Thread: Southern Baptist Church arse covering. Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005736
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
You really want to know about a 13 year-old's sexual history hoping it will get you off the hook.

https://baptistnews.com/article/church-seeks-information-sexual-history-teen-rape-victim/#.WnRdinp31zs

There are no words for something that despicable. This has to be in Hell.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
[Projectile]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
https://baptistnews.com/article/church-seeks-information-sexual-history-teen-rape-victim/#.WnRdinp31zs
I get an error
quote:
This site can’t provide a secure connection

baptistnews.com uses an unsupported protocol.
Which raises the question, of what protocol they are using that is unsupported. Maybe the "twisting things to blame the innocent victim of rape" protocol, I'd certainly struggle to support that!
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
The link is good for me. Unfortunately.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Churches are not a helpful place for abused persons.
This is from Christianity Today, a free click. It's testimony from one of the many many young women abused by sports doctor Larry Nasser.
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
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!]

He was duly howled down by the 100 or so others (men and women) present....

[Mad]

IJ
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Campbell Ritchie (# 730) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Campbell Ritchie (# 730) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I hope they fry in hell.
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
Good lord this is sleezy. [Mad]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Surely she should be stoned to death at least as a matter of honour?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
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,
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
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
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
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)
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
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]

All lawyers are good, right and moral, then? Especially if they are Jesus-y?
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
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. [Disappointed]

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?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
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]


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.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
lB - does the outrage bus have stops where you can get off, or are you trapped in it for all eternity?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
So. No stops then.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So. No stops then.
Nope. We'll refuel in transit.
Actually don't see how that last post was outrageous or unreasonable.
I don't know. When I look at what he wrote, I see that he took the time to construct a case that appears to frame the plea as a reasonable, legal route; but zero time to find out what the actual plea was.
I did. Took me less than 30 seconds. As fucking hard as it is to read these stories, I looked further into the why before posting my reaction to his post.
Overreaction? Maybe. I could have asked him to clarify. But I can't get past him going in the direction he did.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So. No stops then.
Nope. We'll refuel in transit.
Actually don't see how that last post was outrageous or unreasonable.
I don't know. When I look at what he wrote, I see that he took the time to construct a case that appears to frame the plea as a reasonable, legal route; but zero time to find out what the actual plea was.
I did. Took me less than 30 seconds. As fucking hard as it is to read these stories, I looked further into the why before posting my reaction to his post.
Overreaction? Maybe. I could have asked him to clarify. But I can't get past him going in the direction he did.
I read the whole transcript.

My take on the hearing is pretty much exactly on the lines that Eliab took. The judge checked with the defendant that he understood what he was being asked to plead to, that he understood what the plea entailed, that no one had been coerced into it. He also checked with the prosecutor that the victim and the victim's family were in agreement with the charges, the plea bargain, and the subsequent supervision. That's the judge's job. That's due process. The notary takes it all down and records it, so no one can cry foul later.

Except for you, apparently. The plea was agreed by both prosecution and defence, by both perpetrator and victim, and critically, by the judge. None of which is good enough for you. Clearly because you know far better than anyone actually involved in the fucking case.

Clearly, your outrage bus will explode if its speed drops below 50, so gotta keep it moving, right?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

My take on the hearing is pretty much exactly on the lines that Eliab took.
Except that he didn't read it before posting.
quote:

The judge checked with the defendant that he understood what he was being asked to plead to, that he understood what the plea entailed, that no one had been coerced into it. He also checked with the prosecutor that the victim and the victim's family were in agreement with the charges, the plea bargain, and the subsequent supervision. That's the judge's job. That's due process. The notary takes it all down and records it, so no one can cry foul later.
The judge asked the ADA if the family were comfortable with this. The ADA said yes. And they were accepting of the plea because the ADA told them the rapist would not serve significant jail time because of his disability. He did not tell them there was any other choice.
Due process, maybe. Justice, no.
Fittingly, though too late for the family, the ADA was terminated.
You, apparently, haven't read much more than Eliab.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I think you'll find it's neither mine nor Eliab's fault that the ridiculous plea bargaining system is broken. That's what the court and the judge were working with. The judge checked with all the parties concerned and the family of the victim had their own legal counsel.

