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

kowloon

jill_valentine wrote: »

Around 30% of the boys involved in Catholic sex abuse cases were between 15 and 17, and plenty of those would have been "consenting" in so far as they were able. And yet, there is still no debate over whether or not those priests were sex offenders or rapists, or whether the boys were victims.

I suppose it could be argued that Priests, at the time the bulk of these abuses took place, were in a particularly strong position of authority.

You also get claims that there was a greater respect for adults in general, I'm not convinced of that one though.

How has the adult-child dynamic changed? Are youths less vulnerable because they're less easily controlled by adults or are they more vulnerable because they're more likely to disregard their parents and end up in a situation they're not ready for?

davet82

mcmoustache wrote: »

There's that benefit to it alright but I don't think it outweighs the damage done by having the word "rape" used for things that aren't really rape according to the definition that most of us use. Unlawful Carnal Knowledge is a pretty good one and has been around for some time.

hebephile or hebphilia maybe should be the new term for statutory rape. I do accept the scenario of a 17 year old boy and 16 year old girl should be refered to as something else but the problem of where to draw the line always arises, idk where to start on that tbh

Mickeroo

Biggins wrote: »

So we have to rely on the decision then of the court and the evidence put before it.
Nowhere is it stated that "care" was proven and no where is it stated that the court adjusted its sentencing due to supposed care - but people are now introducing supposed "care" without a further shreds of evidence.

Amazing that!
Pulling something out of thin air!
Good magic trick.

No, he was convicted of statutory rape. Whether care was present is not important to the case. Even if they both considered themselves to be in a loving relationship he was still guilty of statutory rape. Speculation of either it's presence or absence is equally pointless.

kowloon wrote: »

I suppose it could be argued that Priests, at the time the bulk of these abuses took place, were in a particularly strong position of authority.

You also get claims that there was a greater respect for adults in general, I'm not convinced of that one though.

How has the adult-child dynamic changed? Are youths less vulnerable because they're less easily controlled by adults or are they more vulnerable because they're more likely to disregard their parents and end up in a situation they're not ready for?

The way I see it, what happened with the church and all that would be considered abuse regardless of the victims' age. Statutory rape is considered abuse because of the victim's age.

mcmoustache

mcmoustache wrote: »

Unlawful Carnal Knowledge is a pretty good one and has been around for some time.

Knowledge = good thing.
There is nothing really dirty about the word "UCK" though.

Mickeroo

davet82 wrote: »

hebephile or hebphilia maybe should be the new term for statutory rape. I do accept the scenario of a 17 year old boy and 16 year old girl should be refered to as something else but the problem of where to draw the line always arises, idk where to start on that tbh

Thats a good point. The difference between statutory rape and straight up rape is too big in my eyes. It is very difficult to pick where to draw the line though, at the moment the only line is the age of consent, which works fine in cases where there is a very large age gap but becomes very grey when the gap is miniscule.

Gauss

Biggins wrote: »

Gauss wrote: »

I never said I know. That's the point, we don't know.

So we have to rely on the decision then of the court and the evidence put before it.
Nowhere is it stated that "care" was proven and no where is it stated that the court adjusted its sentencing due to supposed care - but people are now introducing supposed "care" without a further shreds of evidence.

Amazing that!
Pulling something out of thin air!
Good magic trick.

Who said he cared about her?

The simple fact is he might have cared for or or he might not?

You don't know, simple as.

Biggins

Mickeroo wrote: »

No, he was convicted of statutory rape. Whether care was present is not important to the case. Even if they both considered themselves to be in a loving relationship he was still guilty of statutory rape. Speculation of either it's presence or absence is equally pointless.

1. So why the speculation out of nowhere that there was care?

2. Yep, he was a rapist. Now personally I prefer to take the word of the parents and/or court over the spoutings of a rapist who might be rabbiting about "care" now to try and escape further sentencing or have his period of penalty reduced?
(Food for thought?)

Biggins

Gauss wrote: »

Who said he cared about her?

The simple fact is he might have cared for or or he might not?

You don't know, simple as.

