|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Southern Baptist Church arse covering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
Unfortunately, the link did work for me. I expected to feel angry or outraged. But actually, I just felt desperately, desperately sad (I didn't get through the whole article). Sad for that girl; sad at the thought that Christians would think that was at all an appropriate thing for anyone to do, Christian or otherwise; sad that a church chooses "covering our backs" over justice; sad that I'm a Baptist and, however unrelated Southern Baptists might be to us over here (or anywhere else), I share a 'label' with them.
Lord, have mercy.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
Lord have mercy indeed. Disturbing, shameful and repugnant for so many reasons.
A pedantic note: It’s not clear to me whether the thread title refers to the denomination or to the specific congregation sued, but there is no such thing as the Southern Baptist Church. It's the Southern Baptist Convention, which is a voluntary association of autonomous churches. A congregation that belongs to the SBC is accurately described as a "Southern Baptist church," but among Southern Baptists, "church" is never used to refer to anything other than a local congregation, which is completely independent of any control from outside the congregation, or the church universal.
With that out of the way, ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
This sort of shite occurs elsewhere.
On a Diocesan training course re safeguarding of children, we were asked to comment on a scenario which involved a 13-year old girl on a camping trip reporting that she had been sexually assaulted by a boy on the same campsite.
What were we supposed to do?
One member of the course, a fellow-Reader (a Prat of the First Order of Complete Pratdom, BTW), said that he would question the girl closely, before calling in anyone else, to ascertain how truthful she was being...... ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
He was duly howled down by the 100 or so others (men and women) present....
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Unfortunately, the link did work for me. I expected to feel angry or outraged.
Fuck me, but I clicked the link. I could not go beyond the first few paragraphs due to sheer, blinding rage.
It is times like there that I truly wish there were a Hell so that these bastards could be put there.
Sadness that the abused have to still put up with this shite, but no sadness for the foul and loathsome arsewipes of that church.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
A pedantic note: It’s not clear to me whether the thread title refers to the denomination or to the specific congregation sued, but there is no such thing as the Southern Baptist Church. It's the Southern Baptist Convention, which is a voluntary association of autonomous churches. A congregation that belongs to the SBC is accurately described as a "Southern Baptist church," but among Southern Baptists, "church" is never used to refer to anything other than a local congregation, which is completely independent of any control from outside the congregation, or the church universal.
It is a local church. The 'c' is not capitalised in the first paragraph.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
It is a local church. The 'c' is not capitalised in the first paragraph.
I was talking about the title of this thread.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
It is a local church. The 'c' is not capitalised in the first paragraph.
I was talking about the title of this thread.
Yeah, OK. But you are saying the the Southern Baptist Convention would, as a group, react much differently? That they, as churches, do not share the same general attitude about sexuality and rape?
Given the conservative nature of that sub-sect, I would find this surprising. Not that they would all be douches to the extent of the particular church in the link, but that the POV would be in the same vein.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Campbell Ritchie
Shipmate
# 730
|
Posted
To get back on topic: I am relieved the judge involved banned any such investigations. It is however more to the shame of the church who organised the camp that they tried in the first place.
--------------------
The greatest problem about Christianity is that it condemns you to eternity with me.
Posts: 396 | From: Middlesbrough | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Campbell Ritchie
Shipmate
# 730
|
Posted
It did say in that article that the chap Petty was convicted and got 15 years, didn't it? I am seeing things, aren't I, thinking it said weeks probation?
[ 02. February 2018, 19:12: Message edited by: Campbell Ritchie ]
--------------------
The greatest problem about Christianity is that it condemns you to eternity with me.
Posts: 396 | From: Middlesbrough | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yeah, OK. But you are saying the the Southern Baptist Convention would, as a group, react much differently? That they, as churches, do not share the same general attitude about sexuality and rape?
Given the conservative nature of that sub-sect, I would find this surprising. Not that they would all be douches to the extent of the particular church in the link, but that the POV would be in the same vein.
As I said, it's a pedantic point. I was merely pointing out that there is no such thing as the Southern Baptist Church, and that each Southern Baptist church is autonomous, so that those churches do not bear the same relationship to a higher body—diocese, presbytery, synod, denomination, etc.—as might be the case in other churches.
