Judges :(

[`mongoose]

How being the key word in my point, we don't really know other facts then the really shallow news article told.

It's not, afterall, as simple as "rape of any degree means life sentence", without any lean way one way or other.

Erm

Wtf?

Anything less than Rape is sexual assault.

There's no degrees of rape, to quote the great bruce willis, you don't "slip and accidentally stick your dick in someone" rape.

Seriously, I can understand you arguing that judges can make mistakes but the rest of your arguments don't really carry sufficient weight for me to change my view that this was an overly lenient sentence compounded by reoffences whilst it was under review.

M

 

[Tom]

16 year olds don't care about most things, that's where the growing up part comes in and why i think the age comes into play, even if it is a extreme case of juvenile rebellion.

In modern day, i wouldn't be surprised if the kid didn't know it was wrong and thought it was cool 'cause some peeps on the net said so

Utter rubbish. You're confusing nihilism with adolescent ignorance.

Its a false argument often used by those who criticise the killers of Jamie Bulger. "But they were old enough, they must have known it was wrong! Therefore they should be locked up for life!". Of course they knew. They just didn't care.

I'm not going to criticise the judge or anyone else in this case on such scant information.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Erm

Wtf?

Anything less than Rape is sexual assault.

There's no degrees of rape, to quote the great bruce willis, you don't "slip and accidentally stick your dick in someone" rape.

Seriously, I can understand you arguing that judges can make mistakes but the rest of your arguments don't really carry sufficient weight for me to change my view that this was an overly lenient sentence compounded by reoffences whilst it was under review.

M

That's my bad, i should've said "it might have been more sexual assault". The news would report it as rape, especially if it falls somewhere in between those two.

I don't want to change your view either, people have different degrees of "just punishment" and while i may think that judges are the ones deciding it, you're quite right in your opinion too. I don't think any one person can decide what the just punishment would be, so personally i step back and let the law do its thing.

Without all the facts, can't judge without prejudice.

Utter rubbish. You're confusing nihilism with adolescent ignorance.

Its a false argument often used by those who criticise the killers of Jamie Bulger. "But they were old enough, they must have known it was wrong! Therefore they should be locked up for life!". Of course they knew. They just didn't care.

I'm not going to criticise the judge or anyone else in this case on such scant information.

Not at all, i'm simply implying that in the modern world the lines of morals are quite blurred. Sexual activity due to knowledge of it, information, less protection from "horrific ideas and images", they all bring forth one fact; kids are not as innocent anymore and the information they get is often scewed as it's not moderated. To modern kids, rape might not feel as big as an issue as adults.

Just look at all the rape jokes around the net and even this forum, the word has lost it's so called "sanctity".

 

[Tom]

I think you're living in a dreamworld. The idea that children are somehow less innocent than they once were is a myth—they're merely less ignorant of basic truths. Bad things have always happened, and always will.

I wonder, did the Puritans, while tying Catholics on the pyre, see their morals as 'blurred'?

 

[old.Tohtori]

I think you're living in a dreamworld. The idea that children are somehow less innocent than they once were is a myth—they're merely less ignorant of basic truths. Bad things have always happened, and always will.

It's no dreamworld, they just grow up in a different world where rape is a joke and stretching your arse is a "lollerific picture".

Compare what is around now to your own childhood, it's a simple fact that times have changed.

 

[Tom]

You appear to be confusing TEH INTERNETS with real life.

It isn't the first time. And you appear to have ignored my point about times past. For instance:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...11;_The_Idle_'Prentice_Executed_at_Tyburn.png

How were the children depicted in that typical image, any less innocent than today's children?

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'm not confusing anything, but the internet is a major part of modern youth and the internet DOES hold a lot more immoral items and is very easily accessible.

That affects a growing youths mind too.

I'm not saying that ye old days everyone was a goody-two-shoes, but i am saying that these days what we find immoral, is not so much a taboo and "bad" for the youth.

 

[mooSe_]

Every 16 year old I know knows that rape is wrong and sick (except one, and he's in prison/juvenile equivalent afaik). You really can't claim that they haven't worked out about it by this age; the only ones that don't are the ones that have something mentally wrong with them.

Making a rape joke is completely different to abducting and raping a child. There are some blurred lines in certain rape cases when both parties are adults and drink etc is involved, but in the case of raping a young boy there is absolutely no reason that I can think of where there could be doubt that it was rape.

 

[Tom]

I'm not confusing anything, but the internet is a major part of modern youth and the internet DOES hold a lot more immoral items and is very easily accessible.

That affects a growing youths mind too.

I'm not saying that ye old days everyone was a goody-two-shoes, but i am saying that these days what we find immoral, is not so much a taboo and "bad" for the youth.

The youth don't know what they're talking about. There are all kinds of things that I laughed at as a child, as did most other people. Then we grew up.

The internet only makes people more aware. It doesn't make them less moral.

 

[old.Tohtori]

The youth don't know what they're talking about. There are all kinds of things that I laughed at as a child, as did most other people. Then we grew up.

The internet only makes people more aware. It doesn't make them less moral.

Ofcourse, and i'm certainly not claiming that kids know what they're talking about.

But i do have to, simple as that, disagree on internet not making people less moral when talking about kids.

Ofcourse we'd need two identical kids to prove this on, but i doubt the government would look kindly of us locking two kids in our basement.

Moose, yes, there's a difference ofcourse in making a joke and doing the act, but you can see what i'm getting at with if a kid is constantly told that rape is a joke by his peers?

 

[Lethul]

Thats very scary considering a 11 year old got convicted for a fire he started as a 9 year old in Sweden. He got sentenced to pay 1 900 000 SEK (thats roughly 190 000 pounds I think) to pay for the damages to the family who lived in the house that got set on fire.

 

[tris-]

that sounds about right. law enforcement as a whole in britain is very easy going at all levels of it.