Rapist - 'demands paternal visitation rights to the child he fathered with victim'

tuxy

Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »

Just because the age of consent is 13 , doesn't mean it's morally ok.
In fact any adult that has sex with a 13 year old is a scumbag.

14 in Germany
15 in Sweden
16 in the UK
17 here
Perhaps it's Turkey that have it correct it's 18 there

Spunge

Feisar wrote: »

Food for thought, if a twenty year old woman statuary rapes a fourteen year old boy, should she have visitation rights?

I don't mean this in the way people say if it was the other way around we'd all be clapping the lad on the back sort of crap.

never thought about that. id say she'd have ownership of the child np. and i doubt anyone would be against it.

Boombastic

"He hasn't cared up until now. Why should he now? She's three. She doesn't know who he is," the teen mother told FOX Undercover.

Read more: http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/19628763/2012/09/24/rapist-wants-visitation-rights-teen-mom-fighting-back#ixzz27fdU1DUL




The above quote for the girl strikes me as strange.

davet82

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

And she is a willing accomplice.

thats what most rapists imply.

HeyThereDeliah

davet82 wrote: »

thats what most rapists imply.

Either it was rape or not? Did she willingly participate or was she forced ?
If he forced her it was rape and no he should not see the child.
If she wanted to have sex with him he is not a rapist.

Mickeroo

davet82 wrote: »

i do get what you're saying and i agree but when does it start being ok or not as bad, some people have more morals than others.

i'm not really arguing either side of it as i said before the story left me feeling conflicted

The gap in age is irrelevant, it's how old the youngest person involved is that makes the difference. When's she's 18 the guy will only be 24, suddenly it's socially acceptable for them to be together. *shrug*

Whats morally acceptable in these cases changes between societies, and we can only judge it on what our society deems to be acceptable, in our case that's 17 years old. In the past and possibly other societies that exist today a 14 year old would be considered old enough to be married off.

But this thread is asking should the guy be able to see the kid, as far as I can tell from what little the article in the OP actually tells us, then yes he should imo.

Esoteric_

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Either it was rape or not? Did she willingly participate or was she forced ?
If he forced her it was rape and no he should not see the child.
If she wanted to have sex with him he is not a rapist.

Do you not understand the concept of rape?

It's about not giving consent.

Statutory rape is when the person cannot give informed consent. A 14 year old has been deemed by law as not being able to give informed consent, therefore consent is null and void.

For example, a man having sex with a 25 year old woman with extreme autism or Down's Syndrome could hypothetically be convicted of statutory rape because the woman in question can not give INFORMED consent.

What happened was rape, as informed consent wasn't given. Because ill-informed consent was given, it was statutory rape.

Mickeroo

LyndaMcL wrote: »

Do you not understand the concept of rape?

It's about not giving consent.

Statutory rape is when the person cannot give informed consent. A 14 year old has been deemed by law as not being able to give informed consent, therefore consent is null and void.

For example, a man having sex with a 25 year old woman with extreme autism or Down's Syndrome could hypothetically be convicted of statutory rape because the woman in question can not give INFORMED consent.

What happened was rape, as informed consent wasn't given. Because ill-informed consent was given, it was statutory rape.

Whether or not a 14 year old can give informed consent or not is not dependant on the law, it's dependant on how informed the 14 year old is.

The law makes it illegal regardless.

Esoteric_

Mickeroo wrote: »

Whether or not a 14 year old can give informed consent or not is not dependant on the law, it's dependant on how informed the 14 year old is.

The law makes it illegal regardless.

And since we're speaking about what rape is legally defined as, and whether a conviction as such should prevent a father from seeing his child, I stuck to legalities.

Legally, a 14 year old child is not deemed as being able to give informed consent.

Biggins

So the older man claims the sex was consensual?
Have I got that right?
If so - was this proven in court?
If NOT - a rapist physical he certainly is.
And even if there MIGHT have been consent, he is still legally a rapist given her age.

