Confessed rapist gets 45 days. Judge "14 year old victim wasn't as innocent due to sexual history.

"Best" and "chick flick" don't belong in a sentence together.

I don't know much about female ATS'ers for sure, since I know roughly zero of you.

You are correct that I should not stereotype women. Unfortunately, most of the ones I know are stereotypical women so its hard not to.

Sorry, my apologies.

I'll tell you what's wrong, OP, what's wrong is that the crime was judged by the same people who are here whining about the verdict and talking about castration all the time, (when they're not posting misogynistic trash in the rant section, that is).

Thing is, it turns out that the victim was sexually active, so those same bible wielding vigilantes, who for some strange reason believe that their backwards stances on life are the epitome of "justice", are all suddenly "oh, ok she's actually just a slut who got what she deserved for wearing a thong and a mini-skirt". And THATS why the verdict was so light. So to be honest, most of the whining here is shamefully hypocritical, because if the "eye for an eye" crew had been that judge, it's my opinion that most of them would have let the guy go, free of charge. And then also denied the victim an abortion.

I'd go on about how we need to start adressing crime as a problem that can only be solved through societal change and rational thinking -instead of throwing sticks at it like a bunch of moronic chimps on a revenge spree-, but that would be a digression.

originally posted by: Bundy
I still think its funny. If it happened to me it would probably bring up bad memories and make me sick, but for now, just makes me lolz.

Well, here's to hoping it never happens to you.

Ya See, I can understand the scope of how much being raped effects a person and I can assure you that it will do much more than give you bad memories and make you sick....And, I can also PROMISE you that it most certainly will cause you to NEVER lolz about rape again.

And you better hope you never end up at KSP...because the Romeo you so admired and thought was sooo very funny...well, he's your best hope if you do end up there.

a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

remember, quote "Do not give what is holy to dogs, neither throw your pearls before swine," unquote
it means something about , mud, and pigs.

What is the world coming to, smh. A confessed rapist of a minor pretty much gets off with 45 days?!? It would be on like donkey kong if that was my child. I would have to take justice into my own hands...

To think, I could get a longer sentence than a rapist for what I did to him after he served HIS joke of a sentence.

There are a lot of things seriously wrong with the way this country operates.

originally posted by: BobAthome
a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

remember, quote "Do not give what is holy to dogs, neither throw your pearls before swine," unquote
it means something about , mud, and pigs.

Please enlighten me as to what I am missing...I'm familiar with the scripture. I'm just not sure how it applies to me and my posts in this thread.

a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

its advice, not critisism.

a reply to: blackthorne

Speaking as an often rabid defender of women and women's rights, I'm proud of Judge Howard for standing by her judgment. Based on the information provided, and Howard's stated reasons for the judgment, I also happen to agree with her. True, every woman does have the right to say no - but every rapist is not the same and deserving of the same punishment.

How ard said she made her decision for several reasons, including: The girl had texted Young asking him to spend time with her; the girl had agreed to have sex with him but just didn’t want to at school; medical records show the girl had three sexual partners and had given birth to a baby; and Young was barely 18 at the time.

“She wasn’t the victim she claimed to be,” Howard said. “He is not your typical sex offender.”

...“There are rape cases that deserve life. There are rape cases that deserve 20 years,” Howard told the Dallas Morning News. “Every now and then you have one of those that deserve probation. This is one of those and I stand by it."

“My job is not to make people happy. My job is to follow the Constitution and do the right thing. I will always do the right thing.”

btw - His sentence includes more than 45 days in jail. For one thing, he has a life sentence as a registered sex offender.

Young does have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life and must stay away from the girl. He is spending 45 days in jail as a condition of probation and must spend the anniversary of the rape — Oct. 4 — in jail for the five years he is on probation.
If Young complies with the terms of his five-year probation, he will not have a criminal conviction on his record.
Howard also initially ordered Young to do 250 hours of community service at a rape crisis center. But the Dallas Area Rape Crisis Center does not want him to complete his hours there.
Howard said she never intended for Young to work with rape victims. ...She had thought he could mop floors, mow the lawn or cook.

originally posted by: BobAthome
a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

its advice, not critisism.

