28
   

Republican Senate Nominee: "Legitimate" rape victims don't get pregnant

 
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Thu 11 Oct, 2012 12:08 pm
@revelette,
Quote:
I mean court judges actually said a handicapped person should have bit and clawed her way out of being raped


An on the other hands there been big fights over whether mentally handicapped people can consent to sex or married for that matter.

Nothing is ever simple.................
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 11 Oct, 2012 12:31 pm
@BillRM,
Yes, mentally challenged adults can marry and have children.
BillRM
 
  0  
Thu 11 Oct, 2012 12:34 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Yes, mentally challenged adults can marry and have children


Even now I think that depend more on what state they happen to be living in however I am not up to date on that subject.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Thu 11 Oct, 2012 01:48 pm
@BillRM,
You've already proved that.
BillRM
 
  -1  
Thu 11 Oct, 2012 01:53 pm
@RABEL222,
However I am up to date on statutory rape not being a simple matter when both parties to consensus sex happen to be minors.

There is no right to single out the male minor to charge due to him being a male and not the female partner when both are minors in having consensus sex.

To say nothing of the fact the article did not state that the charge was statutory rape in the first place.

http://www.volokh.com/2011/06/09/statutory-rape-law-held-unconstitutionally-open-to-selective-enforcement-as-applied-to-sex-between-two-minors/

In any event, the Ohio Supreme Court basically held that this discretionary approach to statutory rape, under which two people would routinely be guilty but the prosecutor would choose which one to prosecute, violates the federal Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause: The statute is “unconstitutionally vague because the statute authorizes and encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” And, “ecause D.B. and M.G. were both under the age of 13 at the time the events in this case occurred, they were both members of the class protected by the statute, and both could have been charged under the offense,” so “[a]pplication of the statute in this case to a single party violates the Equal Protection Clause’s mandate that persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike.” (The opinion was unanimous on the first, Due Process Clause, theory, though one judge didn’t endorse the Equal Protection Clause theory.)

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 11 Oct, 2012 02:27 pm
@BillRM,
They may both be "wrong," but any STD or pregnancy will be blamed on the "boy."

That's only my personal opinion.
BillRM
 
  0  
Thu 11 Oct, 2012 02:38 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
They may both be "wrong," but any STD or pregnancy will be blamed on the "boy."


Blame game is indeed always toward the male however as somewhere near 30 percents of all teens have sex there would be one hell of a prison building program needed if we begin as a normal routine charging teens with statutory rape for having consensus sex with other teens.

Beside Firefly I can not see anyone wishing to imprison 30 percents of all male teenagers or thirty percent of both sexes for that matter.

Last but not least this is not a matter of statutory rape as far as we know.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 11 Oct, 2012 03:06 pm
@BillRM,
Who said anything about "prison?" You're way out of your league to discuss anything with common sense.
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 11 Oct, 2012 03:13 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
They may both be "wrong," but any STD or pregnancy will be blamed on the "boy."


Which implies that the girl is not a responsible person.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -1  
Thu 11 Oct, 2012 04:00 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Who said anything about "prison?" You're way out of your league to discuss anything with common sense.


An what is the normal results of being found guilty of a second degree felony my silly friend?
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Thu 11 Oct, 2012 04:43 pm
@BillRM,
I'm not your "silly friend."

Here are some of the issues depending on the state.
Quote:
Age of the minor and/or age of the offender. By statute, a number of States have determined that the age of the minor and/or the age of the defendant should be a factor in sentencing. As noted previously, the modern trend is toward multilevel statutes, with increased penalties associated with sexual intercourse with younger minors. Moreover, as noted above, States in recent years increasingly believe “older” defendants warrant increased or mandatory minimum penalties. For example, the survey revealed the following:

Delaware raised the penalty from 0–10 years to 2–20 years when the minor is under 16 years of age and the offender is 10 or more years older or when the minor is under age 14 and the offender is at least 19 years old.

In Georgia, the minimum penalty is now 10–20 years, up from 1–20 years, when an offender at least 21 years old has sex with someone under 16 years of age.

A bill proposed in Oregon in 1997 would increase the penalty for rape in the third degree (minor under 16 years) when the defendant is at least 21 years of age. The crime would then become a class B felony, punishable by up to 10 years and/or by a fine of $200,000.

Pregnancy: Sentencing and child support. As the ABA survey indicates, a number of States considered legislation that focused on pregnancy. These proposals reflect different, and possibly conflicting, penalties. When pregnancy results, sentencing can include longer prison time and more severe financial responsibility through restitution and child support.

Illinois proposed and Oregon passed legislation that raises the penalty if a pregnancy results by raising the felony up another level.

Eight other States indicated that pregnancy was considered an aggravating factor at sentencing, generally not a criterion written into the statute, but included as part of the sentencing guidelines.4

Several States permit the court to order restitution for costs associated with the pregnancy dating back to the birth of the child. Some expressed concern that this might permit offenders who can pay to go free, while poor offenders who cannot pay are sent to jail.
spendius
 
  2  
Thu 11 Oct, 2012 04:52 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Gee. The Emperor Tiberius would still be in jail.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -1  
Thu 11 Oct, 2012 06:14 pm
@cicerone imposter,
As I said 30 percents of the total male teenagers locked up for years and then on some sexual predator list for life ..................

