The Media Needs To Learn how to discuss Statutory Rape

[riqster]

And so do we all: http://connecticutnewsroom.wordpress.com/2013/03/31/torrington-shows-that-media-needs-better-language-for-statutory-rape/

[redqueen]

1. ...

...

The only question before us in establishing guilt or innocence in a rape case is, “Did the accuser consent?” And consent has nothing to do with past behavior, wardrobe, the company you keep, or how much you had to drink. The media continues to legitimize the latter by treating the discussion as though it relates to mitigating factors in the crime instead of a glaring cultural attitude that helped contribute to and minimize it.

The Torrington case presents additional issues for the media.

A big part of the “blame the victim” dynamic in Torrington relates to statutory rape, and we need better language to refer to it.

...

In fact, if the allegations against Torrington football players are true (and only two questions really need to be answered – was there sexual contact, and how old are you?), it, in fact, was not “consensual.” It was not “just a matter of age difference.” It was “forcible.” Not consensual because they are children and don’t know what they are doing. Not “just a matter of age difference” because “just” and “rape” should not appear in the same sentence – it is so much more damaging than those words would imply. And “forcible” because of the power, status and manipulation that an adult holds over a child.

...

[Comrade Grumpy]

7. This turns language on its head.

consensual = non-consensual
non-forceable = forceable

A 13-year old had sex with an 18-year-old. The law in Connecticut criminalizes the 18-year-old. Okay.

But "power, status, and manipulation" is not force. Influence, perhaps, but not force.

And the girl consent to have sex, even though people like her "are children and don't know what they're doing." Saying teenagers cant' consent to sex is a legal fiction, nothing more. They can and do consent to sex all the time, with each other, and sometimes with people on the other side of that magic line.

One has to turn semantic somersaults to make willing sex between two people into non-consensual, forceable rape.

And as for this whole concept that teenagers "are children and don't know what they're doing," I find it interesting that we sure change our tune if they are accused of a serious or sensational crime. Then, it's off to adult court with 'em.

I think the media has problems with statutory rape cases, too. Like conflating consensual, non-forceable, albeit criminal, sex with forceable, non-consensual rape.

[redqueen]

8. Wow. Yeah, sadly, this is not that surprising, really.

Nauseating, though, for sure.

[Comrade Grumpy]

10. I notice you didn't actually address any of the points I made.

[redqueen]

15. If you refuse to recognize statutory rape as rape, there's no point arguing. nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

22. I recognize that there is an offense called statutory rape.

I can also recognize a difference between someone willfully engaging in sex and someone who is being forceably assaulted.

The law recognizes that difference, too (I think; I haven't surveyed all the state laws).

Saying forceable rape and status-offence (statutory) rape are the same thing is fundamentally dishonest.

[riqster]

17. Your point would appear to be that physical force is required to prove lack of consent

And the article rather nicely debunked that notion IMO. There is an age of consent for a reason: younger humans cannot truly consent because they don't fully understand the consequences.

If you want to argue that some rapes are worse than others, feel free to hold that opinion: but that sort of attitude makes me vomit, too.

[Comrade Grumpy]

23. Are you really going to tell me that...

an underage girl willingly have sex with an 18-year-old is the same thing as a womanly being violently physically and sexually assaulted? Really?

"The article" is an opinion piece, and not a very well though-out one.

[riqster]

31. Rape is rape.

But it appears unlikely that telling you that rape is rape would go much good, anyway, since you seem to be of the "jailbait doesn't count" school of rape apologists.

[Comrade Grumpy]

33. And battery is battery.

There's no difference between getting hit with a water balloon and getting beaten to a pulp. Gotcha.

There is a reason statutory rape is treated differently under the law than rape.

But that's probably beyond the ken of people who have to stoop to insults instead of argument.

[Orrex]

34. I have a sincere question about that

Rape is rape.

How can that possibly be true? News stories abound with accounts of wildly divergent cases of rape, all of them disgusting but some entailing far more drastic assaults. It seems to me inescapable that somone who submits to rape out of fear of additional injury has endured a horrific attack that is still manifestly different from someone who is beaten into unconsciousness and then raped.

Again, I ask this question sincerely, because I don't understand how "rape is rape" any more than "theft is theft" or "murder is murder." There are extenuating circumstances in nearly every crime imagineable. How can this not be true for rape?