I suspect that the reality is that there would likely be a very wide variety of opinions in the SBC. There is with many if not most things—that's part of their way. Many Southern Baptists and SB churches would likely have the same general attitude, while many others would be appalled. Hardly a representative sample, but I think most of the Southern Baptists I know would fall into the appalled category. At least I'd like to think so. As a whole, the SBC is certainly conservative when it comes to things like sexuality. But it is not as monolithic in that regard as many people think.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
The church says her prior sexual history “is directly relevant to her claim for physical, emotional and psychological damages, including PTSD and depression.”
Ah yes, here's the magic virginity argument again. 'cause raping a virgin is going to steal her precious jewel from her, but if she's already soiled goods, then a few more men having a go doesn't really make a difference.
Bastards.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I hope they fry in hell.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Good lord this is sleezy.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Campbell Ritchie:
It did say in that article that the chap Petty was convicted and got 15 years, didn't it? I am seeing things, aren't I, thinking it said weeks probation?
Nope, 15 years probation, 24 months on an ankle tag, can't serve jail time as legally blind. Not sure why being legally blind prevents a 35 year old rapist who tied up his 13 year old victim in a cabin before raping her, and after grooming her, from serving time in jail.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Surely she should be stoned to death at least as a matter of honour?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Oh shit. I posted that in irony before I read the article. I had a rare pulse of rage followed by tears for this poor child. The BASTARDS.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
As a whole, the SBC is certainly conservative when it comes to things like sexuality. But it is not as monolithic in that regard as many people think.
It's sick that "conservative when it comes to ... sexuality" doesn't automatically include condemnation of 35 year olds raping 13 year olds. Clearly conserative sexuality is pretty libertine compared to mine.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's sick that "conservative when it comes to ... sexuality" doesn't automatically include condemnation of 35 year olds raping 13 year olds. Clearly conserative sexuality is pretty libertine compared to mine.
Agree completely. FWIW, I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. I was just responding generally to lilBuddha’s comment about about the conservative nature of the SBC.
[ 03. February 2018, 02:33: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise.
I would not accuse of of such, and I apologize that it came across that way.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
This is a particularly heinous case, but, unfortunately, there has long been this idea in some tiny minds, that rape isn't as horrible for a non-virgin as it is for a virgin. It makes me want to ask these church elders if they think their wives wouldn't mind being tied up and raped, their wives being "sexually experienced," in most cases?
I really wish the girl's parents hadn't agreed to the plea bargain. Who cares if the rapist's prison time would be less meaningful because he is blind? He would be in a place where he can do no more harm. I have very little trust in registered sex-offender status doing much to safe guard the community.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise.
I would not accuse of of such, and I apologize that it came across that way.
No problem. Just wanted to make sure I was clear about what I was and wasn’t saying,
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Who cares if the rapist's prison time would be less meaningful because he is blind?
I did not read the whole article, but they said that?First, legally blind ≠ sightless. The bastard could see well enough to do what he did.
And prison to the blind would be just, if not more, terrifying.
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
As a whole, the SBC is certainly conservative when it comes to things like sexuality. But it is not as monolithic in that regard as many people think.
Few things are monolithic. But though a small twig adds less fuel to the bonfire, it adds fuel still.
[ 03. February 2018, 15:29: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I'd be very surprised if the lawyers were not in fact instructed by the church's insurers rather than the church.
[ 04. February 2018, 01:32: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I'd be very surprised if the lawyers were not in fact instructed by the church's insurers rather than the church.
Does. Not. Matter. Full Fucking Stop.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I'd be very surprised if the lawyers were not in fact instructed by the church's insurers rather than the church.
"Attorneys for the church" are not taking instructions from the church? Is that how attorneys operate in Australia?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Dave W. the church would be the defendant to any claim for damages, but if there were insurance to cover any award, the insurer would take over the defence in the church's name. Just as in a motor vehicle or industrial accident - the authorised insurer with whom the car owner/employer had taken out insurance would defend the legal proceedings. In either case, the instructions to the lawyers would be given by the insurer.
lilBuddha. if the instructions are in fact being given by the insurer, then the church could ask for this line not to be taken, but any decision is ultimately for the insurer rather than the church. That does not in any way justify the line of the questions but does show the limitation on the church if it wants to maintain its insurance cover.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
I found it interesting that the Church's lawyers were coming back for a second bite of the cherry (a football metaphor), asking the judge to reconsider her ruling on the matter. That seems extraordinary to me. Does that open a gate to punitive damages in that jurisdiction?