Honestly, if that had been my daughter, if he had lived long enough to put in a claim to get back into her life (and the child) - it would be over my later then dead body - if not before his was dead first!

shalalala

Mickeroo wrote: »

Whether or not a 14 year old can give informed consent or not is not dependant on the law, it's dependant on how informed the 14 year old is.

The law makes it illegal regardless.

And the law protects the 14 year olds that think that they are informed enough to make that decision.

The child is three. He hasn't given a crap. He was an adult had been one for two years and he did something very stupid with a young girl and he should have known better.

So he deserves to be where he is. But he might have matured and realised his mistake and might actually be a good father. Who knows?

msg11

davet82 wrote: »

i do get what you're saying and i agree but when does it start being ok or not as bad, some people have more morals than others.

i'm not really arguing either side of it as i said before the story left me feeling conflicted

I don't agree with people as young as 12/13 having sex.

If we started at 14 then maybe +2 (or +1) from there, each year they age add another year, so 15/18 , 16/20, 17/22. Up till there 18. By 18 we would hope they have some common sense for themselves or there just looking for a sugar daddy.

To be honest, having a border line legal age of 14 is just asking for madness, there should be something to basically say that it's too stop another minor from becoming part of the sex register. But I don't think 12/13 is the age to start having sex and maybe there should be better education in schools or something cause, why would a child aged 12/13 want to even try it, it should be only been discovered and then start educating them about it, instead of dancing around it like fairy's.

This is getting away from the topic at hand.

Mickeroo

shalalala wrote: »

And the law protects the 14 year olds that think that they are informed enough to make that decision.

The child is three. He hasn't given a crap. He was an adult had been one for two years and he did something very stupid with a young girl and he should have known better.

So he deserves to be where he is. But he might have matured and realised his mistake and might actually be a good father. Who knows?

Agreed.

Gauss

LyndaMcL wrote: »

Mickeroo wrote: »

Whether or not a 14 year old can give informed consent or not is not dependant on the law, it's dependant on how informed the 14 year old is.

The law makes it illegal regardless.

And since we're speaking about what rape is legally defined as, and whether a conviction as such should prevent a father from seeing his child, I stuck to legalities.

Legally, a 14 year old child is not deemed as being able to give informed consent.

Yes a 14 year old can't give consent legally but they can willingly have sex.

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

If a man commits statutory rape of a minor all access to minors should be viewed with suspicion.

He had sex with a 14 yr old teenage child. He was seen as threatening enough to be given 25 yrs.


He will be on the sex offenders list so I imagine there will be caveats or something.


He wants access to the child the sex/rape he had with a child fathered ....erm no.

He has comitted hebephilia and expressed sexual interest in an inappropriate, harmful and illegal manner towards adolescents. Any interaction with young people would have to be monitered.

kneemos

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy wrote: »

If a man commits statutory rape of a minor all access to minors should be viewed with suspicion.

He had sex with a 14 yr old teenage child. He was seen as threatening enough to be given 25 yrs.


He will be on the sex offenders list so I imagine there will be caveats or something.


He wants access to the child the sex/rape he had with a child fathered ....erm no.

He has comitted hebephilia and expressed sexual interest in an inappropriate, harmful and illegal manner towards adolescents. Any interaction with young people would have to be monitered.

Thought he got probation for 16 years!

inmyday

Biggins wrote: »

So the older man claims the sex was consensual?
Have I got that right?
If so - was this proven in court?
If NOT - a rapist physical he certainly is.
And even if there MIGHT have been consent, he is still legally a rapist given her age.

I am so confused about this law.

If two 14 years olds have sex, are they both rapists?
Silly question I know, but how does the law describe them?

Or only if one is 18 or older, does the word rapist come into the equation only then?

davet82

msg11 wrote: »

I don't agree with people as young as 12/13 having sex.