[riqster]

35. A fair question.

The difference (so far as I can tell) is that theft victims are rarely blamed for being robbed in the same way that rape victims are blamed for being raped.

As a purely technical matter of law, of course there are differences in severity among any class of crimes. The link in the OP dealt with how we as a society and the media discuss the matter.

In the case at hand, a 13-year-old was raped. After it was deemed "statutory" rape, the victim-blaming really picked up, the locals made a number of comments that effectively transferred responsibility from the older males (half of whom were over 18, the other half 17) to the young victim.

The fact that a young girl was manipulated into having sex instead of being beaten seems to make a lot of people shrug their shoulders. But she has been the victim of threats, abuse, and bullying; all because her daddy called the cops. So is she really not being victimized?

The rape is rape message is not so much for the law: it is to educate the people. America needs to grow up. My 2 (ok, lots more than 2) pennies.

[Orrex]

19. A 13-year-old girl is not mature enough to consent to sex with an 18 year old

But she is mature enough to elect to abort a fetus resulting from intercourse. I confess that I have trouble reconciling this duality.


The magic line isn't just between 17 and 18; it's often between two parts of the same child.

[riderinthestorm]

25. When Grandma gets scammed, we rightfully go after the perps even tho

Grandma willingly handed over her life savings.

Grandma didn't know enough to understand the ramifications of the deal and that a crime was committed.

Is that clearer for you?

Some actions are crimes even if the victim was a willing accomplice. They simply didn't know any better. The perp does however and we act accordingly.

13 year old girls don't understand enough about the ramifications of sex to understand that a crime is being committed when an adult has sex with her. The perp does however and we similarly act accordingly.

[One_Life_To_Give]

29. If a DOD recruiter gets a 13yr old to Consent

If a DOD recruiter gets a 13yr old to Consent and sign a contract for military service, is it enforceable?

Most parents worry about a DOD recruiter talking to their 18yr olds and those contracts are enforceable. With a 13yr old most adults realize a recruiter can easily convince a child to sign any contract. Thats why legally a 13yr olds signature is not binding.

As the old saying goes 15 will get you 20. There is something inherently creepy about trying to get a 13yr old to enter into a contract which they are legally not capable of understanding and entering. Realizing that their brains have not fully developed such behavior can only be described as Exploitative.

[LittleBlue]

37. Results of the jury

At Tue Apr 2, 2013, 04:57 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

This turns language on its head.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2603017

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

This is a huge pile of rape apology and does not belong at DU.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Apr 2, 2013, 05:06 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: This post appears to be designed to provoke.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: "This is a huge pile of rape apology and does not belong at DU."

Nonsense. It is a cogent, articulate opinion and position that in NO WAY is "rape apology".

The alerter may not like it, but this is in no way worthy of being hidden.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Argue your point, stop turning to juries to shut down discussion. Running to mommy and daddy every time you disagree with someone will get you nowhere in life.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Sorry, it wasn't rape apology, it was a bad argument about the semantics of the legal question. The guy could use a good copy of Black's Law, but it hardly reaches the level of rape apology.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

I was juror 4.

[Comrade Grumpy]

38. Well, what do you know? The attempt to censor...

...is the last refuge of those who can't address the argument.

[One_Life_To_Give]

2. +1000

[Solly Mack]

3. K&R

The statutory rape law exists because a 13-year-old is a child, and an 18-year-old is a man. A 13-year-old can’t “consent,” period. There is an inherent power imbalance that kids (*and not just kids) fail to recognize.

In fact, if the allegations against Torrington football players are true (and only two questions really need to be answered – was there sexual contact, and how old are you?), it, in fact, was not “consensual.” It was not “just a matter of age difference.” It was “forcible.” Not consensual because they are children and don’t know what they are doing. Not “just a matter of age difference” because “just” and “rape” should not appear in the same sentence – it is so much more damaging than those words would imply. And “forcible” because of the power, status and manipulation that an adult holds over a child.

*my words

[redqueen]

4. Kids fail to recognize it. Any adult who doesn't recognize it simply refuses to do so. nt

[riqster]

5. And refuses because they have an interest in not seeing it.

Last edited Tue Apr 2, 2013, 02:34 PM - Edit history (1)

There is an Ohio man on Death Row for molesting (and killing) an infant: everyone condemns him for this.