Duly noted and appreciated.

Why so cryptic though? Or, perhaps that is the point????

The Judge sends a admitted rapist to a rape crisis place to do community service.... Was this statutory rape? If it was then that makes sense. But if this was forceful rape then something is way off, especially seeing this is NOT a white guy... (No offense)

Threads like this make me lose faith in this site.

I cannot believe I just wasted this much time reading through 8 pages of adolescent, emotional knee-jerk reactions to a case that nobody knows a damn thing about.

This is why this woman is a state judge and you're all sitting in a computer chair farting and munching on potato chips.

originally posted by: iosolomon
a reply to: amazing

"The issue is that some on this thread appear to be victim blaming and perpetuating the rape culture."

I am afraid that would be me. That is why I posted the reply you responded to.

People on here really misunderstood me; in part, because I used a poor choice of words.

I take the road less traveled by, and I will defend the Constitution, even if that means defending rapists. If people on this forum have a problem with that, then they need to change the Constitution.

There was no misunderstanding at all.

You called women sluts several times, you said if a child consents to sex then it's not rape. Stop trying to hide your sexism and victim blaming behind the constitution (which was never broken).

You are a seriously sick individual who should be locked up for the safety of others as you clearly lack any moral values. Honestly your comments and attitude are the most backwards and evil things I've ever read.

originally posted by: Bundy
You are correct that I should not stereotype women. Unfortunately, most of the ones I know are stereotypical women so its hard not to.

Sorry, my apologies.

That's probably because you're a sexist pig who thinks rape jokes are funny. Anyone male or female with an ounce of since would have as little as possible to do with you.

It's easy to shout how disgusting this is. The truth is that the Judge has all of the evidence and is able to weigh up all of the facts. This is a position that none of us are in and so I think should not jump to conclusions

originally posted by: iosolomon
I do appreciate the plight of rape victims, but rape victims have to take more responsibility for their own actions. If someone jumps out of the bushes, and rapes you, sure, slap that person down with the harshest sentence. But there's more to this story than is being released by the press. Don't be such sheep. Doesn't this website say, "Deny ignorance."

You Americans are really a poor breed of sheep. You call someone a rapist when a 14 year-old uses a fake id to illegally have sex with an adult. As if the adult is supposed to know.

Open your eyes, you sheep, there is more to this story than can be released.

EDIT: Yes, after receiving some valid criticisms from other members on here, I have to revise my original post. I still stand by what I said. However, I misunderstood what the original poster meant with the word "outraged." There is no other word to describe this feeling. I personally feel that the rapist should have received a 90 day sentence, so in that regards, I am outraged too. (Now you might feel it should be even longer, which is understandable to me, but I was just trying to emphasize that you do not have all the facts that the Judge has.)

At no point do I feel that it is the fault of a rape victim.

I am sorry if anyone is offended or upset. I hope this edit clarifies any misunderstanding.

I read this with interest but I want to add this:

When you turn 18 or if you are 54, you both have entered into a contract with which the adult agrees to adhere to the law in return for becoming an individual who can act freely now and make his own decisions. But it should be also clear that their actions will now have consequences.

When you are a minor, you are just that, a kid. In the eyes of the law and of course because your brain hasn't grown enough yet to trust you to make good decisions.
These kids/teens are still under protection of society and hence any decisions they make can by default not be their fault. Even if they dance naked on a table and give every man a written invitation for a group fondle can be dismissed and rendered invalid because...a person who has not yet had enough life experience can't possibly have the insight of any future consequences.
So we must protect them until they are grown, and have amassed enough knowledge to be trusted enough to live their lives as adults.

