Alextopman Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 2 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said: We know. No need to shout. But as people are trying to get into your head, there are nuances with these things. Plenty of 12-year-old girls are very mature and are desperately acting much older because they want to be with boys. Some of them unfortunately even become pregnant at a very early age. Equally, plenty of 19 year-old 'adult' boys are extremely immature, naive and still have the brains in their genitals. For the final time, nobody is excusing the statutory rape. That was the reason for his sentence and punishment. That is not being disputed. What is up for debate is whether that should automatically equal that somebody's life is totally ruined because of one mistake and ill judgement they make when they were still young, naive, barely out of adolescence. It is also perfectly reasonable to debate the circumstances of how this has happened, particularly when said victim was not subject to force or violence or drugs whilst the crime was being committed. Further said victim was fully complicit and consenting in the 4-month-long communications, knew he was 19 years old, consenting to their visiting and with the act itself. Why would a 12-year-old girl to post pictures open to the public on a forum and proceed to knowingly talk to a 19-year-old man on the internet for four months across three social media platforms and consent with them to arrange to fly from a different country to meet at their disclosed address, spend an evening together whilst the parent is out of the house and engage in the sexual activity. It's not a matter of her consenting to anything. It's a matter of a Man knowingly and illegally having sex with a minor. No excuse whatsoever. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_DADDY Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 Just now, Alextopman said: It's not a matter of her consenting to anything. It's a matter of a Man knowingly and illegally having sex with a minor. No excuse whatsoever. No no no there's nuances dint ya know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alextopman Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 7 minutes ago, The_DADDY said: No no no there's nuances dint ya know... You missed an i and an s. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJRB Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 32 minutes ago, The_DADDY said: No nuance. He's a child rapist. Get that in your head perhaps? For nuance I suggest that you see how Germany tackles the issue. Rightly or wrongly. Also the difference between rape and statutory rape around the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_DADDY Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 Just now, RJRB said: For nuance I suggest that you see how Germany tackles the issue. Rightly or wrongly. Also the difference between rape and statutory rape around the world. 19 year old man rapes 12 year old girl. That's all that matters. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 35 minutes ago, The_DADDY said: You've never heard of grooming then? OK. Yes of course I have. In my opinion, in this instance, that is not what it was. The reported evidence doesn't seem to sway that way. The charge was very clearly statutory rape. There does not seem to be any display of inducement or misleading or coercing or violence or duress or force from the accused. Not everything is simply black and white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 2 minutes ago, The_DADDY said: 19 year old man rapes 12 year old girl. That's all that matters Yes fine. That is what the sentence was for. However, that sentence has now been completed. The mandated time has been served. The punishment has been received and the person is now a free man. A free man in the eyes of the law and therefore he should be entitled to the freedoms of anybody else. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_DADDY Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 2 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said: Yes of course I have. In my opinion, in this instance, that is not what it was. The reported evidence doesn't seem to sway that way. The charge was very clearly statutory rape. There does not seem to be any display of inducement or misleading or coercing or violence or duress or force from the accused. Not everything is simply black and white. Man has sex with child. Seems pretty black and white to me. No matter how you look at it this 'man' travelled to a different country to have sex with a child. He's no different to the perverts who travel to Thailand etc to have sex with kids. Are you saying that isn't black and white if not why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_DADDY Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 4 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said: Yes fine. That is what the sentence was for. However, that sentence has now been completed. The mandated time has been served. The punishment has been received and the person is now a free man. A free man in the eyes of the law and therefore he should be entitled to the freedoms of anybody else. My bold. No he shouldn't. He should have restrictions placed on him so he can't be left alone around kids. Would you be OK employing him in any capacity to work with kids? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaz 786 Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 1 hour ago, The_DADDY said: They weren't a couple of kids of similar age. He was 19 and she was TWELVE!! He was an adult and she was a child! Well said ...its rape of the lowest kind involving children. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now