An adult molests a 13-year-old: people nod and wink.

[redqueen]

9. Or actually argue that since '-teen' is at the end of 'thirteen', it's fine!

e.g. in this very thread

[dsc]

11. I would like the link for Ohioan on death row for molesting an infant (with no death involved)

under a SCOTUS decision from the 70's you must have a death in the crime to get the death penalty.

[IdaBriggs]

12. I think it was a typo statement; the 6 month old baby girl in the recent case died.

I believe the "request for mercy" involves the "I was drunk, so even though I intended to molest her, I didn't intend to kill her - that part was an accident."

I have had trouble reading the reports because unfortunately I think the world is going to be better off without the perpetrator in it - and I am also angry with the mother for bringing him around her child when he "regularly consumed twelve or more beers a day" ---

[dsc]

14. the man should be in jail until he dies

but I am against the death penalty. I think his fellow prisoners are likely to take care of it for the state in any case.

[Orrex]

21. You realise then that you're actually in favor of the death penalty

You're simply outsourcing it to convicted criminals rather than having the state perform the execution.

[dsc]

24. I am accepting reality

It is impossible to protect him in jail for decades, someone, someday will get him. If the alternative is to not jail him, that is unacceptable. I am not saying it should be made easy but it is impossible to protect him forever.

[Orrex]

26. But to say "the prison populace will take care of him" is a tacit approval of that action

Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but that's what you're saying. It's equivalent to throwing up one's hands and saying "oh well."

You can't say "I'm against the penalty, but the other convicts will kill him anyway." Once incarcerated, a prisoner is a ward of the state and is entitled to protection.


For other readers, I hasten to add the following: I am not diminishing any crime that preceded such incarceration. I am simply pointing out the responsibility of the state in maintaining those people that it imprisons.

[dsc]

27. they have the responsibility

and should take it seriously. But there is a limit on resources. We can't spend millions on one prisoner. The molester will be surrounded by people who hate his guts and will want to do him harm. At some point, something bad will happen.

[Orrex]

28. Knowing that in advance, it's the state's duty to protect him

That's an ugly and unfortunate truth, but it's still the truth.

We don't need to spend "millions on one prisoner." We could put him in solitary, to name just one possible solution.

[dsc]

30. even in solitary he can be gotten

people can poison his food, they can pay a guard to kill him, he also has to be let out some amount of time a day during which he would be vulnerable. If the convicts want him dead, dead he shall be.

[Orrex]

32. You're being ridiculous

Regardless of the fantasies that you can construct, it is the state's responsibility to provide security for the prisoners in its custody. Unless you have statistics to the contrary, I suspect that the nefarious plots that you've imagined are in fact vanishingly rare.

How often is a prisoner in solitary confinement murdered in the manner that you describe?

Unless it's statistically significant, then it's irrelevant, and it doesn't absolve you of your approval of outsourced capital punishment.

[riqster]

13. Here you go.

His name is Steven Smith, and he killed the child while abusing her: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ohio-man-sexually-assaulted-baby-seeks-mercy-18859981

[dsc]

16. then he isn't on death row for molesting an infant

he is on death row for killing an infant, that is a pretty big difference.

[riqster]

20. I'll edit my post to clarify.

[Solly Mack]

6. Truthfully, I wouldn't cut all kids that much slack.

I honestly believe a lot of these "kids" attacking the victim(s) are doing so because they just don't give a damn. They see the victims as a threat to their clique/team/sense of self (if your sense of self is connected to a sports team/cheerleading/in-crowd, for example) and they just don't care what crime was committed. For some of them it isn't that they don't know what rape is or fail to recognize it, they just don't give a fuck.

[sheshe2]

18. How will Steubenville and Torrington affect a future victim’s decision to come forward?

That question, above everything else, weighs heavily on us as The Register Citizen continues to write about the rape victim bullying case that has sparked national outrage. Because without big changes in how police, school districts, parents and the media talk about rape, consent, relationships and sex, we’ve only made it worse.

Sad but true.

[Sissyk]

36. I agree with you there.

It's frightening for current and future victims. That worries me tremendously.

It takes a very brave person to step forward to begin with. But knowing you may get death threats for the world to see? (sigh)