llamatron Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 What on earth do you expect from a MALE judge? Males love porn, love child molesting which as we know is a family passtime, males rape and hardly ever get prosecuted, so that OK, gives the green light. Males love being violent to their partners, so do not be surprised by any retarded male attitude. Not all males of course but if there was a referendum, and all males who like children in various forms voted there would be more votes to legalise it than vote for a peatry in the election. Wake up, in general MALES have a problem, which they refuse to address, seeing it as not their problem, when the reality is its a malke thng is rape, domestic violence, child porn, and the family favourite child abuse. Now wait for the males to justify the fact it is not them, nor a gender problem. There are many unfounded generalisations going on here but you do have a point in there. I think the judge has validated his actions far more than any legal porn on the internet did. (the point being if we don't prosecute and show how terrible a crime this is we are making it acceptable, its well hidden within that rant I think) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Why do you think it's so difficult to answer "do you allow your child to watch porn"? Do you think it's some sort of trick question? As you phrased it (as well as your reply partly quoted above), yes of course. There is a reason why such material consistently carries 18-cert, adult warnings and/or access restrictions. I would hold this as the social 'norm'. Pr0n is not a new thing, it's been around centuries, and Internet pr0n for a couple of decades by now. A 14 year-old should not be watching pr0n, period. Never mind raping, and never mind an infant, at that. There is a very clear-cut parental failure in this case, of quite some magnitude, and his parents should be made to carry their fair bit of the can, in addition to some obviously very urgent psychological assessment and treatment of that 14 year-old. In several civil law jurisdictions I know, his parents would be coping a criminal sentence and for civil damages, as legally liable for his actions. As well as for parental negligence where their kid is concerned. See - no need to answer your question: you know the parental/social 'norm' as well as the vast majority of readers/posters on here, I'm quite sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 At 14 if he did not know that raping a 5 year old was not acceptable then he clearly needs mental care and should be locked up in a hospital anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 There is a reason why such material consistently carries 18-cert, adult warnings and/or access restrictions. I would hold this as the social 'norm'. Pr0n is not a new thing, it's been around centuries, and Internet pr0n for a couple of decades by now. A 14 year-old should not be watching pr0n, period. Never mind raping, and never mind an infant, at that. There is a very clear-cut parental failure in this case, of quite some magnitude, and his parents should be made to carry their fair bit of the can, in addition to some obviously very urgent psychological assessment and treatment of that 14 year-old. In several civil law jurisdictions I know, his parents would be coping a criminal sentence and for civil damages, as legally liable for his actions. As well as for parental negligence where their kid is concerned. Quite right imo. In addition, given the history of this Judge's decisions regarding sex crimes, I think it's time he was looked at more closely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 What on earth do you expect from a MALE judge? Males love porn, love child molesting which as we know is a family passtime, males rape and hardly ever get prosecuted, so that OK, gives the green light. Males love being violent to their partners, so do not be surprised by any retarded male attitude. Not all males of course but if there was a referendum, and all males who like children in various forms voted there would be more votes to legalise it than vote for a peatry in the election. Wake up, in general MALES have a problem, which they refuse to address, seeing it as not their problem, when the reality is its a malke thng is rape, domestic violence, child porn, and the family favourite child abuse. Now wait for the males to justify the fact it is not them, nor a gender problem. I must have completely imagined being brought up in a family where all the men were mainly concerned with protecting me from harm and looking after me then. Either that, I'm a total oddity or you're talking balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 The judge felt he wasn't accountable for his actions..... No he didn't. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a court case and sentence. Accountable means answerable for, which the boy was. The judge said there were extenuating circumstances i.e. the availability of porn in society but that doesn't mean the boy wasn't accountable. He wouldn't now have a criminal record otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 .....if there was a referendum, and all males who like children in various forms voted there would be more votes to legalise it than vote for a peatry in the election. So all males who like children in some form would vote to decriminalise child abuse, meaning paedophiles would vote for paedophilia. That's as irrefutable a truism as you can get. And murderers would vote for murder, thieves for theft, etc. It goes without saying. Some women are paedophiles too though; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8022861.stm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kered9 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 This shouldn't even be about porn or rape, its just that such sensitive topics get everyones attention. This is about the law. Some things are illegal and some things aren't, and even in exceptional circumstances leniency still shouldnt be a get out of jail free card. Regardless of why this person broke the law they still did it. Since when can a judge decide that an action against the law is legal? 'It's not my fault I am on drugs, I had to kill him to take his wallet so that I could support my habit which has been pressed on me by society...' err what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 No he didn't. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a court case and sentence. Accountable means answerable for, which the boy was. The judge said there were extenuating circumstances i.e. the availability of porn in society but that doesn't mean the boy wasn't accountable. He wouldn't now have a criminal record otherwise. ‘I’m satisfied it was impulsive and I believe you have become sexualised by your exposure to and the corruption of pornography. Your exposure at such a young age has ended in tragedy. It was the fault of the world and society.’ The judge makes it pretty clear that society is responsible and not the boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 bloody ell you lot are a bit behind, this was in all the papers well over a week ago or is it a slow news day and need something to vent anger at lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.