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
lilBuddha. if the instructions are in fact being given by the insurer, then the church could ask for this line not to be taken, but any decision is ultimately for the insurer rather than the church. That does not in any way justify the line of the questions but does show the limitation on the church if it wants to maintain its insurance cover.
Yep, just as Jesus would do
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
And, no, their responsibility to their flock does not justify this course of action. If such a profoundly anti-Christian position is the cost of doing so, there is no point in having a flock.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
If you can face it, the link within the first article includes the detail that he not only tied her up, raped her, but he also sodomized her. And was legally blind at the time.
Apparently the plea bargain was agreed because the girl and parents live out of state and wanted to limit the time and trauma spent attending the trial.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
If you can face it, the link within the first article includes the detail that he not only tied her up, raped her, but he also sodomized her.
For reference, "sodomy", described in Oklahoma statute as "the detestable and abominable crime against nature," usually means oral sex. Forcible anal sex qualifies as rape under Oklahoma law.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Unfortunately, the link did work for me. I expected to feel angry or outraged. But actually, I just felt desperately, desperately sad (I didn't get through the whole article). Sad for that girl; sad at the thought that Christians would think that was at all an appropriate thing for anyone to do, Christian or otherwise; sad that a church chooses "covering our backs" over justice; sad that I'm a Baptist and, however unrelated Southern Baptists might be to us over here (or anywhere else), I share a 'label' with them.
Lord, have mercy.
My only glimmer of hope was the judge who called the request out for the absolute, incredible BS that it is.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Apparently the plea bargain was agreed because the girl and parents live out of state and wanted to limit the time and trauma spent attending the trial.
Which is entirely understandable. And I can also see why a responsible prosecutor would rather have the conviction and some long-term monitoring in place than take the risk of a trial and acquittal, to minimise the chance of harm to others in the future.
It still seems a bit odd* to me that someone can get probation for raping a child. Does anyone know if this a case where "rape" is broad enough to cover ostensibly sex in the absence of legally competent consent? If the Defendant's plea was offered on the factual basis "I admit that I had sex with N, and that as she is a minor and thus unable to give legal consent that is automatically classed as rape, but it was entirely unforced", then I can make sense of it. That plea wouldn't be consistent with the original allegations, but then it might not have to be for the Court or prosecution to accept it.
I suppose the church might then want to defend the civil suit on the grounds that the factual basis of the guilty plea should be taken as true, but even then its hard to defend* intrusive enquiries into the victim's past.
(*understatement)
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Not sure tying the girl up is commensurate with consent.
I thought the plea bargain made sense to minimise harm to the young girl and her family too, just not the 15 years probation instead of a prison sentence.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
This is why the justice system is often unsatisfactory. I hope that, now that the perp is convicted and doing his monitoring/probation, that someone will post his name and picture on the internet. In an ideal universe, every time he applies for a job, every time someone is thinking about dating him, every time a local party is considering him for public office, his name will kick up in the search engines. If we are fortunate, the facts will be mentioned in his obituary.
He may not do jail time. But he can still have a life sentence.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is why the justice system is often unsatisfactory. I hope that, now that the perp is convicted and doing his monitoring/probation, that someone will post his name and picture on the internet. In an ideal universe, every time he applies for a job, every time someone is thinking about dating him, every time a local party is considering him for public office, his name will kick up in the search engines. If we are fortunate, the facts will be mentioned in his obituary.
He may not do jail time. But he can still have a life sentence.
As satisfying as that might be to say, real life suggest ostracisation can lead to them dropping off the radar and ups the odds of recidivism.
This case represents the farce the legal system is regarding rape and molestation.
As well as the anti-woman, anti-Christian nature of the church in question.
[ 06. February 2018, 14:27: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Not sure tying the girl up is commensurate with consent.
Probably not, but that was an allegation that the prosecution (are reported to have) made, not necessarily an allegation that the Defendant admitted.
It's not unknown in the UK, and (I believe) even more common in the US, for a prosecutor to make allegations in a summons/indictment that they are prepared to waive if the Defendant pleads to others. Sometimes that involves different offences (pleading to common assault rather than ABH or simple possession rather than intent to supply) and sometimes it involves a less serious way of committing the same offence (which I am speculating might be the case here - the Defendant admitting to the unlawful sexual intercourse, but not the violent and coercive conduct used to effect it).
