Court Rules Boy Must Pay Child Support to His Rapist

It was an article, not court sworn testimony. I stand by my questions.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

A rapist that girl is not...

So if a 19 year old guy got your 15 year old daughter pregnant that's ok?

Rape is a very strong word and whenever you get statutory rape then the line obviously blurs where there is mutual consent involved in the blame game. But eventually you'll reach a point if I stretch this particular example where it is wrong; say it was a 60 year old man and a 12 year old girl? Whether the youngest party is a boy or girl should not matter.

She should have sucked it up and not sued for child support anyhow if she didn't want to get caught.


[edit on 20-8-2008 by Shere Khaan]

Obviously there is a double standard when it comes to statutory rape, but the fact that the court found a minor responsible for the upkeep of the child just shows the court’s real agenda IMO. It’s all about saving the gov money. If they can put the cost of the child’s welfare on someone other than themselves, that’s more money for ‘discretionary spending’.

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

Originally posted by ben420
To be honest, I don't think this is a case of forced sex. Sure the woman was most likely preying on the boy, but seeing as the boy was 15 and the female was 19, I'd most likely assume that the sex was consensual.

So, you have no problem with an older male screwing a 15 year old girl as long as it was "consensual", right?

Are you actually saying that it is ok for an older guy to screw to a 15 year old girl as long as she consents? If not, then you hold a double standard and are a hypocrite extraordinaire.

Hey, great job putting words in my mouth guy

Do you always like to jump to conclusions like that in debates? Does it help you win?

If you will calm your rabid self down, go back and read over my post carefully, you'll see that I said that what she did was still wrong as she still preyed on the boy. What I was trying to point out was that this case was not like the media is saying.

The media is implying the boy was raped, raped as in forced sex, and he is being forced to pay child support after being raped, raped as in forced sex.

The reality is that the boy was most likely not forced into sex. Am I saying it's right on the females part? Obviously not if you have half a brain and could read my post.

But hey, great job denying ignorance guy

Originally posted by pluckynoonez
Sickening. The victim has to live with being raped for the rest of their life, and now, in this instance, it is a monthly gym due.

Yes, I'm sure he curls up in the fetal position every night and cries himself to sleep to cover the deep scars this "attack" and "rape" left him with. All the high fives & fist daps he exchanged with every male friend he knew the next day as he related the tale of how he'd just got a piece of 19 year old tail was just a ruse to cover up his pain & fear.

He's a victim here, but it sure as hell isn't of rape. He's a victim of a retarded legal system that leaps at every oportuinity to slap child support charges on someone because it is one of the main ways our government makes money (double taxation.)

And before anyone asks, no, I wouldn't feel the same if it was a 19 year old guy and a 15 year old girl. Call me sexist, whatever, but I have a little boy & I have a little girl and I can tell you with certainty I'd be grabbing my shotgun and some rope if she had this happen to her when she's 15, whereas if it was my son I'd be far more pissed about the pregnancy and him thinking with the wrong head than I would about him actually having had sex with a 19 year old girl.

Because despite the circumstances, there is a child involved that needs to be provided for.
Not matter what parent did what, that child needs to be provided for.

Most likely if the judget ordered child support, and we all know 50$ is nothing, that this was consensual and just statatury as opposed to forced.
So my money is on consensual, and that this may send a message to other teens about teen sex.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
and we all know 50$ is nothing,

Damn... I wish I'd had "nothing" every week when I was 15. Sure as hell beats the couple bucks my folks kicked me for taking out the trash, mowing the lawn, and feeding the animals.

Sorry to inform you, the term "rape" applies here. It is statutory, whether the boy was willing or eager or even begging for it.

The law cannot make a distinction in this case. The same applies to a willing 15-year old girl. Statutorily, as mandated by law, a minor cannot legally be considered capable of agreeing to sexual contact.

The 19-year old is liable.

And no, the $50 is not 'financial gain' its child support. In any legal proceeding they would have to 'prove' they spent it on the child. And such audits do occur, and given the particulars of the case, probably will.

The judge is probably a family court justice who intends to maintain the child is the most important aspect of the case. I suspect this ruling can be overturned in an appeal, if you could find a judge willing to declare that the consequences of the offense in this matter should fall exclusively on the offender and not the victim.

However, it seems unlikely that the victim wants to be isolated from the child, and that does complicate matters, legally speaking.

reply to post by VIKINGANT


So you agree that a girl of 15 knows what she is getting her self into? Fair is fair.

reply to post by Maxmars


Very well said, thats all i got.

Originally posted by gnosis111
reply to post by VIKINGANT

 

So you agree that a girl of 15 knows what she is getting her self into? Fair is fair.

I am saying that the law provides that at the age of 15 an individual is still chattle, and not subject to statutory intent as an adult, since they essentially have no rights. In essence:

Whether a minor truly intends to solicit and engage in sex with an adult, or not, the adult will bear the full wieght of law.