That should be interesting to say the least but then logic or common sense had never been a strong point on this website.

Still building all those prisons should kick start the economic as WW2 ended the great depression.

0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  3  
Thu 11 Oct, 2012 07:35 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Beside Firefly I can not see anyone wishing to imprison 30 percents of all male teenagers or thirty percent of both sexes for that matter.

Given the fact that I have never said any such thing, or even implied any such thing, it is clear that you'd rather just fabricate, and make things up, than engage in an honest discussion. That's a sure sign you are out of your depth in even being able to follow this discussion.

CI is clearly more knowlegable regarding the laws than you are, and, rather than trying to patronize him, with demeaning terms like "my silly friend," you ought to try learning something from him.

Why are you even discussing prisons? The issue under discussion involved a physically disabled woman, with the mental capacity of a 3 year old, who was sexually assaulted, given her lack of ability to knowingly consent. Yet the conviction of her rapist was overturned because she didn't indicate lack of consent more forcefully, which is an absolutely outrageous ruling. If she lacked the mental capacity to be able to legally consent, she shouldn't have to forcefully physically indicate resistance for the act to be considered a sexual assault.

BillRM
 
  -2  
Fri 12 Oct, 2012 05:11 am
@firefly,
Quote:
Why are you even discussing prisons? The issue under discussion involved a physically disabled woman, with the mental capacity of a 3 year old, who was sexually assaulted, given her lack of ability to knowingly consent.


Sorry but that is not the case we are talking about on this thread lately that is a side case/issue someone introduced but instead the claimed rape of some high school student by another high school student in school.

Someone then stated it does not matter if it was consensus as any sex with an underage girl is rape as in statutory rape.

Given that the male was a minor also as in 17 years old that is the issue we had mainly been addressing not the issue of mentally handicapped for the most part on this section of thread.

See below........

Quote:
A Wisconsin state lawmaker endorsed by Paul Ryan has come under criticism for suggesting that “some girls rape easy.” While discussing a case in which “a 17-year-old high school senior was charged with sexual assault for having sex with an underage girl in the school’s band room,” State Rep. Roger Rivard (R) told the Chetek Alert newspaper in December that his father taught him that some girls will portray a sexual encounter as rape if they become pregnant. He is now claiming that those remarks were taken out of context and has issued a statement condemning sexual violence:


You might wish to read this thread before posting but what ever you wish to do.

An you had yet to disagree with any level of punishment on this website the longer the punishment the better in your eyes for any misdeed.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  3  
Fri 12 Oct, 2012 06:51 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
on the other hands there been big fights over whether mentally handicapped people can consent to sex or married for that matter.

Nothing is ever simple.................


The victim in this case also has severe cerebral palsy. Moreover, lack of resistance is not evidence that a person wasn't raped.

Quote:
I didn’t resist physically – does that mean it isn’t rape?

People respond to an assault in different ways. Just because you didn’t resist physically doesn’t mean it wasn’t rape — in fact, many victims make the good judgment that physical resistance would cause the attacker to become more violent. Lack of consent can be express (saying “no”) or it can be implied from the circumstances (for example, if you were under the statutory age of consent, or if you had a mental defect, or if you were afraid to object because the perpetrator threatened you with serious physical injury).


source


tsarstepan
 
  3  
Fri 12 Oct, 2012 06:57 am
@revelette,
Thank you Revelette for calling out that "no resistance" approach when considering rape and what's not rape. Many women don't resist violent attacks of rape because they fear that fighting back means one thing, the attacker will kill them out rightly.

For anyone claims and maintains the insidious notion that women who don't resist their RAPISTS is implied consenting to the sexual assault is almost as monstrous as the rapists themselves.
BillRM
 
  -2  
Fri 12 Oct, 2012 07:35 am
@tsarstepan,
Oh? so if a woman is in fear of you or claimed to be but not due to any objected actions on your part and without any knowledge on your part that she feel that way and you have sex with her you are guilt of rape as you should had been a mind reader that she was too fearful of you to tell you no?

At the very least a woman have a duty to tell you she does not wish to have sex with you when you two are in the fooling around stage.
RABEL222
 
  2  
Fri 12 Oct, 2012 09:12 am
@BillRM,
So according to your reasoning if a woman is walking down a path in a park and some guy leaps on her and starts tearing her clothes off she has an obligation to say calmly " hey fella, I dont want to screw you". If she dosent its not rape?
BillRM
 
  -1  
Fri 12 Oct, 2012 09:37 am
@RABEL222,
No I am clearly talking about dating/social situations not an assault and battery in or out of a park with rape thrown in.

Force or threat of force is what should define rape and an assault/rape would cover both of those conditions just fine. Take note of the conditions in my earlier posting that you somehow turn into a assault/rape in a park!!!!

Quote:
Oh? so if a woman is in fear of you or claimed to be but not due to any objected actions on your part


Never had a problem with real rape situations just the nonsense of either invalid consent after the fact or claims that without a man doing any threating actions the woman still fear to tell him no.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 03:31:50