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the basis of the plea necessarily has any grounding in what actually happened - it would have been a compromise based on what the prosecutor and defendant thought best served their interests, and it would be something of a coincidence if that happened to align with fact. But the church may still be entitled to take the factual basis of the plea bargain as the default starting point as to "what happened", since that's what the Defendant admits to doing.
If that's right, the church asking intrusive questions of someone whom the defendant says was compliant wouldn't be quite as vile as asking the same thing of someone who has definitely been brutally assaulted. But I think it would still be legally irrelevant in almost all cases, and note that it was found to be so here.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the basis of the plea necessarily has any grounding in what actually happened - it would have been a compromise based on what the prosecutor and defendant thought best served their interests, and it would be something of a coincidence if that happened to align with fact.
The plea is here. Petty admits to anal and vaginal sex, and penetration of the victim's vagina with his finger, when the victim was 13. The issue of violence or restraint is apparently not mentioned in the plea.
The Assistant DA who prosecuted this case has resigned.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It's not unknown in the UK, and (I believe) even more common in the US, for a prosecutor to make allegations in a summons/indictment that they are prepared to waive if the Defendant pleads to others.
Most often pleas are made to reduce court time and costs. Sometimes for the benefit of the victim as well.
Why the bloody fucking hell are you trying so hard to exonerate the church and their scum-sucking, bottom feeding soulless lawyers?
Past sexual history has not one, fucking thing to do with rape. Not. One.
And that bit I quoted in this post sort of leans towards you defending the incompetent, arse of an ADA. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
All lawyers are good, right and moral, then? Especially if they are Jesus-y?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Most often pleas are made to reduce court time and costs. Sometimes for the benefit of the victim as well.
Why the bloody fucking hell are you trying so hard to exonerate the church and their scum-sucking, bottom feeding soulless lawyers?
Past sexual history has not one, fucking thing to do with rape. Not. One.
And that bit I quoted in this post sort of leans towards you defending the incompetent, arse of an ADA.
All lawyers are good, right and moral, then? Especially if they are Jesus-y?
In some alternate universe, I guess there's some version of me who posted something that might have provided some factual basis for your nonsense. Why don't you fuck off there and argue with him?
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
In some alternate universe, I guess there's some version of me who posted something that might have provided some factual basis for your nonsense. Why don't you fuck off there and argue with him?
Your posts sure as fuck read that way.
The shithead raped the girl by every fucking definition of rape. Even if she were a willing participant. Your "Well, if the child wanted to be tied up and beaten and told she'd be hurt if she complained, it isn't as bad" just doesn't sit well.
Nothing excuses what the rapist did.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
But the church may still be entitled to take the factual basis of the plea bargain as the default starting point as to "what happened", since that's what the Defendant admits to doing.
The plea was guilty to first-degree rape, forcible sodomy and rape by instrumentation. Not to what he said happened.
Entitled. They are entitled to take all manner of vile, yet legal paths. Still waiting to hear how they are not morally at wrong.
quote:
If that's right, the church asking intrusive questions of someone whom the defendant says was compliant wouldn't be quite as vile as asking the same thing of someone who has definitely been brutally assaulted.
Not "as vile". Nice. Suppose that can be taken in a couple of different ways but, given the nature of the crime, it seems to trivialise some forms of rape.
quote:
But I think it would still be legally irrelevant in almost all cases, and note that it was found to be so here.
And what case, pray tell, would it be relevant? A prostitute, even after accepting pay for service, can still be raped. It is about consent, which a 13 year old cannot do. Not legally and not psychologically.
The church and their lawyers tried smearing her character. If the insurance company were directing the action, not something mentioned in the reports, the church would have the responsibility of denouncing those actions or be still complicit.
There actions are still immoral and anti-Christian, whether active or passive.
The lawyers for the church/camp/insurance company are required to provide a competent defence. They are not required to take the line of inquiry they did. They are scum as well.
Untwist your panties and tell me where I am wrong about the implications of your questioning.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Untwist your panties and tell me where I am wrong about the implications of your questioning.
If you insist:
quote:
Why the bloody fucking hell are you trying so hard to exonerate the church and their scum-sucking, bottom feeding soulless lawyers?
Wrong, and stupid. I haven't said anything to exonerate the church and haven't even mentioned their lawyers.
I was actually engaging with the question "how the hell is it possible, in a civilised country in the twenty-first century, to only get probation for raping a child?"
