|
September 30, 2006
Does innocence ever grow old?
In today's Inquirer, I read that a rapist was sentenced to 30-60 years in prison. No ordinary rapist, he's been called "the worst serial rapist in the city's history." Something else is a little unusual -- his age: A 15-year-old boy who has been called "the worst serial rapist in the city's history" was sentenced yesterday to 30 to 60 years in prison.Raping women is something we normally think of as an adult activity. So is shooting people. For that matter, so is driving. So why is it that if this same rapist had gone online and discussed whatever fantasies he might have with an adult, the law could in theory call him a victim -- of the adult? At the risk of sounding like a mean, awful, and cynical person, I'd like to posit a hypothetical. Suppose a teen rapes an adult, and it turns out the adult enjoyed it, and comes back for more. Would the rapist become a victim? Anyone understand why? Is it because "innocence" is involved? MORE: I don't mean to be offensive, but considering that Wikipedia has an entry on the subject, what are the legal ramifications of minors sticking their you-know-whats into one of these? Do they become victims, said to be incapable of consenting to the actions of whatever anonymous person might come along? Is age relevant in an anonymous sexual situation where neither party can be seen? Or is there a legal duty to know? posted by Eric on 09.30.06 at 12:08 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/4065 Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Does innocence ever grow old?:
» Classicalvalues.com trackback test. from Xtest
Classicalvalues.com trackback test.... [Read More] Tracked on September 30, 2006 04:42 PM
Comments
I'm not saying a normal person would enjoy rape, because no normal person would, but I have known a number of people who had rape fantasies, and I do not think it is beyond the realm of the possible to hypothesize that enjoyment of rape might occur. But we are not talking about normal here. Normal 14 year olds do not rape people. Normal adults do not rape people. And normal adults do not have sex with children. But what is a child? And what is innocence? Sometimes the fictions which are forced upon us bother me; hence this post. Nothing I am saying in any way excuses or justifies an adult having sex with a child. No matter how guilty the child, the adult has still committed a crime. Eric Scheie · September 30, 2006 02:11 PM Don't mind me, testing the comments. Sekimori · September 30, 2006 04:36 PM President Bush signed the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act" in July, 2006. The key sexual predator provisions of the new law were written by Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fl.) Rep. Foley said at the signing ceremony that American children now have Federal protection from pedophiles, so that problem is now something for the history books. Rep. Foley is now ready to turn a new page - or maybe two! Chocolatier · September 30, 2006 08:08 PM I understand that there are endless laws, but what is a child? I have a bit of a problem with the idea that some teenager who's driving around in a muscle car, getting his girlfriend pregnant, and fully capable of whipping out a gun and killing me, is a "child."
For shooting a "child." Eric Scheie · October 1, 2006 10:58 AM Darleen: My working hypothesis is that "rape fantasies" are a psychological defense mechanism— after all, for a goodly portion of history, rape as we understand it was not only a possibility, but quite likely for much of the female population. If you think about it, the value of such a fantasy is that the "victim" is utterly in control. Sure, she's fantasising about a loss of control, but she mentally dictates the shots from beginning to end. I think this might be a good coping mechanism in the case of actual rape, just as mentally planning for disaster helps a person react well in the actual event. B. Durbin · October 1, 2006 08:49 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Hypotheticals have to have a component of believability
I haven't heard of anyone "enjoying" being raped and coming back for more.
I have heard of aggressive underage individuals "making moves" on adults. Such context is taken into consideration on what charges are brought against the adult (could be misdemeanor sex/w/minor charges) Lot of variables in CA law (our age of consent is 18).
BTW, we had a case a couple of years back with a fairly young man who did a string of rapes (between the ages of 17-18, so we could prosecute him as an adult on those incidents he committed at age 18)... all his victims were women over 60...he'd break into their houses and lay in wait (closets). He was caught when one savy senior (she was 67 y/o) pretended to cooperate ... well, maybe the details might be a little TMI, but let me know ... she got him to leave the room for a bit and called 911.
Maybe I've rambled far afield here..but the law takes the underlying view that while context matters, adults should know better, even IF a minor is aggressive (and the adult knows the individual is, indeed, a minor).