If we started at 14 then maybe +2 (or +1) from there, each year they age add another year, so 15/18 , 16/20, 17/22. Up till there 18. By 18 we would hope they have some common sense for themselves or there just looking for a sugar daddy.

To be honest, having a border line legal age of 14 is just asking for madness, there should be something to basically say that it's too stop another minor from becoming part of the sex register. But I don't think 12/13 is the age to start having sex and maybe there should be better education in schools or something cause, why would a child aged 12/13 want to even try it, it should be only been discovered and then start educating them about it, instead of dancing around it like fairy's.

This is getting away from the topic at hand.

I think the issue is at the root of the topic at hand so its all relevent...

I think the system you suggest is better than the one we have now anyways.

Gauss

LyndaMcL wrote: »

Mickeroo wrote: »

Whether or not a 14 year old can give informed consent or not is not dependant on the law, it's dependant on how informed the 14 year old is.

The law makes it illegal regardless.

And since we're speaking about what rape is legally defined as, and whether a conviction as such should prevent a father from seeing his child, I stuck to legalities.

Legally, a 14 year old child is not deemed as being able to give informed consent.

Yes a 14 year old can't give consent legally but they can willingly have sex.

Biggins

inmyday wrote: »

I am so confused about this law.

If two 14 years olds have sex, are they both rapists?
Silly question I know, but how does the law describe them?

Or only if one is 18 or older, does the word rapist come into the equation only then?

Under Irish law, the bloke would be.
The girl not - even if 100% consent was given.

inmyday

Biggins wrote: »

Under Irish law, the bloke would be.
The girl not - even if 100% consent was given.

That sounds ridiculous. Crazy law.
Why are men and women treated different to laws when it comes to sex.

Boombastic

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy wrote: »

If a man commits statutory rape of a minor all access to minors should be viewed with suspicion.

He had sex with a 14 yr old teenage child. He was seen as threatening enough to be given 25 yrs.


He will be on the sex offenders list so I imagine there will be caveats or something.


He wants access to the child the sex/rape he had with a child fathered ....erm no.

He has comitted hebephilia and expressed sexual interest in an inappropriate, harmful and illegal manner towards adolescents. Any interaction with young people would have to be monitered.

You need to 'eggucate' yourself by actually reading the article:pac:

He wasn't given 25 years

davet82

Mickeroo wrote: »

The gap in age is irrelevant, it's how old the youngest person involved is that makes the difference. When's she's 18 the guy will only be 24, suddenly it's socially acceptable for them to be together. *shrug*

Whats morally acceptable in these cases changes between societies, and we can only judge it on what our society deems to be acceptable, in our case that's 17 years old. In the past and possibly other societies that exist today a 14 year old would be considered old enough to be married off.

I think the gap is very relevant!

If a guy in his 50's is 'courting' a girl in her early teens, its grooming in my book, its practically pedaphilia but if its 16 year old girl and 17 year old boy then the age thing becomes very relevent. I cant say exactly where the line should be drawn though I'll admit that.

Any society that permits 14 year old children to be married off is backward and disgusting imo btw

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

davet82 wrote: »

I think the gap is very relevant!

If a guy in his 50's is 'courting' a girl in her early teens, its grooming in my book, its practically pedaphilia but if its 16 year old girl and 17 year old boy then the age thing becomes very relevent. I cant say exactly where the line should be drawn though I'll admit that.

Any society that permits 14 year old children to be married off is backward and disgusting imo btw

I agree.

Mickeroo

davet82 wrote: »

I think the gap is very relevant!

If a guy in his 50's is 'courting' a girl in her early teens, its grooming in my book, its practically pedaphilia but if its 16 year old girl and 17 year old boy then the age thing becomes very relevent. I cant say exactly where the line should be drawn though I'll admit that.

