Poll: Female babysitter charged for having sex with 14-year old boy.

[Treblaine]

I'm disgusted.

"I DON'T CARE CAUSE SHE IS ATTRACTIVE AND I WOULDN'T MIND POUNDING DAT PHAT BOOTY HEHE"

What would you say if it was a 20-year-old male, sexually assaulting/statutory raping a 14-year-old girl?

What if she was a Velociraptor?

SHE WAS NOT!!

You seem to be paranoid that if we let this 14 year old pork this girl then somehow it would be open season for foceful men to butt-rape every 14 year old they can get their hands on!

This is not the case, we CAN have different standards for young women and dirty old men. We already do in SO many other aspects of the law.

Providing Alcohol to a minor.
Drugging a minor.
Forced sexual congress with a drugged minor.
Dereliction of duty.

Twenty years.

Anything else is admitting that we have one rule for one and one for another.

Did you ever drink before 21? Before 18? How much did it fuck you up? Decades in prisons bad? Also there doesn't seem to be any booze involved... I think it's crazy the idea that a 14 year old would only have sex with a hot 19 year old if manipulated or tricked into it.

This was not forced, there is no evidence it was.

Dereliction of duty? Babysitting? That not such law and should do nothing to add to such a severe sentence.

Captcha= Lake; profesta

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Did you ever drink before 21? Before 18?

Way before.

How much did it fuck you up? Decades in prisons bad? Also there doesn't seem to be any booze involved... I think it's crazy the idea that a 14 year old would only have sex with a hot 19 year old if manipulated or tricked into it.

This was not forced, there is no evidence it was.

Dereliction of duty? Babysitting? That not such law and should do nothing to add to such a severe sentence.

Supposition Treblaine. If someone has sex with a minor, it's statutory rape by law. That is forced sexual congress - whether it was reciprocated or not.

You're arguing the law should be changed in these circumstances - I'm just arguing the law, right or wrong.

She illegally purchased alcohol for two boys who she then sexually assaulted. That's how the law sees it. That's illegal. If we're going to change the law dependent on this case, then you've just changed how the judicial process works.

I think it's crazy the idea that a 14 year old would only have sex with a hot 19 year old if manipulated or tricked into it.

You're not on the jury though. And whether she's "hot" doesn't, and never should, enter into it.

If you're seriously judging rape cases by how hot the rapist is, I will have lost a great deal of respect for you.

 

[Treblaine]

Did you ever drink before 21? Before 18?

Way before.

How much did it fuck you up? Decades in prisons bad? Also there doesn't seem to be any booze involved... I think it's crazy the idea that a 14 year old would only have sex with a hot 19 year old if manipulated or tricked into it.

This was not forced, there is no evidence it was.

Dereliction of duty? Babysitting? That not such law and should do nothing to add to such a severe sentence.

Supposition Treblaine. If someone has sex with a minor, it's statutory rape by law. That is forced sexual congress - whether it was reciprocated or not.

You're arguing the law should be changed in these circumstances - I'm just arguing the law, right or wrong.

She illegally purchased alcohol for two boys who she then sexually assaulted. That's how the law sees it. That's illegal. If we're going to change the law dependent on this case, then you've just changed how the judicial process works.

I think it's crazy the idea that a 14 year old would only have sex with a hot 19 year old if manipulated or tricked into it.

You're not on the jury though. And whether she's "hot" doesn't, and never should, enter into it.

If you're seriously judging rape cases by how hot the rapist is, I will have lost a great deal of respect for you.

So a law that you break and don't seem to have a bit of regret for, you want rigorously enforced to the point of getting 20 year in prison. That's as long as murder.

"it's statutory rape by law. That is forced sexual congress"

No. It is not. That is in fact worse than supposition, it's a falsehood.

This is NOT "rape" with the connotations that you exploit. Rape WITHOUT the "Statutory" prefix is a horrifically violent and demeaning assault that can destroy someone's life.

"Statutory Rape" used to be called "carnal knowledge" and in it's broadest definition it was not rape, but "carnal knowledge" sounds like a religious edict. Then in the mid 20th century they followed the logic of "they are too young to consent even if they in fact do, therefore it is sex without consent, and that is rape... uhh, but that's the Statute, so Statutory Rape"

That is the chain of logic that can twist the depiction of a loving and reciprocal encounter into a vicious sexual assault. Your argument is entirely semantic:
-Rape is a violent assault of the most debased nature
-"Statutory Rape" includes the word "rape"
-therefore Statutory Rape is a violent sexual assault of the most debased nature

STOP CALLING THIS RAPE!!! It is not helpful AT ALL! It IS misleading. Especially when you DIRECTLY suppose that it is forceful!