If you bother to even read the thread, it was HeyThereDeliah that kept going on about "care".

The simple fact is that the court found him apparently not to be caring a darn bit - especially as he raped her!

Simple as.

Gauss

Biggins wrote: »

Gauss wrote: »

Who said he cared about her?

The simple fact is he might have cared for or or he might not?

You don't know, simple as.

If you bother to even read the thread, it was HeyThereDeliah that kept going on about "care".

The simple fact is that the court found him apparently not to be caring a darn bit - especially as he raped her!

Simple as.

Know they didn't.

He wasn't tried for "no caring"?

Get over it. We don't know.

Mickeroo

Biggins wrote: »

1. So why the speculation out of nowhere that there was care?

2. Yep, he was a rapist. Now personally I prefer to take the word of the parents and/or court over the spoutings of a rapist who might be rabbiting about "care" now to try and escape further sentencing or have his period of penalty reduced?
(Food for thought?)

Just because speculation is pointless doesn't mean it's not going to happen like it has on this thread. I don't see why you're getting worked up about it tbh.

There's nothing in the article where he spouted about care just as there's nothing in the article that says he didn't care, it's posters on here that brought it up.

Spunge

Why would "care" even come into it. I assume they look at her age and his, found out they had sex, he gets done for statutory. Even if they were both madly in love and stayed together for the next 50 years. He'd still be a statutory rapist.

HeyThereDeliah

Biggins wrote: »

If you bother to even read the thread, it was HeyThereDeliah that kept going on about "care".

The simple fact is that the court found him apparently not to be caring a darn bit - especially as he raped her!

Simple as.

Only because you insisted the only reason he had sex with her is because she was underage, we do not know that at all.
You insist he was only interested in underage sex, have you proof of this? Was this the first underage girl he had sex with?

Biggins

Gauss wrote: »

Know they didn't.

He wasn't tried for "no caring"?

Get over it. We don't know.

Get over the fact that you CANNOT prove for one second that he cared for the child!

Biggins

Spunge wrote: »

Why would "care" even come into it.

Exactly - why are others here trying to make out (with no evidence what so ever to prove it existed) supposed invented out of thin air "Care" !

Stupidity of the highest order.

Biggins

Mickeroo wrote: »

...it's posters on here that brought it up.

Dead correct!

HeyThereDeliah

Biggins wrote: »

Get over the fact that you CANNOT prove for one second that he cared for the child!

Why are you so worked up about it?
I'm simply saying he may have cared for her and her him at the time, calling him a rapist pedophile was IMO unfair. You are the one who insisted he was only after underage sex.
Lets call a truce

Gauss

Biggins wrote: »

Gauss wrote: »

Who said he cared about her?

The simple fact is he might have cared for or or he might not?

You don't know, simple as.

If you bother to even read the thread, it was HeyThereDeliah that kept going on about "care".

The simple fact is that the court found him apparently not to be caring a darn bit - especially as he raped her!

Simple as.

Know they didn't.

He wasn't tried for "not caring"?

Get over it. We don't know.

Biggins

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Why are you so worked up about it?
I'm simply saying he may have cared for her and her him at the time, calling him a rapist pedophile was IMO unfair. You are the one who insisted he was only after underage sex.
Lets call a truce

You entitled to think the title of Rapist is unfair based on opinion.

The court has decided to give him the title of Rapist apparently based on evidence, pre-existing laws and age.

I know which one I have more trust in.

Biggins

Gauss wrote: »

Know they didn't.

He wasn't tried for "not caring"?

Get over it. We don't know.

So you admit, you cannot prove there was care!

Right, we got that too.

Mickeroo

Biggins wrote: »

Exactly - why are others here trying to make out (with no evidence what so ever to prove it existed) supposed invented out of thin air "Care" !

Stupidity of the highest order.

It's funny, because Gauss' posts are literally saying there's no evidence for care, yet you're having too much fun being all angry and confrontational to even notice

Biggins

Mickeroo wrote: »

It's funny, because Gauss' posts are literally saying there's no evidence for care, yet you're having too much fun being all angry and confrontational to even notice

See above previous post.

