Which sentence is the more just?

[Guest American Woman]

It implies that in the consequences, in cases where offenders are found guilty of aggravated sexual assault, for example.

"Aggravated sexual assault" of a child under 14 doesn't have to involve violence in the U.S.:

The crime of aggravated sexual assault as it applies to a child younger than 14 mirrors the adult sexual assault statute, except it removes the perquisite of violence.

http://www.sg-llp.co...dsexassault.php

[eyeball]

Whatever you call it the implication is that some assaults are worse than others and this is usually reflected in the sentence.

[Guest American Woman]

Whatever you call it the implication is that some assaults are worse than others and this is usually reflected in the sentence.

And as I pointed out, not when it comes to minors under 14 - and this is a thread about such abuse, therefore my comments have been about such abuse. As I pointed out, there's more than one way to "force" a child to have sex with an adult. Furthermore, the purpose of this thread is to discuss the sentencing of such cases, therefore I am stating my opinion.

So I'm curious. Do you think if a rape victim doesn't fight back to the point of physical harm, the rapist is 'not as bad' as if the victim had?

Edited October 14, 2012 by American Woman

[Argus]

WTF does it matter?

You think it's ok to sexually assault a child as long as there's no physical injury?

That's just creepy, Argus.

When you ask a question, you should wait to get the answer before making a followup statement which presupposes an answer, especially when the answer you select is as moronic as the one you did above.

But then, it's you. So I suppose expecting anything more would be unreasonable.

[Argus]

And then what would you do?

Then I would, if it wasn't someone I found attractive, tell them to gtf away from me.

And if that meant I couldn't play on his hockey team any more, well, so be it. Sex with a guy is not a price I'd have been willing to pay when I was a teenager.

[Argus]

Considering Argus seems to be implying that there's nothing much wrong with sexual engagement with a young teen as long as it isn't physically forced, I'm not so sure jacee's comment was all that 'ridiculous.' Not that your policing of the board isn't appreciated, given your impeccable posting record.

I'm not sure anyone here would select YOU as an acceptable judge of the ridiculous.

I was implying no such thing. I was, you might recall, one of the people here who strongly supported the Tories move to raise the age of consent from fourteen to sixteen so that adults seducing young teens could be properly dealt with.

That being said, a man who will use violence in pursuit of sex with people is a considerably more dangerous creature than one who simply wheedles and persuades and even yes, uses blackmail.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Argus

[Argus]

"Seducing" implies that it was 'consensual.'.

Depends on how you define 'consensual'. In essence, the boys decided that having sex with him was worth it since it would allow them to, they thought, continue on his hockey team and perhaps one day reach the NHL. I realize you don't want to think of it in those terms, but that's the reality of it. If they hadn't been minors it wouldn't even have been illegal. That's the difference between what he did and what a rapist does.

It wasn't. It was coerced through psychological and emotional blackmail. He was in a position of power, in control of their future. I don't see that as "less wrong" than physical force.

The difference between 'coerced' and 'forced' is that the victim ultimately gets to make a choice in the former case, and has no choice in the latter.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Argus

[eyeball]

And as I pointed out, not when it comes to minors under 14 - and this is a thread about such abuse, therefore my comments have been about such abuse. As I pointed out, there's more than one way to "force" a child to have sex with an adult. Furthermore, the purpose of this thread is to discuss the sentencing of such cases, therefore I am stating my opinion.

Okay.

So I'm curious. Do you think if a rape victim doesn't fight back to the point of physical harm, the rapist is 'not as bad' as if the victim had?

Sure, whatever you say.

[guyser]

. Right now judges in Canada are accountable to no one. This is wrong.

Is that "this is wrong" that Judges are accountable to no one?

Because as you well know, they are accountable. Voting would make them worse, not better.

[dre]

And as I pointed out, not when it comes to minors under 14 - and this is a thread about such abuse, therefore my comments have been about such abuse. As I pointed out, there's more than one way to "force" a child to have sex with an adult. Furthermore, the purpose of this thread is to discuss the sentencing of such cases, therefore I am stating my opinion.

So I'm curious. Do you think if a rape victim doesn't fight back to the point of physical harm, the rapist is 'not as bad' as if the victim had?

Sexual Assault and molestation are obviously bad on their own but if you throw in a vicious beating as well then cleary the crime becomes even more serious. Im not sure why you would even dispute this, its just common sense.

Edited October 15, 2012 by dre

[cybercoma]

Sexual Assault and molestation are obviously bad on their own but if you throw in a vicious beating as well then cleary the crime becomes even more serious. Im not sure why you would even dispute this, its just common sense.

Because she seems to only understand things in dichotomies. That's why she's so quick to shout "hypocrisy!" It's either bad or good with nothing in between. If it's not one it's the other. So when someone says one thing is not "as bad" as something else, she takes that to mean it's a good thing.