This is all part of the contract we all agree to, to live in a safe society where adults should be adults and know that their actions are wrong and where kids should be kids to the core, where we know that NOTHING they could possibly do could make an adult even have sex with her , let alone rape her.
What an adult should do is see that the girl is not behaving appropriately for her age and try to get her help or at least not abuse her naivte.

Therefore the adult must be punished harshly and be the bearer of all guilt; whilst the kid must be able to trust the integrity of adults and hence be free from all guilt.
Of course she has to learn from this and be helped to understand that there are boundaries for behaviour which she should learn are very unbecoming and will attract the wrong kind of person now and later in life.

If the judge doesn't understand this and people don't understand this, then they must believe that there is somewhere a grey line between being a child vs being an adult. Where does this fuzzy grey mist begin and where does it end?
However you may see it, the only side that is suffering from such a line is the one who can't make rush decisions because of a lack of experience.

Therefore there can't be a fuzzy line. 18 or over you are an adult and must behave like one and take consequences like one.

The first thing I wish to bring up is my distaste for the laws regarding age in the US, and how a child can be tried as an adult in certain instances, among other things, as the system seems kind of stupid sometimes. The entire idea that once you hit a certain age, say 18 or 21, you magically gain something you didn't have before is ridiculous. It is nothing more than an abstract concept, and it is purely legalese. It actually has no biological bearing in all instances, and probably not even the majority of instances. There are people who hit 30 and still have not matured to the point of adulthood.

So while it is completely plausible that a person could reach a certain level of maturity before they reach the age of 18, determining such maturity is nearly impossible, thus age restrictions are put in place to eliminate the mayhem that would undoubtedly arise without such a restriction. So it is understandable at the very least, even if in certain instances it seems to make no sense at all.

I could see how someone could, generally speaking, disagree with the idea that sex with anyone under the age of 18 is rape. Even if consensual, it is statutory rape. Some would have a problem with that, as it is kind of counter-intuitive when viewed from the angle I presented, which is that age is not an indication of maturity or judgement from a biological point of view. So the people I speak of find it strange due to the fact that an abstract concept has been legally wrangled into an absolute. Again, not saying there is anything wrong with that, because there are not really any alternatives that I can think of.

However, and this is the big issue, if such a law is going to be put in place, it MUST be followed in ALL instances. Because as I said, the law makes no determination of maturity or ability to accurately judge a situation based on mental development, but rather only on age. And since the law states as much, no matter WHAT actually occurred, sex with a minor is rape. So even if one disagrees with that fact, and it is a fact from a legal point of view, that is what the law states and there should be no exceptions.

I say this because the law is supposed to be fair and balanced. You cannot have a judge picking and choosing when he or she wishes to enforce the laws that have been adopted on a state or federal level like this. I think this would be state level, the age of consent I mean.

So the bottom line, whether you agree with it or not, is that the girl's "promiscuity" has absolutely no legal bearing whatsoever. The law states that she is not competent enough to consent to sex because of her age, therefore it is statutory rape and the perpetrator should be sentenced accordingly. Under no circumstances should a convicted rapist receive this short of a prison sentence. It is absolutely ridiculous. Like I said, laws are laws, and a judge who picks and chooses in this manner is not fit to sit on the bench. The punishment does not fit the crime basically, even if the act was consensual.

a reply to: iosolomon

Rape now means: "I consented, but I was underage, and lied to you."
"I consented, but I was drunk."
"I am a slut, and I flirted with you, but I never said yes, yet I never said no."

Yes, when someone does say, "No," the person should stop, but you're dealing with animals. Would you put your hand in the cage of a lion? Why would you put your body in the bedroom of a male? Like I said, women need to take more responsibility for their actions.

Are you kidding me?

"I'm a slut, and I flirted with you, but I never said yes, yet I never said no."

So many things wrong with that sentence, but I'll start at the beginning? What defines a "slut", exactly? If we are adults we have every right in the world to have sex with as many people as we want, as often as we want, without thinking that we are deserving of rape.