(It turns out that "probation" means something different in this case than it usually does to me - here (E&W) probation is right at the low end of penalties, and consists of having to attend a few meetings with a probation officer over a relatively short period. Probation in this case appears to imply a prison sentence that is suspended on terms that include supervision - a far more serious matter. There are similar provisions to suspend prison sentences in E&W, but this is not usually referred to as "probation". That removes some of my bewilderment, but it's still a surprisingly light sentence, now that I've seen the plea.)
quote:
And that bit I quoted in this post sort of leans towards you defending the incompetent, arse of an ADA.
Wrong, but not totally so. The bit you quoted had nothing to do with the ADA, but I did say elsewhere that there might be circumstances where a responsible prosecutor might take a plea bargain giving a rapist probation as being more in the public interest than risking an acquittal. That wasn't defending this particular ADA, or this particular decision, since the linked articles simply did not give enough information for that.
The principle is right, though - suppose (and I stress for the benefit of the stupid that I don't know whether this is the case) that the victim absolutely refused to attend a trial, because she was terrified, so that without the plea bargain the rapist would certainly go free, it would clearly be better to get him on any applicable sex offenders register and monitored, even if he never sees the inside of a cell, than to insist on a trial at which he will be acquitted.
quote:
All lawyers are good, right and moral, then? Especially if they are Jesus-y?
Ok, that one's right. Obviously I think that. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
Your "Well, if the child wanted to be tied up and beaten and told she'd be hurt if she complained, it isn't as bad" just doesn't sit well.
Wrong, and lying. I didn't say that. You know that I didn't say that. I didn't imply that. You know that I didn't imply that. I didn't mean that. You know that I didn't mean that.
quote:
The plea was guilty to first-degree rape, forcible sodomy and rape by instrumentation. Not to what he said happened.
Wrong, because of the implicit misrepresentation.
Yes, that is what the plea says, but I hadn't read the plea, and it hadn't been linked to, when I posted. I had speculated that the defendant might have entered a plea on a different, and far less serious, factual basis to the one originally charged, because that sort of thing happens all the time. For you to misrepresent me as saying, once the actual plea has been linked to, that those facts aren't serious is simple dishonesty on your part.
What I don't get is why. I'm not making excuses for a rapist, and you can't seriously think that I am, so why the grandstanding?
quote:
Still waiting to hear how they are not morally at wrong.
Wrong, and lying. You aren't waiting to hear that at all. Just about everyone on the thread had posted some variant on that. Mine was that it was indefensible, "intrusive" and "vile".
(I expressed my view that the questioning was indefensible as "hard to defend (understatement)", so perhaps you might not have appreciated the full degree of disapproval that was intended - but don't tell me that you thought that I was expressing positive approval, because that would be a lie).
quote:
Not "as vile". Nice. Suppose that can be taken in a couple of different ways but, given the nature of the crime, it seems to trivialise some forms of rape.
Wrong and stupid again, this time wilfully so because you seem to enjoy taking offence.
It nastier to pry into the sexual history of a child who has been violently raped that one who has been wrongfully persuaded into sexual activity. Both are nasty. One is nastier than the other. This should not be a difficult concept for an adult mind. No one is trivialising rape, and I'm pretty sure that you know perfectly well that no one is trivialising rape. But since another mark of being a grown-up is apologising when you've made a stupid and unjustified allegation, I fully expect you to instead explain to me why I'm really a rape apologist without knowing it.
quote:
quote:
But I think it would still be legally irrelevant in almost all cases, and note that it was found to be so here.
And what case, pray tell, would it be relevant?
OK, not literally wrong, since it's a question, but the underlying assumptions are wrong.
First, I'm saying that it is generally true that a victim's sexual history IS irrelevant to rape - that is, I am saying something that you do not appear to fundamentally disagree with.
But of course you want to portray me as being pro-rape because I haven't ruled out even the possibility of an exception to that rule. Which is stupid.
quote:
A prostitute, even after accepting pay for service, can still be raped.
Not wrong, but stupidly irrelevant. What has anything I've said got to do with prostitution?
And, yes, of course prostitutes can be raped. It would surprise me if they were not the single category of people most likely to be raped.
quote:
which a 13 year old cannot do. Not legally and not psychologically.
Wrong factually. In some jurisdictions they can legally consent. And while you might think (and I would agree) that they shouldn't be able to, even jurisdictions where they can't legally consent will treat a person who had sex with a 13 year who said "no" more harshly than a a person who had sex with a 13 year who said "yes". Whether or not that jurisdiction defines both acts as "rape". And they are right to treat them different.