There is absolutely no evidence of any sexual assault. In all likelihood if even a 20 year old woman tried to assault a 14 year old boy she'll get her ass handed to her! Especially if he's drunk with dutch-courage.

See the title "Statutory Rape" was coined for good (if short sighted) reason, back when dirty old men would rape little girls who would be too frightened to testify, it is OBVIOUS from their age that they could never have consented.

The problem is while it is obvious a little girl would NEVER (could never) consent to sex with a middle aged man, it is entirely plausible if not expected that a 14 year old boy would actively pursue and consent to sex to a pretty girl who is only 5 years older (this affair began when she was 19).

So because a dirty old pervert years ago said: "uuhhhhhuhu, the little girl wanted it..." sick bastard. Makes you so angry you wanna pass some law!

Now we can't see the obvious truth that a girl with a boy they could have easily attended the same school with can't say "But he wanted to do it".

And the paedophiles claim another victim. But it is our FEAR of them that does it this time, destroying our own.

How about you get your head out of the semantics and look at the situation HONESTLY with the fact as they are, not as they are labelled.

This is two young people having sex, both very close either side of the age of consent. Do you honestly not believe that both parties could have healthily wanted to have these relations?

And you know what, this is why we have juries, to acquit when the law is unjust. But the establishment just may be able to crucify this girl by deceiving through semantics that she forced and assaulted this boy.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

So a law that you break and don't seem to have a bit of regret for, you want rigorously enforced to the point of getting 20 year in prison. That's as long as murder.

Yep. Laws are there for that point.

Your argument is entirely semantic:

That's what the law is. Your argument is entirely emotional without direct knowledge. You do not have, and cannot have, any idea on whether the attraction was mutual, alcohol-induced, faked or acted through fear. Only supposition.

Whether they wanted to or not, and even if he did - that doesn't change the law, she legally statutory raped him.
(Even if both were madly in love with each other,
though it doesn't seem so given she has a secondary charge with another underage boy)

If you want the legal definition of rape to change, then I'm behind you in that (pun unintentional), but as it stands, the law has to charge her in the same way it charges anyone else.

For one thing, she might actually be guilty.

 

[katsumoto03]

Oh my god, do fucking want.

That's one lucky fucking kid. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say he was most definitely consenting...

 

[Treblaine]

So a law that you break and don't seem to have a bit of regret for, you want rigorously enforced to the point of getting 20 year in prison. That's as long as murder.

Yep. Laws are there for that point.

Your argument is entirely semantic:

That's what the law is. Your argument is entirely emotional without direct knowledge. You do not have, and cannot have, any idea on whether the attraction was mutual, alcohol-induced, faked or acted through fear. Only supposition.

Whether they wanted to or not, and even if he did - that doesn't change the law, she legally statutory raped him.
(Even if both were madly in love with each other,
though it doesn't seem so given she has a secondary charge with another underage boy)

If you want the legal definition of rape to change, then I'm behind you in that (pun unintentional), but as it stands, the law has to charge her in the same way it charges anyone else.

For one thing, she might actually be guilty.

I'm saying the law is crazy and needs to be changed.

You aren't going to support the law jsut because it is the law.

It used to be against the law for black people to defy segregation Jim Crow laws, everyone knew it was wrong but asshats just said "the law is the law, now fuck off, ni-" -you get the picture.

All you are is lawful evil. Why are you not campaigning for the police to drop charges (they have that discretion), for the DA to pursue a lenient plea bargain? For the Governor to commute any sentence?

You know your problem? You see the law as the definition of right and wrong, rather than what is is supposed to be: a reflection of morality.

The law can be wrong, and it cannot be right just because it is law.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I'm saying the law is crazy and needs to be changed.

Agreed.

You aren't going to support the law jsut because it is the law.

Yes I am. That's the thing with the law, you've got to support it even if you don't agree with it.

It used to be against the law for black people to defy segregation Jim Crow laws, everyone knew it was wrong but asshats just said "the law is the law, now fuck off, ni-" -you get the picture.