[Guest American Woman]

Sexual Assault and molestation are obviously bad on their own but if you throw in a vicious beating as well then cleary the crime becomes even more serious. Im not sure why you would even dispute this, its just common sense.

The sexual assault is still as bad; if there is a serious beating besides, then there should be additional charges, which should in no way diminish the sexual assault charge.

[cybercoma]

Nobody said the sexual assault wasn't bad. What are you talking about?

[BC_chick]

Depends on how you define 'consensual'. In essence, the boys decided that having sex with him was worth it since it would allow them to, they thought, continue on his hockey team and perhaps one day reach the NHL. I realize you don't want to think of it in those terms, but that's the reality of it. If they hadn't been minors it wouldn't even have been illegal. That's the difference between what he did and what a rapist does.

The difference between 'coerced' and 'forced' is that the victim ultimately gets to make a choice in the former case, and has no choice in the latter.

While I agree your basic premise about violent rape being worse than coerced sex, you do seem to be downplaying the actions of a child-molester.

True, if they had not been minors it wouldn't be illegal... but that's because grown-men have a more developed brain than a 13 year old boy. A 13 year old boy is just finishing childhood, he is no place to make the same decisions as a grown-man.

So yes, had they been 23 it would be perfectly legal, but had they been 23, the chances are way higher that they would've delivered a swift kick in the nuts instead of being manipulated by a grown man. They would have had more world experience.

Your argument is completely flawed.

And I would also like to add that they old belief that 'they must have enjoyed it' is exactly the reason why so many men never press charges against their molesters.

Little girls are molested for years on end as well yet nobody seems to make the assertion that they enjoyed just because they "allowed" it to go on.

[blueblood]

The sexual assault is still as bad; if there is a serious beating besides, then there should be additional charges, which should in no way diminish the sexual assault charge.

In Canada it's different. It doesn't get piled on, it goes down the chain in the criminal code. S.271 sexual assault, s. 272 sexual assault causing bodily harm/sexual assault with a weapon, or s. 273 aggravated sexual assault (fed pen time)

[Guest American Woman]

In Canada it's different. It doesn't get piled on, it goes down the chain in the criminal code. S.271 sexual assault, s. 272 sexual assault causing bodily harm/sexual assault with a weapon, or s. 273 aggravated sexual assault (fed pen time)

I think the difference is what's under discussion here - because of the huge differences in the degree of the sentences in the U.S. and Canada.

I do think sexual assault is just as bad regardless of the degree of physical harm done. For one thing, it's the emotional and psychological scars that stay with these victims of such abuse. For another, a grown man can overpower a child without doing a lot of physical injury. Lastly, what it amounts to, is weaker victims are in effect required to risk their well being by physically fighting back to the point of physical injury, or apparently it won't be taken as seriously by the law/courts - or some members of the public. I see that as a dangerous precedent as such resistance could cause grave injury or death to the victim.

[BC_chick]

I do think sexual assault is just as bad regardless of the degree of physical harm done. For one thing, it's the emotional and psychological scars that stay with these victims of such abuse. For another, a grown man can overpower a child without doing a lot of physical injury. Lastly, what it amounts to, is weaker victims are in effect required to risk their well being by physically fighting back to the point of physical injury, or apparently it won't be taken as seriously by the law/courts - or some members of the public. I see that as a dangerous precedent as such resistance could cause grave injury or death to the victim.

You know, I have to agree. In my post last night I said I agreed with the premise of Argus' post, but I thought about it after and I thought no, I don't.

You can't compare two very different things to think which is 'worse'. Let's see, which would I prefer:

To be beaten, raped, and left fearing for my life. Having PTSD, flashbacks and a constant fear for the rest of my life, or....

Being a child, having someone repeatedly abuse me, knowing that it's not right but not really having to capacity to know how to deal with the situation. Going through that 'eww, here he comes again' for years and years on end.

Only to grow up and have people like Argus refer to my abuse as "seduction" and say things like "well, you could've stopped it so you must've liked it" which would add to my guilt and shame.

I don't know which is worse, really.

Both have a sexual component to it, but you can't really make an equivalent comparison in order to say which is better or worse.

Edited October 16, 2012 by BC_chick

[Argus]

While I agree your basic premise about violent rape being worse than coerced sex, you do seem to be downplaying the actions of a child-molester.

As compared to a violent rapist, yes.

True, if they had not been minors it wouldn't be illegal... but that's because grown-men have a more developed brain than a 13 year old boy. A 13 year old boy is just finishing childhood, he is no place to make the same decisions as a grown-man.

That's true. But a 13 year old still knows what he likes and doesn't like. And the considerations which take place are similar. Ie, do I tell him to "f off" and risk being booted out of here or go along.

THe point is that he had that choice. A 13 year old being forced does not get to make that consideration and choice.