I'm sure there are lots of other examples of you being wrong, but that'll do for now.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
lB - does the outrage bus have stops where you can get off, or are you trapped in it for all eternity?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Wrong, and stupid. I haven't said anything to exonerate the church and haven't even mentioned their lawyers.
Here you are correct. I misread something GeeD said as one of your posts.
quote:
I was actually engaging with the question "how the hell is it possible, in a civilised country in the twenty-first century, to only get probation for raping a child?"
This is a reasonable question. The tack you took, that perhaps what happened wasn't as bad as assumed, isn't.
That the sentence can be so low is indicitive of the lack of respect for women built into the legal system.
Expediency, of and by itself, is the primary reason for pleas.
quote:
Wrong, but not totally so. The bit you quoted had nothing to do with the ADA, but I did say elsewhere that there might be circumstances where a responsible prosecutor might take a plea bargain giving a rapist probation as being more in the public interest than risking an acquittal. That wasn't defending this particular ADA, or this particular decision, since the linked articles simply did not give enough information for that.
Took 30 sec. on Google to find a link that said the judge questioned the plea deal.
We both saw the sentence and thought WTF?
You went with possible good legal reasoning.
I thought probably was the fucked up system.
But I looked.
quote:
quote:
Your "Well, if the child wanted to be tied up and beaten and told she'd be hurt if she complained, it isn't as bad" just doesn't sit well.
Wrong, and lying. I didn't say that. You know that I didn't say that. I didn't imply that. You know that I didn't imply that. I didn't mean that. You know that I didn't mean that.
Wrong? Possibly. Lying? Fuck you. You did not say those words, no. But what you did say, the exploration you made, without reading more, certainly implied that the plea deal was legally reasonable because maybe the girl willingly participated.
quote:
Yes, that is what the plea says, but I hadn't read the plea, and it hadn't been linked to, when I posted. I had speculated that the defendant might have entered a plea on a different, and far less serious, factual basis to the one originally charged, because that sort of thing happens all the time.
I really didn't want to read more on this case, but I did. Before I commented.
And, again, irrelevant. Fucker deserves more of a sentence even if she would have instigated the entire thing.
quote:
What I don't get is why. I'm not making excuses for a rapist, and you can't seriously think that I am, so why the grandstanding?
One should look at the why of something happened, instead of just the outrage. But your tack was to look at the ways the sentencing could be reasonable without making any effort to find what actually happened here. And that is a major problem with what happens in the legal system. Assumption that it is working properly and well.
Historically, rape is an under-prosecuted crime that puts the victim on trial nearly as often as the accused.
quote:
you might not have appreciated the full degree of disapproval that was intended
Communication is more than merely the words, but the way we use them.
quote:
because you seem to enjoy taking offence.
Actually, I do not. But I don't really give a fuck if you believe that.
quote:
It nastier to pry into the sexual history of a child who has been violently raped that one who has been wrongfully persuaded into sexual activity. Both are nasty. One is nastier than the other.
The fallacy here is quantifying them.
quote:
First, I'm saying that it is generally true that a victim's sexual history IS irrelevant to rape - that is, I am saying something that you do not appear to fundamentally disagree with.
But of course you want to portray me as being pro-rape because I haven't ruled out even the possibility of an exception to that rule. Which is stupid.
Because I don't believe there is an exception. Veracity is the key in an accusation, not sexual history.
quote:
quote:
A prostitute, even after accepting pay for service, can still be raped.
Not wrong, but stupidly irrelevant. What has anything I've said got to do with prostitution?
It is using the most extreme example to show that the lesser examples are ridiculous. A common strategy, something anyone with functional brain cells could deduce.
quote:
quote:
which a 13 year old cannot do. Not legally and not psychologically.
Wrong factually. In some jurisdictions they can legally consent.
Not in the US, where this happened.
quote:
And while you might think (and I would agree) that they shouldn't be able to, even jurisdictions where they can't legally consent will treat a person who had sex with a 13 year who said "no" more harshly than a a person who had sex with a 13 year who said "yes". Whether or not that jurisdiction defines both acts as "rape". And they are right to treat them different.
That is problematic. The issue is far less black and white as this. It is how the offences are quantified that is the problem, more than whether they are different.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