Drive on, outrage bus, drive on.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
It must surely be possible to draw a moral distinction between not Googling something and being a rape apologist ...
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think you'll find it's neither mine nor Eliab's fault that the ridiculous plea bargaining system is broken.
This time, it wasn’t the system but one of its practitioners. Namely the ADA
quote:

Drive on, outrage bus, drive on.
Fine. And when I pass you on your counter-outrage scooter,*
I’ll wave.

*I’m assuming it’s a scooter, since you can’t get up to speed.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
It must surely be possible to draw a moral distinction between not Googling something and being a rape apologist ...
Of course. And I don’t think he is a rape apologist.
It didn’t take much effort to find out why the light sentence was fucked. He didn’t look, instead he chose to posit scenarios that might justify it.
That angered me.
Combined with thinking a post from GeeD was his as well, triggered me.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think you'll find it's neither mine nor Eliab's fault that the ridiculous plea bargaining system is broken.
This time, it wasn’t the system but one of its practitioners. Namely the ADA
He got booted because his boss was drawing heat. Nothing in the subsequent news item said the ADA had done anything wrong in law, nor even suggested anything different. That's the way the Americans run their courts. The family, already lawyered up, could have thumbed a lift with you, but they decided, who knows why, to go with the plea.

I'm going to reserve my animosity for the church, and their insurers, trying to shirk their clear responsibilities.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
I have made only 2 posts on this thread. Both dealt with the manner in which the lawyers concerned obtained instructions from the insurer rather than the church. Neither in any manner suggested that the questions were suitable or appropriate.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I think it is natural and, on the whole, praiseworthy, when faced with behaviour that is on the face of it both evil and irrational, to see if any explanation can be found that would make sense of that behaviour - provided of course such explanations are rejected as they become untenable.

I apologise in advance in that although I am generally an insensitive git, even I find this distasteful to type, but I can see one way in which the church's argument could be slightly less vile. AIUI from the links they are not saying that it couldn't have been so bad for the victim because she wasn't a virgin anyway - what they are saying is that her prior sexual experience could have been a contributory factor to her PTSD. If you take the line that sex with a minor is rape both in law and in fact, then she has been raped by at least two people but all the damages are being exacted from only one of them - I agree this is still a pretty fucked up argument but it is slightly less fucked up than the argument as first presented.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And I don’t think he is a rape apologist.
I'm happy with that.

I think we probably do differ on the exact point at which trying to understand actions which we would both agree are wrong shades into trying to excuse them, but after your last few posts I think that I better appreciate where you are coming from.

For my part, my original posts genuinely were not intended to mean what you took them to mean, and I apologise for the miscommunication.

I'm also sorry for saying that you had lied or deliberately misrepresented my intentions, which I no longer believe that you did, and for anything else that might have caused offence.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Been away from this thread for a few days because even I get tired of fighting.
Back to address two posts then I am completely done with this thread.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
He got booted because his boss was drawing heat. Nothing in the subsequent news item said the ADA had done anything wrong in law, nor even suggested anything different. That's the way the Americans run their courts. The family, already lawyered up, could have thumbed a lift with you, but they decided, who knows why, to go with the plea.
Though he fulfilled his legal obligation, he did not do his job properly. He did not give the family the complete story, something to which he admitted. His defence was that they could have asked.
quote:

I'm going to reserve my animosity for the church, and their insurers, trying to shirk their clear responsibilities.
I've enough for both. The legal system, and not just America, often shares responsibility in the less than optimal outcomes of these type of cases.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

I'm also sorry for saying that you had lied or deliberately misrepresented my intentions, which I no longer believe that you did, and for anything else that might have caused offence.
Thank you.
I apologise for over reacting. I should have started with a discussion of how I interpreted your posts.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0