All you are is lawful evil. Why are you not campaigning for the police to drop charges (they have that discretion), for the DA to pursue a lenient plea bargain? For the Governor to commute any sentence?

You know your problem? You see the law as the definition of right and wrong, rather than what is is supposed to be: a reflection of morality.

Hold on, where's this personal attack coming from? And equating me to apartheid? That is emotion talking. Calm down, reflect, let the red haze lift.

Why am I not campaigning? Well, there's strong evidence to suggest that she's guilty for a start (given she's also assaulted another boy in the same way); there's also the earlier case of Britney Spears Sister. Her boyfriend posted that he'd "done" her, and was charged with statutory rape because she was days under sixteen/eighteen.

That's what the law is. That's Lawful Neutral, not evil. I'd be Evil if I was using it to my own ends. I'm just saying the same law applies to everyone.

The law can be wrong, and it cannot be right just because it is law.

No, it's not right. But it is the law. That means it's right for everyone or wrong for everyone. No take-backs dependent on how you feel towards the rapist/victim.

 

[Treblaine]

I'm saying the law is crazy and needs to be changed.

Agreed.

You aren't going to support the law jsut because it is the law.

Yes I am. That's the thing with the law, you've got to support it even if you don't agree with it.

It used to be against the law for black people to defy segregation Jim Crow laws, everyone knew it was wrong but asshats just said "the law is the law, now fuck off, ni-" -you get the picture.

All you are is lawful evil. Why are you not campaigning for the police to drop charges (they have that discretion), for the DA to pursue a lenient plea bargain? For the Governor to commute any sentence?

You know your problem? You see the law as the definition of right and wrong, rather than what is is supposed to be: a reflection of morality.

Hold on, where's this personal attack coming from? And equating me to apartheid? That is emotion talking. Calm down, reflect, let the red haze lift.

Why am I not campaigning? Well, there's strong evidence to suggest that she's guilty for a start (given she's also assaulted another boy in the same way); there's also the earlier case of Britney Spears Sister. Her boyfriend posted that he'd "done" her, and was charged with statutory rape because she was days under sixteen/eighteen.

That's what the law is. That's Lawful Neutral, not evil. I'd be Evil if I was using it to my own ends. I'm just saying the same law applies to everyone.

The law can be wrong, and it cannot be right just because it is law.

No, it's not right. But it is the law. That means it's right for everyone or wrong for everyone. No take-backs dependent on how you feel towards the rapist/victim.

begrudgingly follow-the-law =/= support the law

You wilfully conflate both. If people were forced to support every law not matter how bad then no bad laws could ever get repealed. This is a democracy! If people could never unite against a bad law (as they must support it) then the law might as well be a permanent dictate.

You COMPLETELY IGNORED how I proved to you that Statutory Rape is NOT assault yet you cite that AGAIN! Stop screwing us around, acting like you are neutral and lawful when you twist everything in your favour.

"Why am I not campaigning? Well, there's strong evidence to suggest that she's guilty"

Yes, but GUILTY OF A LAW YOU THINK IS WRONG! Yes, she did that but you don't think that thing she did should be a crime.

So you think NO ONE should speak out against this law until it was no longer a law to speak out against?!?!?

So you would only speak out to defend her if she had not in fact done the thing you would defend her against!?!?!

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

You COMPLETELY IGNORED how I proved to you that Statutory Rape is NOT assault yet you cite that AGAIN!

It doesn't matter what you prove. It's the legal term. You've also taken no attempt to calm down and be rational.

Stop screwing us around, acting like you are neutral and lawful when you twist everything in your favour.

Neutral, I try. Lawful, Nope. And in my favour? How the hell am I gaining out of this?

Yes, but GUILTY OF A LAW YOU THINK IS WRONG!

Nope, I think she's potentially guilty of enforced congress, potentially guilty of spiking youths and guilty of using her position to influence people. That carries the sentence.

The Law that I think is wrong is that the victim isn't allowed to state his case.

So you think NO ONE should speak out against this law until it was no longer a law to speak out against?!?!?

I think that people should take ALL the cases of this law and prove why the law cannot make clear-cut decisions when emotions are over-riding them. No-one would have had a problem if the genders were reversed, and the law makes no acknowledgement of that, either way. It also doesn't care if it was reciprocated - which is the argument you're making.