Gauss

Biggins wrote: »

Gauss wrote: »

Know they didn't.


He wasn't tried for "no caring"?

Get over it. We don't know.

Get over the fact that you CANNOT prove for one second that he cared for the child!

Exactly, we don't know. I'm not claiming he cared. Wtf! You're baffling.

Biggins

Gauss wrote: »

Exactly, we don't know. I'm not claiming he cared. Wtf! You're baffling.

Thats what reins when daft hypotheticals are introduced by people who pull things out of thin air.
(NOT directed at you.)

HeyThereDeliah

Biggins wrote: »

You entitled to think the title of Rapist is unfair based on opinion.

The court has decided to give him the title of Rapist apparently based on evidence, pre-existing laws and age.

I know which one I have more trust in.

I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing now.
From the start of the thread I said statutory rape is different IMO.
You labelled him a pedophile who was only interested in underage sex.
We don't know if they had a relationship or not. We don't know the full story.
You are great at picking and choosing your words to suit your own agenda.

Crooked Jack

I was 17 when I slept with my 16 year old girlfriend. It was the first time for both of us and it was all very clumsy and sweet and weirdly innocent.
It's also one of my happier memories and I'm friends with the girl to this day.
Am I a rapist?
The term 'statutory rape' needs to be changed to something less inflammatory.

Crooked Jack

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I was 17 when I slept with my 16 year old girlfriend. It was the first time for both of us and it was all very clumsy and sweet and weirdly innocent.
It's also one of my happier memories and I'm friends with the girl to this day.
Am I a rapist?
The term 'statutory rape' needs to be changed to something less inflammatory.

It's hard to argue with that.

Biggins

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I was 17 when I slept with my 16 year old girlfriend. It was the first time for both of us and it was all very clumsy and sweet and weirdly innocent.
It's also one of my happier memories and I'm friends with the girl to this day.
Am I a rapist?
The term 'statutory rape' needs to be changed to something less inflammatory.

It does need to be addressed and this has been stated may a time to consecutive Irish governments alone.
So far each one of them has their fingers in their ears it appears.


The following is from Wiki for reference:

Ireland

The age of consent in Ireland is 17, and the law does not make exceptions for being close in age or for marriage. {§ 2.1} of the Irish Criminal Law Amendment Act 1935 states "Any person who unlawfully and carnally knows any girl who is of or over the age of fifteen years and under the age of seventeen years shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and shall be liable, in the case of a first conviction of such misdemeanour, to penal servitude for any term not exceeding five years nor less than three years or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years or, in the case of a second or any subsequent conviction of such misdemeanour, to any term of penal servitude not exceeding ten years nor less than three years or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years."

As previously stated, sex with a minor over the age of 15 is a misdemeanor and carries a lower sentence than that for when the minor is below 15, which is a felony, although the punishments were raised in the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 from a misdemeanor with two years in prison to one with five years in prison.[24][25]

If the victim is below the age of 15 the penalty can be life imprisonment, and consent by the victim is not a defense. Irish law allows a defense to prosecution if a perpetrator honestly believed his victim was over 17 or over 15 in cases of either charges being brought against him. Section 5 of the Criminal Law Sexual Offenses Act 2006 states that Irish female minors under the age of 17 cannot be guilty of any sexual offense, but no such provision exists protecting male minors under 17 years.[26][27]

[edit]History
The heterosexual age of consent was raised from 16 to 17 in the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1935. Homosexuality was illegal regardless of age until it was decriminalised in 1993 with the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993.[28]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

(Broke it into paragraphs for easier reading)

Mickeroo

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I was 17 when I slept with my 16 year old girlfriend. It was the first time for both of us and it was all very clumsy and sweet and weirdly innocent.
It's also one of my happier memories and I'm friends with the girl to this day.
Am I a rapist?
The term 'statutory rape' needs to be changed to something less inflammatory.

In my opinion you're not a rapist in any way shape or form no matter what the law says.