Any society that permits 14 year old children to be married off is backward and disgusting imo btw

I mean the gap is irrelevant because once the younger of the two involved is the age of consent it's perfectly legal no matter how old the other is.

davet82

Mickeroo wrote: »

I mean the gap is irrelevant because once the younger of the two involved is the age of consent it's perfectly legal no matter how old the other is.

sorry i get ye now

my point still stands though

Mickeroo

davet82 wrote: »

my point still stands though

obviously.

Lollipops23

Even if 14 year old seems "mature" and "consents" they're still a child and cannot make a decision like that for themselves. The guy was 20, that's worlds apart from her in terms of maturity and judgement (or at least should be).

He knew what he was getting into, and according to the girl he threatened her to keep her quiet.

He should be made pay for maintenance but let nowhere near the kid.

KKkitty

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

davet82 wrote: »

thats what most rapists imply.

Either it was rape or not? Did she willingly participate or was she forced ?
If he forced her it was rape and no he should not see the child.
If she wanted to have sex with him he is not a rapist.

She was 14 when it happened so I seriously doubt she had the emotional maturity to make a proper decision to consent to having sex with this so called adult. She was barely out of nappies herself for gods sake. She probably went along with what this man wanted out of fear that he'd leave her. Adolescents are in their nature are naive and easily led.

Boombastic

Lollipops23 wrote: »

.......................................
He knew what he was getting into, and according to the girl he threatened her to keep her quiet.................

He was her friends older sisters boyfriend at the time. Perhaps this is why. It seems the sex was consensual.


Just surmising

Biggins

inmyday wrote: »

That sounds ridiculous. Crazy law.
Why are men and women treated different to laws when it comes to sex.

Yep, the law can be an ass sometimes.
That particular situation has been asked to be addressed many a time - but like fathers rights, its on the long finger of continuous Irish governments who see no votes in it for them - so expect no change soon.

Dublin Red Devil

well it depends on whether it was consensual sex. Statutory rape. does not necessarly mean he held her down a fcked her against her will. It means she was underage when they had sex

dark crystal

I wouldn't be comfortable with any man who enjoyed sex with minors being alone with my child. I'd see it more as a child protection issue than anything else.

Perhaps if there was fully supervised access he might have a case, but no way would I leave him alone with that child. I can totally understand her misgivings about the situation.

djk1000

davet82 wrote: »

How so? A rapist is a rapist same way a murder is a murder no matter what degree it is, no?

i could add statutory rapist but the title was long enough, all the details about the case are provided in the link. Quote is from the first few lines of the story

So a 17 year old guy having consensual sex with a 16 yr 11 month old girl is guilty of statutory rape. This, according to you is the same thing as a man dragging a woman down a dark alley and beating her within an inch of her life to force himself on her?

The guy was 20, the girl was 14, wrong I know, but saying "rape is rape" is dangerous with the strange and sexist laws in this country.

HeyThereDeliah

dark crystal wrote: »

I wouldn't be comfortable with any man who enjoyed sex with minors being alone with my child. I'd see it more as a child protection issue than anything else.

Perhaps if there was fully supervised access he might have a case, but no way would I leave him alone with that child. I can totally understand her misgivings about the situation.

You assuming he would be a danger to his own child? He is not a pedophile .

michellie

The article repeats over and over that he was a rapist and that he raped herI'm not sure it was consensual.

davet82

djk1000 wrote: »

So a 17 year old guy having consensual sex with a 16 yr 11 month old girl is guilty of statutory rape. This, according to you is the same thing as a man dragging a woman down a dark alley and beating her within an inch of her life to force himself on her?

The guy was 20, the girl was 14, wrong I know, but saying "rape is rape" is dangerous with the strange and sexist laws in this country.

the title said rapist, he was convicted of rape, hence the title. If you want to discuss, read through the thread and my posts and you'll get a better idea of my views on the topic

Biggins

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

You assuming he would be a danger to his own child? He is not a pedophile .

A pedophile is a person 16 years of age or older, who is primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to children who have not reached puberty - be they family or not.

davet82

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

You assuming he would be a danger to his own child? He is not a pedophile .

not now but maybe when she hits pupery, who knows.