So you would only speak out to defend her if she had not in fact done the thing you would defend her against!?!?!

I'd defend her if I thought she was innocent.

I wouldn't defend her just because I thought "Phwoar!". That's wrong. On all levels.

Now chill the fuck out for a moment before you reply. I'm not your enemy here.

 

[mattyfox666]

i watched some chick cut a guys head off yesterday, then i watched a different chick do a poo poo in a dudes mouth and he ate it all up?? wtf?? she only in trouble cos she got caught, this shit goes on every day and 1000 times worse, i feel sorry for her, the law is an ass, them dudes wanna do some sexing i say let them sex, if everyone closes their eyes then it neeeeeever happened....

 

[Treblaine]

You COMPLETELY IGNORED how I proved to you that Statutory Rape is NOT assault yet you cite that AGAIN!

It doesn't matter what you prove. It's the legal term. You've also taken no attempt to calm down and be rational.

Stop screwing us around, acting like you are neutral and lawful when you twist everything in your favour.

Neutral, I try. Lawful, Nope. And in my favour? How the hell am I gaining out of this?

Yes, but GUILTY OF A LAW YOU THINK IS WRONG!

Nope, I think she's potentially guilty of enforced congress, potentially guilty of spiking youths and guilty of using her position to influence people. That carries the sentence.

The Law that I think is wrong is that the victim isn't allowed to state his case.

So you think NO ONE should speak out against this law until it was no longer a law to speak out against?!?!?

I think that people should take ALL the cases of this law and prove why the law cannot make clear-cut decisions when emotions are over-riding them. No-one would have had a problem if the genders were reversed, and the law makes no acknowledgement of that, either way. It also doesn't care if it was reciprocated - which is the argument you're making.

So you would only speak out to defend her if she had not in fact done the thing you would defend her against!?!?!

I'd defend her if I thought she was innocent.

I wouldn't defend her just because I thought "Phwoar!". That's wrong. On all levels.

Now chill the fuck out for a moment before you reply. I'm not your enemy here.

Don't give me this hyper-rational bullshit, as if emotions are completely irrelevant.

if you entirely remove emotions then we would never do anything. We would be like a car assembling robot without any commands, we'd just sit there slowly deteriorating. And why should we care if we starve to death and die, that's emotion.

"Nope, I think she's potentially guilty of..."

Unrelated charges of which there is no evidence for. Perhaps she is guilty of being an Al Qaeda spy. No evidence for it, but she might.

Her position? as babysitter to a 14 year old? That is an utter contradiction in terms: Baby - Adolescent. She had no authority to abuse apart from the possible illusion of authority that a babysitter is a surrogate parent.

No evidence of force
No evidence of drink spiking
No evidence of abusing "position"
No evidence of her being a witch


BURN THE PAEDOPHILE GIRL! [/sarc]

I think that people should take ALL the cases of this law and prove why the law cannot make clear-cut decisions

This is not about emotions getting in the way, this is about flawed rationality backed by by rationalisations of a moral panic over anything vaguely related to paedophilia.

People are following a ridiculous "logical train of thought" that is the equivalent of saying 1 + 1 = 0

So you would only speak out to defend her if she had not in fact done the thing you would defend her against!?!?!

I'd defend her if I thought she was innocent.

Seems I'll be needing a lot of this jpg before this is through.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

This is not about emotions getting in the way, this is about flawed rationality backed by by rationalisations of a moral panic over anything vaguely related to paedophilia.

And you're the one making it. Give me some evidence of what you say, rather than conjecture, jpgs, allegories, anecdotes or reductio ad absurdum.

Calm down, find the evidence, present it fairly. Then I'll take a look and change my mind if I think you're right.

At the moment, you're just screaming "Won't someone think of the children". Ironically.

 

[s0p0g]

jail her for... long, then send her to rehab.
why?
because i can imagine that she thought "awww, i'm so pwitty, no-one's gonna charge me; i only take stupid photos of sexy-me"
you think because you look ok you get away with everything? guess what what, you guessed wrong.
rehab because maybe - maybe - you can make her act decently in the future.

also, six years difference between them is quite much in those young ages.

 

[Treblaine]

This is not about emotions getting in the way, this is about flawed rationality backed by by rationalisations of a moral panic over anything vaguely related to paedophilia.

