extended the maximum to 10 years under public pressure.

There seems to be the attitude that the law can't do anything to me so I will do as I please.
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2010 02:22 pm
@Intrepid,
Quote:
He must have nothing else to do with himself, if he hangs out in here knowing he is clearly unwanted. That's rather pathetic.


Yeah - I could almost feel sorry for him. Almost.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2010 02:25 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:

Quote:
He must have nothing else to do with himself, if he hangs out in here knowing he is clearly unwanted. That's rather pathetic.


Yeah - I could almost feel sorry for him. Almost.


Snood,
I didn't say that. You quoted Firefly's post under my name. Not that I don't agree with it. Wink
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2010 02:45 pm
@firefly,
Brooke is wonderful as a person (I've admired her for a long time) and is very good in explaining the laws and the whys of the laws where some of the rest of us, including myself, don't have the patience. Firefly has been a patient elucidator also.

I haven't followed all this for a few weeks - am not always up for reading the thread as it can be so discouraging. I do hope the thread does some good over time.
Intrepid
 
  3  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2010 02:50 pm
@ossobuco,
Despite the nonsense that has been posted by dumb and dumber, some very good information has come from this thread.

Firefly has provided a lot of factual information and Brooke nicely summarized the bottom line.
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2010 03:02 pm
@Intrepid,
...what he said
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Aug, 2010 12:16 am
Now a woman who was working to clean up the Gulf oil spill alleges she was raped by a co-worker who was her supervisor. The man is a registered/convicted sex offender, but BP's subcontractors didn't do criminal background checks on the people they hired. So, finger pointing is going on all over the place with people trying to pass blame for the alleged rape.

Personally, I think the alleged rapist is to blame. If he hadn't raped this woman, it probably would have been another woman elsewhere.

Quote:

Investigation: Could background check have prevented alleged rape?
By Abbie Boudreau, Scott Zamost and Jessi Joseph
CNN Special Investigations Unit

Pascagoula, Mississippi (CNN) -- A lack of screening of oil spill cleanup workers meant a sex offender got a job, and left him free to rape a colleague according to a Mississippi county sheriff.

A CNN investigation into the incident reveals that basic background checks were not done on those hired to remove oil from the beaches in and around Pascagoula.

Jackson County Sheriff Mike Byrd told CNN he was shocked when he met with the head of BP security for the area several weeks before the alleged rape took place. He said the BP representative told him that only drug screenings, not background checks, were being conducted on the cleanup workers.

"I said, 'You're kidding me.' He said, 'No.' He said, 'There's so many of them, we were told to do drug screens and that was it.' And I said, 'Well, that's not good at all.' "

Byrd said he told the BP official that "you're going to have every type of person coming in here looking for a job, and you're going to have the criminal element in here, and we're not going to know who we're dealing with if we don't do background checks on these people."

"It's sad because you got a victim now by a sex offender, and he's in our jail. Had we have known this, he would have been arrested before the crime could have been committed," said Byrd, who also said that if asked, his department would have done the background checks for free.

Rundy Charles Robertson, 41, who faces charges of sexual battery and failure to register as a sex offender, is in the Jackson County, Mississippi, jail with bail set at $505,000. He told police that he had consensual sex with the woman. He has not yet entered a plea.

Robertson has a criminal history dating back to 1991, according to police records. He was put on the national sex offender registry for a 1996 conviction for contributing to the delinquency of a minor in Louisiana. He is also on probation after being convicted in 2003 in Georgia for cruelty to children.

Read Boudreau's blog post on background checks for spill workers

Robertson had been supervising a crew of cleanup workers, including the alleged victim. She told CNN he offered to take her home one day in June because she was not feeling well.

However, she said, when he dropped her off, he asked to use the bathroom in her motel room. When he came out, she said, he raped her.

The woman told CNN she is scared and angry that this happened.

"If they would have ran the background checks, they wouldn't have a man like that working," she said.

"Emotionally, it's really, really messed me up. I get real upset at times, I go through anxiety. I feel angry, I feel dirty. I don't understand what gave him the right to take something -- or felt he could do what he wanted. ... I'm scared. I'm real scared."

She said she was laid off and is now unemployed.

"I find it unbelievable because BP and their subcontractors had relationships with all local law enforcement," said Adam Miller, the woman's attorney. "They had the opportunity and the ability to clearly check all of these people that they were hiring and bringing in to ensure the safety of the public."