So yes, had they been 23 it would be perfectly legal, but had they been 23, the chances are way higher that they would've delivered a swift kick in the nuts instead of being manipulated by a grown man. They would have had more world experience.

I dunno. How many people go along with that kind of thing in order to further their careers? Hell, how many adults are more than willing to do it to further their careers? It's not common but it's not terribly rare either.

And I would also like to add that they old belief that 'they must have enjoyed it' is exactly the reason why so many men never press charges against their molesters.

Has anyone in this thread suggested they enjoyed it?

]

[Argus]

You can't compare two very different things to think which is 'worse'. Let's see, which would I prefer:

To be beaten, raped, and left fearing for my life. Having PTSD, flashbacks and a constant fear for the rest of my life, or....

Being a child, having someone repeatedly abuse me, knowing that it's not right but not really having to capacity to know how to deal with the situation. Going through that 'eww, here he comes again' for years and years on end.]

The point you're leaving out is that in the second instance you have the ability to say no and walk away.

Only to grow up and have people like Argus refer to my abuse as "seduction" and say things like "well, you could've stopped it so you must've liked it" which would add to my guilt and shame.

I never said any such thing. Maybe enjoyment is on your mind for some odd reason.

[BC_chick]

The point you're leaving out is that in the second instance you have the ability to say no and walk away.

I never said any such thing. Maybe enjoyment is on your mind for some odd reason.

Oh right, you only implied that they must've found their abuser 'attractive' and did not mind having 'sex' with him.

Then I would, if it wasn't someone I found attractive, tell them to gtf away from me.

And if that meant I couldn't play on his hockey team any more, well, so be it. Sex with a guy is not a price I'd have been willing to pay when I was a teenager.

[Argus]

Oh right, you only implied that they must've found their abuser 'attractive' and did not mind having 'sex' with him.

There was no such implication. There was simply a bald statement of normative human response.

You can't get away from the fact they made a conscious decision that in order to keep playing for that team they were willing to have sex with him.

[BC_chick]

There was no such implication. There was simply a bald statement of normative human response.

You can't get away from the fact they made a conscious decision that in order to keep playing for that team they were willing to have sex with him.

The use of the word 'sex' nothwithstanding, of course not. I'm just saying a 13 year old is not in the same postion to make the same 'conscious' decisions as a grownup. That's why we even have laws of consent - because these are children being manipulated and the scars can be just as devastating as being violently raped.

I respect your opinion on many things so I ask with all due respect: if this particular pedophile wasn't promising the moon and the stars - let's say both the 13 year old boy and the 40 year old man were just regular people - would you still consider brush it off to the same extent? Better yet, what if it were a 13 year old girl and 40 year old man?

Is it still a 'conscious decision' by the child to have 'sex' with the man?

Edited October 24, 2012 by BC_chick

[Argus]

The use of the word 'sex' nothwithstanding, of course not. I'm just saying a 13 year old is not in the same postion to make the same 'conscious' decisions as a grownup.

I'm not questioning the ability of 13 year olds to make intelligent decisions. Clearly they don't have the mental capabilities for that in many cases.

That's why we even have laws of consent - because these are children being manipulated and the scars can be just as devastating as being violently raped.

People are traumatized by many things. Sometimes that trauma is more related their ability to handle a given event than the severity of the event. Some people who experience violence shrug it off. Some are traumatized for life. In our judicial system, however, the severity of the punishment tends to be more directly related to what is done as opposed to whether someone was or wasn't more traumatized by that act. I'm not trying to downplay the obvious psychological ill effects these two men suffered, btw,, but the original question was merely one on criminal sentencing.

I respect your opinion on many things so I ask with all due respect: if this particular pedophile wasn't promising the moon and the stars - let's say both the 13 year old boy and the 40 year old man were just regular people - would you still consider brush it off to the same extent? Better yet, what if it were a 13 year old girl and 40 year old man?

I'm not brushing it off. I'm merely pointing out that you do have options when you are being 'persuaded' or even blackmailed. You do not have any options when you are being physically forced.

Is it still a 'conscious decision' by the child to have 'sex' with the man?

Yes. It wasn't a good decision in this case, and clearly one long regretted, but they still had the ability to tell him to "F off" and walk away. And that still puts them ahead of someone who was forced into doing whatever their attacker wanted without any possibility of refusal. And you know, that's almost certainly one of the reasons for the torment they suffer, the knowledge that they could have said no.

[BC_chick]

You're still discussing things in the context of James.

I'll ask again, do you equally believe in other options when a grown man maninpulates a 13 year old girl to have 'sex'?

The point I'm making here is that your post I quoted earlier implies that somehow these boys were attracted to their abuser and must have wanted it for some reason or another.

I just want to know if you think little girls who are abused also 'wanted' it to some level.