All i know is most normal 20 year olds dont have an interest in 14 year old girls or maybe i'm the odd one?

HeyThereDeliah

Biggins wrote: »

A pedophile is a person 16 years of age or older, who is primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to children who have not reached puberty - be they family or not.

I know what a pedophile is. If this couple were still together would you still think he was a danger to his own child ?

Biggins

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

I know what a pedophile is. If this couple were still together would you still think he was a danger to his own child ?

A pedophile first interest is the sex (I assume) not if its a relation or not.
Open to be wrong.

I absolutely would not risk it.

HeyThereDeliah

davet82 wrote: »

not now but maybe when she hits pupery, who knows.

All i know is most normal 20 year olds dont have an interest in 14 year old girls or maybe i'm the odd one?

Ffs just because the man had sex with a younger girl does not mean he would want to have sex with his own daughter. How can you think the two things are related?

dark crystal

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

You assuming he would be a danger to his own child? He is not a pedophile .

No, he's a hebephile and that three year old won't be three forever.

Also, I'm not assuming anything, but risk limitation is definitely the key here. He's a convicted sex offender, whatever way you look at it and only an idiot would leave their child unsupervised with a convicted sex offender.

Biggins

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Ffs just because the man had sex with a younger girl does not mean he would want to have sex with his own daughter. How can you think the two things are related?

...Because he wanted to have sex with something/anything that was under age?
Its not a stretch of the mind at all!

A person just don't turn off their sexual urges by the way like flipping a switch.

The risk is just too great!

Spunge

michellie wrote: »

The article repeats over and over that he was a rapist and that he raped herI'm not sure it was consensual.

its a dailymail article quoting a fox news article, what do you expect.

HeyThereDeliah

Biggins wrote: »

A pedophile first interest is the sex (I assume) not if its a relation or not.
Open to be wrong.

I absolutely would not risk it.

Can we get one thing straight here, is he a pedophile or a rapist ?
Did he get involved with a girl that was too young for him even if she was willing to have sex with him.

djk1000

davet82 wrote: »

the title said rapist, he was convicted of rape, hence the title. If you want to discuss, read through the thread and my posts and you'll get a better idea of my views on the topic

You said,

How so? A rapist is a rapist same way a murder is a murder no matter what degree it is, no?

Did I misinterpret that? It's a pretty clear view on the topic.

Maybe to clarify, are you saying that a 17 year old boy having consensual sex with a 16 year old girl is the same as a man forcing himself on a women? Statutory rape being a degree of rape, no?

davet82

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Ffs just because the man had sex with a younger girl does not mean he would want to have sex with his own daughter. How can you think the two things are related?

i'm not saying i would think that but maybe why take the risk is the point that was being made i'm guessing (not my point)

Boombastic

STATUTORY RAPE IN THE NEW ENGLAND STATES

Most states do not refer specifically to statutory rape; instead they use designations such as sexual assault and sexual abuse to identify prohibited activity. Regardless of the designation, these crimes are based on the premise that until a person reaches a certain age, he is legally incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse. Thus, instead of including force as a criminal element, theses crimes make it illegal for anyone to engage in sexual intercourse with anyone below a certain age, other than his spouse. The age of consent varies by state, with most states, including Connecticut, setting it at age 16. The age of consent in other states ranges from ages 14 to 18.........Maine does not specify any particular age that an actor has to be to commit gross sexual assault. Anyone commits this crime when he has sexual intercourse with a person who has not attained age 14.

State: Massachusetts

Crimes: Criminal inducement to get a person under age 18 of chaste life to have unlawful sexual intercourse

Penalties:Up to three years’ imprisonment or up to two and one-half years in jail

Biggins

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Can we get one thing straight here, is he a pedophile or a rapist ?
Did he get involved with a girl that was too young for him even if she was willing to have sex with him.

Legally alone, both.