HeyThereDeliah

Biggins wrote: »

He wanted sex with a person (any person?) that was simply under age!
Title him all you want but (1) he broke the law (2) he was wrong morally by modern standards of understanding child maturity and (3) if age did NOT matter to him, why didn't he go have sex with someone older?

Duh?

Biggins wrote: »

Thats what reins when daft hypotheticals are introduced by people who pull things out of thin air.
(NOT directed at you.)

Your first point here have you proof of this? You know this to be true?

Morag

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I was 17 when I slept with my 16 year old girlfriend. It was the first time for both of us and it was all very clumsy and sweet and weirdly innocent.
It's also one of my happier memories and I'm friends with the girl to this day.
Am I a rapist?
The term 'statutory rape' needs to be changed to something less inflammatory.

Bit of a difference of the age gap between a 17/16 year old and a 20/14 year old.

He got given a suspended sentence which will remain in place for 16 years and has to pay child support, the prosecutor was pushing for a 3/5 year prison sentence.

What next people will be saying 'ah sure god be with the days when he'd just marry and it'd be all grand'.

HeyThereDeliah

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I was 17 when I slept with my 16 year old girlfriend. It was the first time for both of us and it was all very clumsy and sweet and weirdly innocent.
It's also one of my happier memories and I'm friends with the girl to this day.
Am I a rapist?
The term 'statutory rape' needs to be changed to something less inflammatory.

I can relate to this as I had a child when I was underage, I do not think the father raped me nor do I think he was a pedophile who was only interested in underage sex. I would not be afraid to leave his child in his care. He was only four years older than me.

HeyThereDeliah

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

I can relate to this as I had a child when I was underage, I do not think the father raped me nor do I think he was a pedophile who was only interested in underage sex. I would not be afraid to leave his child in his care. He was only four years older than me.

Ok so you do have experience in this area, makes your opinion more valid IMO.

Biggins

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Your first point here have you proof of this? You know this to be true?

1. There was no care whatsoever produced as you introduced to this thread.

2. If he already had a continuous relationship with another (older) person, we can assume there was continuous feelings there instead?

3. So if there was no care - what was the attraction?

The court has come to the decision based upon evidence that he desired and did indeed have sex - with a 14 year old.

I'm going with the court decision.

Your still free to ignore their decision and their (I assume) weighty possessed evidence and statements from all involved including possibly the girl and head-shrink reports.

HeyThereDeliah

Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »

Are you relating this to your experiences?
I can understand where you are coming from.

No was relating to crooked jack post.

It's just weird how people assume someone is only interested in underage sex and could not possibly be interested in the person.

Biggins

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

No was relating to crooked jack post.

It's just weird how people assume someone is only interested in underage sex and could not possibly be interested in the person.

My point is that interest in a child might be very possible but on what detail we have, none in this case was shown or proved.

token101

davet82 wrote: »

buy what about a 50 year old man and a 12 year old girl?

when does it become more ok?

When you use some ****ing cop on and see there's a difference. That's why need courts and judges and don't have a simple, proscribed system with offences and set penalties. If it was consensual he should be given visitation rights, particularly if he's paying child support.

HeyThereDeliah

Biggins wrote: »

1. There was no care whatsoever produced as you introduced to this thread.

2. If he already had a continuous relationship with another (older) person, we can assume there was continuous feelings there instead?

3. So if there was no care - what was the attraction?

The court has come to the decision based upon evidence that he desired and did indeed have sex - with a 14 year old.

I'm going with the court decision.

Your still free to ignore their decision and their (I assume) weighty possessed evidence and statements from all involved including possibly the girl and head-shrink reports.

And yet again you ignore the point that was asked of you.
You still insist his only interest was underage sex, can you prove this?
I only introduced the word "care" as you were insisting his only motive was sex.

Crooked Jack

Sharrow wrote: »

Bit of a difference of the age gap between a 17/16 year old and a 20/14 year old.

He got given a suspended sentence which will remain in place for 16 years and has to pay child support, the prosecutor was pushing for a 3/5 year prison sentence.

What next people will be saying 'ah sure god be with the days when he'd just marry and it'd be all grand'.