And you're the one making it. Give me some evidence of what you say, rather than conjecture, jpgs, allegories, anecdotes or reductio ad absurdum.

Calm down, find the evidence, present it fairly. Then I'll take a look and change my mind if I think you're right.

At the moment, you're just screaming "Won't someone think of the children". Ironically.

I have. The evidence is how the courts charge 14 year olds as adults when they make certain decisions, yet as children when they try to make other decisions.

I didn't reduce your arguments to absurdity, they were so from the start.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I have.

No, you haven't. And I get the feeling this is something to do with you personally, so I'm not going to pursue it any longer.

Rage against the system some other way, but not through me.

 

[DexterNorgam]

Whoo hoo endless more pages of people arguing about kids and sex!! Way to keep it classy Escapists.

 

[Treblaine]

I have.

No, you haven't. And I get the feeling this is something to do with you personally, so I'm not going to pursue it any longer.

Rage against the system some other way, but not through me.

Yes I have.

What if this was the other way around.

What if this 20 year old went to the police saying this guy raped me and it turned out that guy was only 14 years old?

PS: in Connecticut (and most US States), children charged with rape are tried in the same courts as adults with the same sentence.

http://www.wilx.com/news/headlines/117681148.html
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2011/06/fourteenyearold_charged_as_adu.html

So 14 is simultaneously too-young to consent to sex without being raped, yet old-enough to be help responsible for raping another?!?!?

This is highly relevant as it begs the question of who is really in the vulnerable position here? Who is really so vulnerable to be taken advantage of?

Your arguments reached the point of absurdity long ago with your repeated refusal to address the points I've raised, and your reliance on deceptive hyperbole (force, assault, drugging) and blatant contradiction:

Statutory rape is forced sexual congress - whether it was reciprocated or not.

Forced and Reciprocated are contradictions in terms.

You have riled me up with all that you have posted, it's such nonsense yet you seem incapable or wholly unwilling to realise or accept it.

 

[DexterNorgam]

Someone made the point that statutory rape is forced sexual intercourse. That's not true, consent is immaterial in cases of statutory rape so instances in which the intercourse was not forced are still statutory due to the at least one of the parties being under the age of consent. Force really has nothing to do with it.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

What if this was the other way around.

That wasn't to me. If you'd like me to answer that, then fair enough.

You are posing "What if's" that have no relevance to the case in hand. You can argue as much as you want about the moral justification of what is happening, but if we're looking at this specific case, then you are simply not looking at the facts of the case and relying on calls to emotion.

Your arguments reached the point of absurdity long ago with your repeated refusal to address the points I've raised,

Name them and I will address them

. and your reliance on deceptive hyperbole (force, assault, drugging)

They are legal terms, not hyperbole. I would have used different words.

Forced and Reciprocated are contradictions in terms.

They aren't. One is a legal definition, the other is an emotional definition.

You have riled me up with all that you have posted, it's such nonsense yet you seem incapable or wholly unwilling to realise or accept it.

Then stop answering with these superfluous calls to emotion. You haven't given any proof of what you're saying, you're just repeating that this law is unjust to this case.

For one, I agree with you, but it's the law that needs to be changed, not how it is used in this case only.

You're still blazing away with your triple exclamation marks, personal attacks and bolded ALLCAPS without looking at the facts of the case.

Bouchard, who has been released after posting a $1,000 bond following arraignment, faces charges of second-degree sexual assault, purchasing alcohol for a minor and two counts of risk of injury to a minor.

She is being charged in two separate areas in Connecticut on similar charges.

Bouchard has been charged with doing this to two minors. Second-degree sexual assault. Risk of Injury to a minor.

That's not hyperbole, that's the facts. She sexually assaulted and potentially wounded two children.

Lay out your questions, and I'll take them one at a time - but remember that above statement.

While you're gathering, take a look at this similar case :
http://tambapress.com/14-year-old-mexican-hitman-sentenced-to-3-years-in-prison/

Does it matter if the hit man is a hit woman?

 

[DecMcGuinness]

To be honest I doubt she will be prosecuted I mean if this is something that went on for a while he didn't want to end or stop it so he was consenting so I doubt she'll get jail time. Also if the kids parents do press charges if they were my parents I'd be packing my suitcase I mean he wasn't violated he probably lept at the chance to sleep with her, it's just that his parents may have some issues with the age gap but all he needs is careful explaination to drop charges.