Very interesting point on rape…

This is a very interesting point this person brought up in another thread, I am curious to hear more people’s thoughts on this issue in more detail. Truly an interesting point as if the charges are more sever for raping a young girl does that say that a young woman or older women mean less to society?

The same question could apply about raping a boy opposed to raping a man?

Another question, what is worse, statuary rape with a consenting minor (I know some will say minors cannot consent) opposed to violently raping a person of legal age?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

it really depends on your point of view and no one is going to be able to give you an apsolute rule.

The crimes Act's in australia dont actually differentiate between sex without concent and sex with someone UNABLE to concent. The penelties are the same. This being said specific ages are diferentiated, for instance "carnal knowlage of a child under 10" doesnt differentiate wether the child "wanted to or not" because the law says they cant concent.

Now if you look at a real problem in australian law and that is the lack of uniformity in the sexual assults legislation an example of a couple who were having conentual sex in victoria (because they were both over 16) and in the corse of that sex they rolled over the border in to SA where they are commiting an offence (because one is under 18) i doubt people would want this "crime" even punished.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A child's mind is less developed, so raping a child likely causes more psychological damage. The more damage, the greater the punishment. I thought that was pretty obvious.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think the reason people want a more severe punishment for the rape of a child is just the outrage of it. Nobody wants to think that sort of thing can happen and people that do such things are monsters. I also think it may be because an adult may be able to at least put up a decent fight but a child is relativly defenseless. I personally don't think age should matter as either way it is a heinous act deserving of severe punishment. About the statutory rape I think it depends on the situation. In the United States a young person could be branded as a sex offender if an 18 year old had consensual sex with their 16-17 year old boy or girlfriend. Cases like this are absurd and the cops should spend more time catching real criminals.

 

How have you come to that conclusion? A woman or man would be able to appreciate fully how much danger they are in and how their bodies are being abused.

Really? Because I would think that it would be because the adult is taking advantage of the child's innocence and ignorance of sex - therefore the crime is more severe.
In law one normally thinks of the crime of the criminal, rather than the pain of the victim (although the two are often closely linked).
One example would be the 'crime of passion' - in a murder of discovered adultery we could start to understand the murderer, but the victim isn't any less dead.

 

Contrary to popular belief, there are many scientific studies showing that children who are raped usually suffer less long-term psychological trauma than adults who are raped. Basically they're just more mentally resilient.

 

Well, my mistake then.

 

Laws can be so tragically absurd.

 

I am a Man. I like Women. I think they are pleasant to look at. Some are pleasant to talk to, and some fewer will allow you to have sex with them. If someone raped me I would want them killed. If someone raped one of my children, I would want to be the one to kill them. Slowly. Exquisitely. Possibly by eliminating an inch per day from their extremities, then coating the wounds with honey, and then leaving some mice or ants to keep them company for the night, to begin the following day.

Anyone who harms a child should be forced to live and tortured until the child is old enough to kill them themselves. A generic rapist should be killed by the peron/person's family they raped.

I give psychotic killers more credit than rapists, but that is just me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes, I missed all those parts during the Sermon on the Mount. Do they come before or after the bit about the meek inheriting the Earth?

 

I said I'm a christian. I've been told I'm not a very good one.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

if I may offer my two cents...

I live in a fairly small town.. there is a 45 year old man that lives here who has sexually assaulted at least three preteen girls. He got close to those girls because they were friends of his son! What makes this more heinous than a rape of a 40 year old woman? How about that he convinced these girls that 1) it wouldn't hurt, 2) all of their friends have done the same and 3) telling anyone about would just be wrong.

They are just children and they need to be protected in any way that we can. No more, no less.

There is a special dark corner in Hell waiting for this guy.

 

Go hunting with a powerful rifle near his home. Accidentally shoot him in the head. It's a community service.

 

better still... after be accused by the first girl, this guy's wife, who KNEW he had a problem... mortgaged the house to bail him out and the bastard attended little league games that weekend.

5 days later he was re-arrested when 2 more girls spoke up.

UGH!!!

 

find out where he's in prison. let it be known in general pop. even prisoners have morals when it comes to that shit.

 

I think it is against the site rules to advocate murder.

 

I guess people feel it's more wrong partly because children are more vulnerable, and partly because they are still mentally and physically developing. A raped woman can at least understand that what the rapist did was wrong and hate him for it. A raped child has no idea what was going on, just that someone just did something to them that was wrong and frightening, but they have no concept of what that act was, whether it is normal etc. They have years of confusion and emotional problems to look forward to as they grow up and understand the concept of rape.

 

This is the understatement of the year.

The same could be said about mentally ill people like yourself… Especially advocating murder, considering and the amount of self righteousness and hatred you seem to have.

 

Historically I think this has more to do with the perceived value of a virginal female as opposed to a woman of age. The age of marriage for a long time in history could occur when a female began to menstruate, the time she could reproduce. A female who had lost her virginity was not easily married off and considered 'sullied'. As you can see below in 1800 the sex with a female under 14 was considered a serious offence but a only a misdemeanor if she was over 14 but under 16. The only difference I can think of why the that extra year would be of any difference is that in colonial times a woman would often be married by 13 or 14. She would have been property of her family before marriage and then that of her husband after marriage. The perceived aggression would have been the loss of value to the family as opposed to harm towards the female herself, this is still true in many countries.

Interesting that a woman who had sex with a boy of 14 was only charged with indecent assault and even today its considered less of a crime (women can't rape men...even if its a boy).


Rape Defined

Under English law, "unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman without her consent" is the definition of rape under the provisions of the Offenses Against the Person Act of 1861, and various additional qualifying conditions have been laid down chiefly in the Sexual Offences Act of 1956 and the Lunacy Act of 1890. The maximum sentence can be life imprisonment. Carnal knowledge of an infant female under 13 or of an idiot, whether by force or not, under the Sexual Offences Act of 1956, is a felony; a girl below 13 cannot give consent, and having or attempting to have carnal knowledge of a girl above 14 but under 16 years is a misdemeanor. Furthermore, the range of acts comprising indecent assault is very wide. Penetration of the female even to such a slight extent that the victim could remain virgo intact still stands as a crime. (The law is concerned with the act, not with its quality or degree). The criminal's age is no bar; a male under 14 can be convicted of an attempt to commit rape or of indecent assault even though the age of puberty is generally held to be attained at 14 years. A boy of 14 or under who is not capable of unlawful carnal knowledge or rape in law, can still be charged with indecent assault. A woman who deliberately provokes intercourse with a boy can be convicted only of indecent assault. The virtue of the victim is of no importance; a prostitute is entitled to the same protection as any other woman (though an accusation of rape brought on by a prostitute would be carefully investigated). Nor can a husband be charged with rape of his wife -- unless legally separated. However, a possible charge of assault can be made.

http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/oldlaw.htm

"Young girls were often married by the age of 13 or 14 and if women weren’t married by the age of 25, it was socially humiliating."

http://www.angelfire.com/ca/HistoryGals/Chloe.html