Of course there is but the term 'statutory rape' is totally inappropriate. If her da had found out and taken it upon himself to inform the Guards I could very well have been put on a sex offenders register. That could have destroyed everything from my future career prospects to future relationships.
This area is a minefield and branding everyone a rapist wether the difference is a few month or a few decades is like weeding a garden with a bulldozer.
I'm not defending this fella, I'm just saying the term statutory rape is not appropriate. He may be many things but he is not, in my opinion, a rapist. He may be in the eyes of the law but then so am I.

Mickeroo

Biggins wrote: »

1. There was no care whatsoever produced as you introduced to this thread.

2. If he already had a continuous relationship with another (older) person, we can assume there was continuous feelings there instead?

3. So if there was no care - what was the attraction?

The court has come to the decision based upon evidence that he desired and did indeed have sex - with a 14 year old.

I'm going with the court decision.

Your still free to ignore their decision and their (I assume) weighty possessed evidence and statements from all involved including possibly the girl and head-shrink reports.

The court decision was statutory rape. Your stance is just as hypothetical as someone saying he cared about her. Do you not see this? Or are you privy to evidence that the article didn't tell us about?

Biggins

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

And yet again you ignore the point that was asked of you.
You still insist his only interest was underage sex, can you prove this?
I only introduced the word "care" as you were insisting his only motive was sex.

I'm assuming that until "care" are you speculate is shown (and proven to exist), sex is happening because someone wants ...well... sex!

Honestly consider me mad to think that!

HeyThereDeliah

Biggins wrote: »

I'm assuming that until "care" are you speculate is shown (and proven to exist), sex is happening because someone wants ...well... sex!

Honestly consider me mad to think that!

Two people want sex that's the difference.

Continue on avoiding the question. You seem to know his only interest was underage sex with anyone.

Mickeroo

Biggins wrote: »

I'm assuming that until "care" are you speculate is shown (and proven to exist), sex is happening because someone wants ...well... sex!

Honestly consider me mad to think that!

There's a difference between wanting sex because she was sexually attractive and wanting sex because she was underage....I'm pretty sure that's what HeyThereDelilah is getting at.

Biggins

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Two people want sex that's the difference.

Continue on avoiding the question. You seem to know his only interest was underage sex with anyone.

Not with anyone - never said that - he wanted sex apparently with this 14 year old.
If he didn't - I guess (and call me mad again here) he wouldn't have had sex with her?
Yes, I know - a mad notion.

Mickeroo wrote: »

There's a difference between wanting sex because she was sexually attractive and wanting sex because she was underage....I'm pretty sure that's what HeyThereDelilah is getting at.

Possibly.

My fear is that (and I am NOT saying that HeyThereDelilah has said this) the automatic default position for a rapist to justify their actions, is that there was supposed "care" for the victim.

That (to me) would be a foolhardy default position to take should some (again, NOT saying HeyThereDelilah has taken it) to take.
It would also be possibly be insulting to victims also.

I can see where HeyThereDelilah is coming from.
My point is that the rapist so far on what we know, has show no "care" previously for a 14 year old besides raping her.
As far as I can see, the only thing he cared for was getting his way and a 14 year old was second of his list of priorities.
The court found that this maybe so too and came to the verdict that they did.
Rightly I feel.

Gauss

Biggins wrote: »

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Two people want sex that's the difference.

Continue on avoiding the question. You seem to know his only interest was underage sex with anyone.

Not with anyone - never said that - he wanted sex apparently with this 14 year old.
If he didn't - I guess (and call me mad again here) he wouldn't have had sex with her?
Yes, I know - a mad notion.

Mickeroo wrote: »

There's a difference between wanting sex because she was sexually attractive and wanting sex because she was underage....I'm pretty sure that's what HeyThereDelilah is getting at.

Possibly.

My fear is that (and I am NOT saying that HeyThereDelilah has said this) the automatic default position for a rapist to justify their actions, is that there was supposed "care" for the victim.

That (to me) would be a foolhardy default position to take should some (again, NOT saying HeyThereDelilah has taken it) to take.
It would also be possibly be insulting to victims also.