And in what situation would there be a "I never said yes, but I never said no"? A woman's body language can tell you a lot. If she is uncomfortable in the situation, even if she doesn't say "no" (as some women and men who are raped put up a mental block to deal with the situation as it's happening) her body will show you. It is still rape. And when a woman is enjoying sex, she will show you. A silent "no" is still a no. And what's so hard with asking your partner as you go along "..are you still comfortable?.." It doesn't kill the mood and still gives them an opportunity to back out of a situation they are not happy with.

Now, one to the next part. I'm making an assumption that you are male. I may be wrong, but that's what vibe I'm getting from your posts.

Are you seriously equating all men to wild animals? Seriously? Men everywhere should be outraged at the assumption that they are incapable of behaving like civilized human beings. They should be disgusted by the fact that they are still viewed as nothing more than a filthy untrained beast. Men are still people, with feelings and desires, just like women. And just because we are all "animals" doesn't mean it's acceptable to act that way. We expect more out of domesticated dogs than you are giving men credit for.

Ridiculous.

a reply to: blackthorne

Message received judge. You are telling us that Judges need to start facing the street justice of a pissed off population before they act in a manner which actually satisfies the need for REAL justice by society for it to function and not decay.


Maybe street justice is what they want. The US will burn before it starts defending criminals over victims like other countries.

A couple of judges, a few apologists, and millions of dollars in damages later....and the people will be heard...and all these scum bags will be dead like their advocates.

Death penalty? How about an Inquisition ......keep it up.

originally posted by: LadyJae
The victim was 14 and the rapist was 18. Why was this not, at the very least, statutory rape??


J

You summed up part of my issue with this. In the State of Texas, the law says she is not even of age to consent. So even if she HAD agreed to have sex with this 18 year old young man- it would still be considered rape under Texas law.

This Judge needs to be thrown off the bench.

originally posted by: bastion

There was no misunderstanding at all.

You called women sluts several times, you said if a child consents to sex then it's not rape. Stop trying to hide your sexism and victim blaming behind the constitution (which was never broken).

You are a seriously sick individual who should be locked up for the safety of others as you clearly lack any moral values. Honestly your comments and attitude are the most backwards and evil things I've ever read.

There is much misunderstanding indeed. I do not feel that anyone should be raped. Everyone understand that, right? I agree whole-heartedly that when a person says "No" that is the end of discussion. Anything beyond "No" is rape. Everyone understand that, right? So I am against rape.

But the misunderstanding comes from my statement, "Rape victims need to take more responsibility for themselves." Now, the rape victim in this case complained that the sentence was too light. She has that right to do so. And it is good that she expressed that sentiment.

However, she wanted to have sex, but just didn't want to have sex there, but she didn't mind making out. Ok. She should not have been raped. We all agree on that, right? But she was raped, and what a tragedy that she was. So we are all upset that she was raped, right?

This is where we differ. When a person dresses "slutty," she/he needs to take more responsibility for her or himself. in other words, if you are a football after-party with the testosterone and hormone-crazed jocks, who are drinking alcohol, it probably isn't a good idea to flirt with them in scampy clothes. That does NOT give them the right to rape you, and they should be prosecuted if they do, but you should have realized it probably wasn't the best idea to dress "slutty" in that situation...

I did NOT call any promiscuous women sluts. I did NOT call any rape victims sluts. I did not clarify how I was using the word slut, but by slut, I mean a girl or guy who dresses scampy.

So, when someone is saying, "You called rape victims sluts," that's misunderstanding. That is major misunderstanding.

I will blame the victim when she dresses like a whore at a football game party with alcohol for dressing like a whore, and then leads men on with flirtatious and sexual innuendos. She should have thought, "Hmm. I am a female at a party with hormone-crazed teenagers, maybe I shouldn't turn them on." That is her responsibility. So you can flame me all you want, but you would be wrong to do so.