More fun from Italy. (CNN Story)

50

 

first I read that and thats just fuged up as hell!!, but

I do agree with the judges statement. Its far worse to rape a pure innocent 22 year old virgin than it is to rape a 16 town whore. Now forcing your 14 step daughter to give you a bj is something he should be hung for, but from the sounds of it shes a slut and has many years of spreading her legs to everyone to come, she likely has suffered little in terms of the sexual abuse. However shes deffently lost alot of innocence in being able to trust people, especially people she should have no doubts in trusting.

I've always though the crap about not alowing someones sexual past when it comes to a rape trial where it seams concentual is complete ****. Raping a whore, slut, or prostitue is completly different than a pure virgin waiting till marriage. I think it should be punished by death to take away someones purity, now the slut...maybe 10 years or so.

""It is therefore fair to argue that (the damage for the victim) would be lower" if the abused girl was not a virgin, Italian news agencies quoted the court as saying."

 

...I disagree with you on soo many levels that I do not know where to start...

 

14 and not a virgin? Hmm.....

 

Damn! If I were to make a judgement call for you and all I had was this post. You would be the one hanging.

That is messed up.

 

thats right, a slut and a virgin are the same thing..pshh

 

delete your first post

 

Yeah.... Human Beings

 

Sluts and virgins aren't the same but I think that forcing somebody to have sex with you is F-ed up no matter what kind of personality she has. I think for that you should go to prison for your whole life. And for the additional fact that she's only 14, he should be executed. And for the additional fact that she's his stepdaughter he should be tortured before executed.

 

Im not defending him at all, I think he should be put to death for that, shes only 14!!!

Im just saying there is a difference. I value pure people a lil more than whores is all.

 

you said it better than I did

 

I don't know personally any rape victims but one of my very close friends was 12 when she was forced to WATCH 2 30-year-old guys rape her friend and from that she is really messed up... I can't even imagine how messed up her friend is. Rapists and murders should be tortured

 

Shouldn't you be out racking up some more tickets or something? How "Pure" is your driving record, Danny?

 

Okay well I think you should either disagree with Dan and state the reasons why or say nothing, not attack him for something irrelevant - that belongs in the ticket threads if anywhere... I like you CMY and I like Dan and I like Noah, I just don't want people flaming each other... the people we should be flaming are the Italian supreme court and the @sshole stepdad.

 

Several years ago, some guy got a lighter sentence (rape again) because the girl was wearing tight jeans ... don't expect italy to make sense ...
Perhaps they're just making the *******s available for the victim's family to beat up.

 

Well, the Italian supreme court and CNN didn't resort to calling a 14 year-old girl a "whore".

 

neither did I, I did say she sounds like a slut though, but I said "sounds" cause I dont know.

I dont mind ya disagring with me, just attack what I said, not me personally....and Ill still like you guys :-D

 

I disagree with Dan's POV that somehow raping someone who's "experienced" is less heinous than someone "pure".

I believe raping (as in physically forcing yourself onto someone) is ALWAYS wrong. ALWAYS.

HOWEVER, I think the law is wrong when it comes to "statutory rape". There is, in my mind, a big gaping hole in consistency when the law says it's OK for two fourteen year olds to have consensual sex, but not an eighteen year old with a fourteen year old. Isn't that roughly what US law says ?

The law has two options to restore consistency (and my confidence).

The first (and by far the simplest) is to completely outlaw sexual intercourse and sexual touching of any minor, even by another minor. The penalty should be some form of juvenile correction for both parties (of course, if an adult does it, it's jailtime). If it's not OK for a 14 year old to give consent to have sex with a 40 year old, then it's not OK for her to give consent to have sex with a peer either. Everyone can damn well wait till 18 (or 21) to have sex. There should be no gender biases to the law either.

The second solution (which will be controversial and subjectively applied) is to allow sex between minors (as is currently done) and simultaneously relax the way society views consensual intercourse between a "minor" and an "adult". If an adult is hauled up for such an "offence", a proper determination should be made whether a) consent was given by both parties for the intercourse and b) whether the consent given by the minor was valid. Under current statutes, even express consent given by a minor is regarded as invalid, but I think this can be altered. You see, in certain circumstances, a minor *can* give valid consent, for example to surgery, where the opinion of a minor can override those of his/her parents or legal guardians. If the court finds that the minor has given a valid consent (which was not forced or given under duress), then there's been no crime committed.

The latter case is going to be problematic if it's done case by case, because there's going to be a heck of a lot of subjectivity in the determinations made. For example, I'm sure a reasonable judge or jury would be quite happy to "sanction" a sexual encounter with a consenting 16-year old who's mature for her age, but would be *mortified* to allow someone who had sex with a ("consenting") nine-year old girl to go free. I think that common sense should prevail in this sort of determination, yet, if this is left open to interpretation, there is always the potential for abuse.

Personally, I think a middle-ground solution would be to lower the age of consent to jive with social mores. In Singapore, the age of full consent for females is 16. Legally, it's completely OK for a man of any age to have sex with a sixteen year old. Sex with any female below the age of 14 (fourteen) is considered statutory rape. Above 14 and below 16 is a gray zone of sorts, where it's not considered stat rape, but it's still considered "carnal intercourse with an underaged person", and it's still a jailable offence, but the penalty is much less than for rape (which can include caning). There is no age of consent for males, but homosexuality is officially illegal, so an adult sodomising a young boy will still have serious penalties.

I would prefer that the age of consent laws be more strictly and consistently applied here (including the case of minors having sex with minors), but just like in the US, exceptions are made in these cases. The law is only strictly enforced when an adult is involved.

In any case, it's ludicrous to hold on to 18 as the age of legal consent given the sexual climate of today. I personally believe the law should be updated and made more relevant in a modern social context.

EDIT : I just looked up the age of consent in the US : it varies from state to state, there are some that even have it as 14. I think that's a bit more realistic than holding on to 18.

 

From speeding tickets, to the stop sign story, and now this comment, there is something seriously wrong with you.

 

I read your post and while I can I understand certain points of your arguments, I have to respectfully disagree, and here's why. I feel that age eighteen is traditionally the age where a child becomes an adult, therefore he/she moves out of the house and becomes reponsible for themselves. It is only then that they can, well theoretically, make more informed decisions about themeselves. A girl at 14 doesn't really fully take in all of the consequences as her parents will dig her out of whatever problem she gets herself into, i.e., she's less worried about getting pregnant (very general and crass example) as her parents will pay for her abortion, take care of her child for her, etc. At eighteen however, when she's on her own, she can't afford to take care of another human, and she will be less likely to make poor decisions that will affect her health, her future, and the rest of her life.

Therefore, this age of consent is established where I believe legislators feel that a person is in the right frame of mind to make these sort of decisions. Once this barrier is made, then it is natural for lawmakers to say that one age group shouldn't have sex with members of the other, as the age of consent implies that the underage group isn't fully mature. Although there are gray areas to this law as in every other age-related restrictive law, I for one believe it to be fair and reasonable.

 

So true

 

I agree.. make that 14 year-old girl into a promiscuous (straight) boy.

What do you think they would've done then?