Quote:
Originally Posted by christiangirl
While I completely and totally second the motion (and can think of another thing I want to cut off  ), how is it possible he is being charged with molesting and IMPREGNATING a child? What he did was vile, but whether or not she got pregnant was (scientifically) random. So, if she hadn't gotten pregnant, there'd only be one charge? That doesn't make sense.  |
yup, it looks like in that particular state they have a law that covers "statutory rape/molestation" and another that covers "impregnating a child." So yes, if she didn't become pregnant, the latter charge couldn't be applied.
Being a 10/11 year old and getting molested is horrible enough but getting pregnant on top of that is even worse. And so the prosecution is charging him for the end result and I don't blame them. He put her in the position to get pregnant.