MA State Rep Vows to "Rip Apart" 6-Year-Old Rape Victims on Witness Stand

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Leslie Anne

But he would have had 16 years of fewer opportunities and victims.

I don't mean this in a dick way, but you missed his point entirely.

The point is more likely that if recidivism is such a problem, then locking them up for a mandatory 20 year sentence doesn't SOLVE that problem - in effect, a mandatory sentence is a cop out, because they'll still afterward. Regardless of whether you side with theories of prisons as rehabilitative devices or punitive devices, this mandatory sentence serves neither purpose effectively if the guy relapses afterward.

Viewed in that light, it becomes a quandary - do you lock everyone up for an extended and mandatory period of time, even though some won't perform the act again, and the ones who do won't be fixed (effectively solving nothing but literally "buying time")? Or do you leave it to the judicial system's authority, allowing a few egregious mistakes as noted in this thread?

The answer isn't mandatory sentencing, it's figuring out a better way to diagnose and classify defenders and prevent them from relapsing - and that way is NOT "living >2,000 feet from a church or school"

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by Leslie Anne

Interesting discussion. I now see the point Rep. Fagan was trying to make. Thank you to those of you who helped clarify it.

I'm curious, though, why most of the men posting in this thread seem so determined to hammer home this idea of the "invented" victim.

It's probably mostly men because for whatever reason, men are more likely to be defense attorneys. Men are also more likely to be accused of a sex crime.

Originally Posted by Leslie Anne

Yes, child abuse cases, as well as rape cases involving adults, are often hard to prove. Child rape cases, however, are far more clear and less likely to be invented.

Really? What are you basing that on? Read this article (scroll down to the "scandal" section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan,_Minnesota

This one is interesting too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clevela..._abuse_scandal

Children are HIGHLY suggestible.

Originally Posted by srmom

Am I mistaken? I thought that once you were convicted of a felony, you lost the right to vote, so this would be moot.

Just checked, it's a state by state thing. In Illinois, you are disenfranchised until after your incarceration is over, then you regain the right to vote in the state.

Interesting what can be learned by googling (for an old lady, who used to have to do research in the library with a card catalog and the dewey decimal system, it is downright amazing Sorry for the diversion, but it is CRAZY what these computers will do!!!)

Yeah, it's state by state and also depends on the offense. Jessica's Law in some states is messing this up pretty badly with the sex offenders. In Massachusetts I believe you can vote as soon as you've exited prison - so including time you're on probation and parole.

[Leslie Anne]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I don't mean this in a dick way, but you missed his point entirely.

I don't mean this in a bitchy way, but I think you missed my point entirely.

I wasn't suggesting that mandatory sentences solve the problem. I'm actually not in favor or mandatory sentences at all.

Way to avoid the main point of my post though. My comment to MC was just an afterthought.

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

Really? What are you basing that on?

18 years of study plus some common sense.

The Jordan article actually does not deal with rape at all (which is the topic of this thread and the topic of my post.) Rape and molestation, within this context, are not one and the same.

All I said was simply that child rape is easier to prove than molestation and other types of abuse. Why? Due to the difference between rape and other types of abuse some very obvious physical evidence makes it easier to prove. Do I really have to spell it out in graphic detail?

Yes, children are highly suggestible. I am NOT in any way suggesting that false accusations do not occur.


** Points that will inevitibly be ignored or twisted are in bold.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by Leslie Anne

The Jordan article actually does not deal with rape at all (which is the topic of this thread and the topic of my post.) Rape and molestation, within this context, are not one and the same.

All I said was simply that child rape is easier to prove than molestation and other types of abuse. Why? Due to the difference between rape and other types of abuse some very obvious physical evidence makes it easier to prove. Do I really have to spell it out in graphic detail?

Yes, children are highly suggestible. I am NOT in any way suggesting that false accusations do not occur.


** Points that will inevitibly be ignored or twisted are in bold.

You are being an extreme bitch. What field do you study this in? I worked in the county where the Jordan issues occurred (obviously much later because in 1984 I was kind of busy learning how to crawl) and people were saying "My daddy raped me!" right along with "Random dude down the street who dresses in black touches my naughty bits. This all turned out to be FALSE. There's a book called Nightmares and Secrets by Tom Dubbe that's on the same issue if you'd like to read more about it, but one would think that somewhere in your 18 years of study plus common sense you would have already heard about this. You might also want to look further into the Cleveland scandal.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Leslie Anne

I don't mean this in a bitchy way, but I think you missed my point entirely.

I wasn't suggesting that mandatory sentences solve the problem. I'm actually not in favor or mandatory sentences at all.

Way to avoid the main point of my post though. My comment to MC was just an afterthought.

OK - then what was your point?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

OK - then what was your point?

Ditto, because not meaning to be dense about it, but I read your comment the same way KSig RC did, and I'm not really seeing any other way to read it.

I do, however, see your point about the physical injuries that often would be associated with the rape of a child making such cases a little more clear cut than sexual assault or molestation cases.