I can see where HeyThereDelilah is coming from.
My point is that the rapist so far on what we know, has show no "care" previously for a 14 year old besides raping her.
As far as I can see, the only thing he cared for was getting his way and a 14 year old was second of his list of priorities.
The court found that this maybe so too and came to the verdict that they did.
Rightly I feel.

Why are you assuming "as far as you can see" the only thing he cared for was having sex with her?

You could make some serious cash with these mind reading abilities of yours.

Biggins

Gauss wrote: »

Why are you assuming "as far as you can see" the only thing he cared for was having sex with her?

I have already explained that above in previous posts.
How is your eyesight?

HeyThereDeliah

Biggins wrote: »

... 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!

Biggins wrote: »

He wanted sex with a person (any person?) that was simply under age!
Title him all you want but (1) he broke the law (2) he was wrong morally by modern standards of understanding child maturity and (3) if age did NOT matter to him, why didn't he go have sex with someone older?

Duh?

Biggins wrote: »

Not with anyone - never said that - he wanted sex apparently with this 14 year old.
If he didn't - I guess (and call me mad again here) he wouldn't have had sex with her?
Yes, I know - a mad notion.

A gentle reminder off what you did say.

Biggins

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

A gentle reminder off what you did say.

Thanks - you forgot one or two.

Biggins wrote: »

1. There was no care whatsoever produced as you introduced to this thread.

2. If he already had a continuous relationship with another (older) person, we can assume there was continuous feelings there instead?

3. So if there was no care - what was the attraction?

The court has come to the decision based upon evidence that he desired and did indeed have sex - with a 14 year old.

I'm going with the court decision.

Your still free to ignore their decision and their (I assume) weighty possessed evidence and statements from all involved including possibly the girl and head-shrink reports.

Biggins wrote: »

Thats what reins when daft hypotheticals are introduced by people who pull things out of thin air.

Biggins wrote: »

1. So why the speculation out of nowhere that there was care?

2. Yep, he was a rapist. Now personally I prefer to take the word of the parents and/or court over the spoutings of a rapist who might be rabbiting about "care" now to try and escape further sentencing or have his period of penalty reduced?
(Food for thought?)

Biggins wrote: »

So we have to rely on the decision then of the court and the evidence put before it.
Nowhere is it stated that "care" was proven and no where is it stated that the court adjusted its sentencing due to supposed care - but people are now introducing supposed "care" without a further shreds of evidence.

Amazing that!
Pulling something out of thin air!
Good magic trick.

Biggins wrote: »

Aaa... so you have changed you wording now!

Got it!



So you admit - the court has NOT given him visitation rights as you previously tried to say?

Biggins wrote: »

I'm assuming that until "care" as you speculate is shown (and proven to exist), sex is happening because someone wants ...well... sex!

Honestly consider me mad to think that!

Biggins

For all the hypothetical stuff thats been introduced, no one has yet proved that there was "care" - not even might I say any form of a relationship which might indicate care.

NOTHING.

...But hey, lets speculate from the words of a rapist over the decision and verdict of a court!
A rapist whom might now be saying things for his own betterment situation!

Yea, thats a good position to take!

End of the day - a 14 year old was found to have been raped.

Frankly I find it absolute daft to think for one second that the rapist (whom we are told was in another relationship already, benefiting from physical and emotion aspects of that?) cared for one second about a child.

If he cared for one second about anything, he would NOT have screwed behind his partners back, he wouldn't have had any care/relationship with another and he CERTAINLY would not have had sex with someone so blatantly young!

...But lets continue making excuses for him!

jaffacakesyum

Regardless of whether there is care or not, the girl is a CHILD. The guy in question is a MAN. It's not right.

It's a different story if there was a 17 year old lad and a 16 year old girl.

To be honest, the fact that anyone is denying this is statuatory rape and the fact that anyone is trying to defend/justify this is pretty shocking.

Biggins

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

...To be honest, the fact that anyone is denying this is statuatory rape and the fact that anyone is trying to defend/justify this is pretty shocking.

AMEN!