Clinically speaking, it's not about right or wrong, it's "statutory," decreed by juris prudence.

I think it will always be reasonable to allow for the possibility 'willful and voluntary intent' on the part of the minor. But the adult is responsible by social contract. It is what it is, statutorily speaking.

I am truly horrified at the notion of having to render a decision regarding the custodial relationship and support issues. I truly do not envy that judge.

We must also, in all fairness, allow for the possibility that there was a true mutuall affection between the two, and it's the parents in loco that are driving this conflict, despite their unanticipated grandchild's welfare.

[edit on 20-8-2008 by Maxmars]

reply to post by gnosis111


Sorry, I answered the wrong question. I hope I didn;t come off like a jerk!

I think the woman needs to be charged, and if found guilty the child taken away, and given to the 15 yr old. If this was a 19yr man, would they allow the child to stay with him, after being convicted of a sex crime? No, they wouldn't. I am a man, and I believe FIRMLY in equality of the sexes. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. There should be equality in the persecution of the law. He shouldn't have to pay child support, SHE should have the baby taken away, and have to pay support to HIM!

Just my 2 cents

Camain

lol omg i thought this a something serious im 16 now and i have boned 19 year olds hell ive been scoring older chicks since i was 13 im fully oaware of my actions and im sure this kid was too therefore i believe the ruling was justified

Originally posted by gnosis111
reply to post by VIKINGANT

 

So you agree that a girl of 15 knows what she is getting her self into? Fair is fair.

I don't quite see what you are getting at here. I mentioned 15 YO boys as that what this case was about. Sure 15 YO girls should also be just as aware.
Although it has no real bearing on this case, females are said to mature quicker than boys, so a 15 YO girl should be much more aware. Which is why in many countries the age of concent is different between boys and girls.

Either one can say that the boy was able to consent at fifteen, and therefore no rape occurred, or that the victim of a crime is being forced to pay the perpetrator of that crime. But you can't have it both ways. Statutory rape means that the victim did not have the capacity to consent, wether or not they thought so. There are plenty of little girls out there who like to think they're all grown up too.

What if the tables were turned here? What if a nineteen year-old man who had sex with a fifteen year-old was suing for custody? And even child support perhaps, since men are indeed sometimes awarded child-support.

But personally, I say do away with the statutory rape laws for anyone who is post-pubescent.

And then do away with child-support laws for any man who has not acknolwedged paternity. The woman is the only decision-maker when it comes to pregnancy. She can tell the man "no" and be protected by rape laws, she can take her own birth-control measures, and ultimately is the only person who can decide wether or not to actually carry out the pregnancy.

I thought statutory rape laws only applied in cases where the age difference is more than 4 years. I think it's called the Romeo and Juliet law. Maybe each state is different.

To me they seem close enough in age and that sex wasn't forced so I don't know why she'd be in jail. Even in reverse, I had a girl friend when I was in grade 12 who was in grade 9. We didn't have sex but if we had, it wasn't like I was a pedophile.

this just shows the inadequacy of our laws and ideologies. Up until 100 years ago, adults regularly had sex with 13 year olds, and this was for all of human history. There has been no studies that PROVE that sex with an elder always damages the young, and indeed those young are most likely going to be sexually active with SOMEONE, and an older person is no more likely to hurt them than someone their own age. Indeed, someone a bit older and more mature might actually be BETTER for them, as they have more experience in relationships (hopefully) and more developed communication skills. How, in 100 years, can we turn around and say all our billions of ancestors have been sick perverted pedofile rapists just demonstrates to me our own absorption in our own lives, and of course, as self absorbed self important fools, we try to impose these beliefs upon others, as obviously if it is right to US it must be right for everyone else too. Rape refers to a violent action whereby one person FORCES another person, against their will, into sexual intercourse. Let us not confuse this term with ANY OTHER FORM OF SEX. RAPE is RAPE. sex with people who may be Stupid, Ignorant, Uninformed, Naive, or what have you may be many things, but they are nothing close to rape. That we can equate bubba in jail forcing himself up another mans rectum after beating him bloody, with a teenager haveing sex with someone with a similar level of maturity only shows the sickness of our system

This case does have allot of gray area... but the line is drawn somewhere for a reason... because it has to be drawn.

Arguing over what age constitutes rape is for another discussion.
The legal line was crossed, she was the only one of consenting age, hence, she is the party held responsible, and the boy should not be held to pay support.

If the line ought to be assigned to a lower age, then talk to your government about that.

But in regards to doing things by the book, this was a bad call.
Imagine if the sexes were reversed.

Originally posted by VIKINGANT
This is an unusual case.

On the other hand, Ms Crane facing a conviction should not be allowed any financial gain from the crime committed therefore should not recive child support.

As much as it sucks, I don't think it is financial gain to provide support for the child. Remember, the money is suppose to go to the welfare and upbringing of the child. The child has done nothing wrong.