F*cked up sentencing

[draco664]

A 20-year-old plys four adolescents (aged 12, 14, 14 & 15) with alcohol and has sex with them.

Pleaded guilty - walked away with a suspended sentence, even though the rapist had breached a similar order for attempted robbery.

Messed up, yes?

Well, there's one overriding fact that ensures sentence leniency.

Can you guess what it is?

[ExRetailDrone]

Ugh. I had a sinking feeling that was the reason before clicking on the link. Just disgusting. A person's gender should have no basis whatsoever on a criminal sentencing, except to figure out which prison to send a person to.

The judge attributed her offending to a troubled background, low self-esteem and alcohol abuse.

Fucking seriously!? If it had been a male assailant, that excuse would never fly in a million years, and it especially would not have been spoken through the lips of a judge. Such utter bullshit.

[Dreamstalker]

As if gender wasn't astounding enough...

"The judge attributed her offending to a troubled background, low self-esteem and alcohol abuse". I think the judge got played. She must have known what she was doing was very wrong.

I can only hope that she can never, ever be hired in a child-care capacity.

[Rapscallion]

First thought - those lucky lads, hang on am I allowed to think that?

Seriously, at that age I'd have been delighted.

Second thought, she's not exactly unattractive in that photo - no stunner, but she should be able to get laid if she hung around in a bar and accepted the offer of a drink here or there.

Idiot.

I think the first reaction I had was a more honest reaction to the double standard, but the double standard exists for a reason. An adult man forcing himself on a drunk twelve-year-old can cause significant damage to an underdeveloped girl. The other way around and it's more like a hot dog being thrown down a wide corridor.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

An adult man forcing himself on a drunk twelve-year-old can cause significant damage to an underdeveloped girl. The other way around and it's more like a hot dog being thrown down a wide corridor.

First, that's only physical damage, and that's also dependent on the male side's care. The female body is quite resilient. I speak from experience on this matter.

Psychological damage, however, is a far greater problem. There is a very good reason why we have age of consent laws. The laws themselves may be a bit screwed up, but the reason for their being is important.

^-.-^

[Canarr]

Well... the lucky lads thing isn't very far off. When I was a hormone-crazed 15-year-old, an attractive 20-year-old wanting to have sex with me would've been a dream come true.

So, yeah, it's a double standard, but that goes for both sides: there's a lot of stigma and social pressure on women having sex, there's hardly any on men - the whole, Stud vs. Slut thing. And so the effect of being lured/seduced into underage sex ist vastly different for boys than it is for girls.

Still, the law is the law, and should be upheld. She doesn't deserve a pass that a man in her place wouldn't be getting. And, no: he wouldn't. The outcry would be monumental.

[BlaqueKatt]

Psychological damage, however, is a far greater problem.

there is also the issue of, what if she had HPV, and now her victims can either spread that or be at risk for penile cancer later in life.

[Panacea]

I can only hope that she can never, ever be hired in a child-care capacity.

She's a convicted sex offender now. So she can't. She should also have to register as a sex offender, regardless of her sentence.

First thought - those lucky lads, hang on am I allowed to think that?

Seriously, at that age I'd have been delighted.

This is why she got probation. When a woman is raped, she's a victim.

When a man is raped, he is "lucky."

[Hyena Dandy]

That's disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. When women rape men, its lucky. She gets a light sentence because oh, she couldn't POSSIBLY be a sexual predator. She's a WOMAN only men are sexual predators!

[tropicsgoddess]

She got off practically Scott free because she was a woman?!! If a man did the same thing she did, they would've thrown the book at him! Rape is rape, she should've been locked up for it!

[Nyoibo]

Looks like the judge seems to go easier on women than med, 2 other cases, one man the other a woman, the woman got 10 months, the man, 5 1/2 years, minimum 2 years in jail.

[Greenday]

Depends really on how drunk they were. Cause I honestly don't give a crap if a 15 year old hooks up with a 20 year old. Even 14 really. If they wanted it, I don't see any reason to treat her like someone who literally forced themself on people.

[ExRetailDrone]

Depends really on how drunk they were. Cause I honestly don't give a crap if a 15 year old hooks up with a 20 year old. Even 14 really. If they wanted it, I don't see any reason to treat her like someone who literally forced themself on people.

That's not the point. The point is, she broke the law, regardless of whether the boys 'wanted' it or not. If a 20-year-old man was found to have had sex with girls of the same ages as the boys are, talking about how they 'wanted it' wouldn't come into play. The law is the law, and should be treated the same for any offender regardless of gender.

The difference of 6 years in age doesn't make much difference as the age of the people increases, but at those ages, that gap is a lot wider because of how different the body and mind are in a 14-year-old and a 20-year-old. Are some mid-teens mature and such? Of course. But there are also many who are not. Some base rules need to apply.

[Hyena Dandy]

Additionally, one of the boys was 12. 15 and 14 could be at the very least physically mature. 12 certainly isn't.

[Greenday]

That's not the point. The point is, she broke the law, regardless of whether the boys 'wanted' it or not. If a 20-year-old man was found to have had sex with girls of the same ages as the boys are, talking about how they 'wanted it' wouldn't come into play. The law is the law, and should be treated the same for any offender regardless of gender.

The difference of 6 years in age doesn't make much difference as the age of the people increases, but at those ages, that gap is a lot wider because of how different the body and mind are in a 14-year-old and a 20-year-old. Are some mid-teens mature and such? Of course. But there are also many who are not. Some base rules need to apply.

You're right. The law should treat people the same. Guys are getting screwed over continually.

And who is the court to decide if these people are mature enough? They don't actually know the people involved thus they really aren't qualified to make such a choice.