He said since the incident happened in June, it's been "a living hell for her."

"She gave up her housing where she was living to come here," Miller said. "Now she's been raped, she doesn't have a job, and everybody walked away."

BP hired a company called Miller Environmental Group for the beach cleanup project. Miller hired Aerotek to find workers.

You can read the rest of the story here. They had hired other convicted sex offenders, as well as others with various criminal backgrounds.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/12/gulf.cleanup.workercharged/?hpt=C1


Would they really not have hired this man if they knew of his background? Should convicted sex offenders not be able to get any employment?

I'm not sure that having people register as sex offenders really offers women much protection.

The woman said she trusted the man because he was her boss. But this kind of rape can happen in any acquaintance situation, where the woman may not know much about the man. I'm not sure BP or it's sub-contractors really have any responsibility here, although I suspect the woman may sue them.

I'm not sure that anyone but the rapist is responsible for the alleged rape in this situation.

Anyone else here have a different opinion on that?



Intrepid
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Aug, 2010 06:56 am
@firefly,
firefly wrote:


Would they really not have hired this man if they knew of his background? Should convicted sex offenders not be able to get any employment?

No way to know if they would have hired him. Convicted sex offenders should come under the same umbrella as any other offender who takes their chances in getting employment after their criminal activity

Quote:
I'm not sure that having people register as sex offenders really offers women much protection.

It is another level of protection that might help someone. It also helps to keep track of these offenders

Quote:
The woman said she trusted the man because he was her boss. But this kind of rape can happen in any acquaintance situation, where the woman may not know much about the man. I'm not sure BP or it's sub-contractors really have any responsibility here, although I suspect the woman may sue them.

Of course it could happen in any situation. That is no reason to add to the possibility by improper screening. Sure, someone else may have been the victim in another place if they had not hired him, but the point is this victim would not have been raped. The same may be for whoever his next victim might have been.

Quote:
I'm not sure that anyone but the rapist is responsible for the alleged rape in this situation.

Of course, the rapist is ultimately responsible. We are all responsible, however, to do everything we can to identify potential problems.

Background checks are often used by employers as a means of objectively evaluating a job candidate's qualifications, character, fitness, and to identify potential hiring risks for safety and security reasons including criminal activity.

Companies make a habit of not hiring thieves either.

Quote:
Anyone else here have a different opinion on that?

See above




0 Replies
 
JustBrooke
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Aug, 2010 09:45 am
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

I'm not sure that having people register as sex offenders really offers women much protection.


I have to take off so I don't have much time to comment, but I like the registry for sex offenders. My job requires social relations with clients. A couple years ago I had a new client, and we had plans to meet at the local tennis club, with some lunch afterwards. Luckily, someone in my office told me to be careful with him as he was a known rapist. Known to whom? Not me. So I looked him up on the registry, and sure enough, he was listed as a level 3 sex offender. Much of the time, we think of a sex offender as someone that is low class. Or at least I have been guilty of that. My clients are wealthy, and I handle their commercial business in a finacial way. These guys, for the most part, are supposedly upstanding citizens. Tis not always the case, though.

Now, I pay closer attention to the registry. I often travel to meet clients. It can be quite a distance from here to there, so I am placed in a strange place with someone I don't really know that well. Sometimes for days. In these cases, I don't have my companies pilot on stand-by to fly me back. He generally does not get grounded for that many days. I always check the registry for whatever area I am traveling to, and I look-up his name. The registry provides me with some peace of mind. Especially knowing that that there will be a lot of close contact between him and I that is outside of his office on a social basis. I would never put myself in that danger if I had the knowledge that he was an offender.

Just some food for thought concerning the "good" that the registry can provide.

Gotta run!

0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Aug, 2010 10:00 am
The sex offender registry can be a good thing but how many people really access it? I had no clue how many sex offenders were in my area until I looked it it! One is not more than a half a mile from me!!!!!!!!!!! I think when planning to move anyone should check that registry out before moving into the neighborhood. How sad is it that this is what our society has become?

As far as the BP situation, hmmm, seems to me if BP hired some group to hire people that BP should really be concerned about their company (especially since it is in trouble because of the spill). I would think they'd want to take all precautions to make sure there's no more bad press for them. But, that's hindsight.

In today's society, I think background checks are a must.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 01/22/2025 at 11:17:10