Female rapist goes SCOTT FREE!

"Werebat" wrote in message news:lziUf.287$t22.214@dukeread08...


Moon Shyne wrote:
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message nk.net...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:ZX2Uf.27$pV4.14@dukeread03...


http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...20060321/18234

85407.htm

The question is, why was the boy so reluctant to testify?

Because his mother didn't want him to testify! Where is the father in all
of this and where is the father's opinion about how his son is being

treated

in this case? Shouldn't fathers have some say in how their sons are

treated

in the legal system? I can understand mothers with sole custody
controlling decisions about a child's education, religious training, and
residence, but can a court decree a mother the right to determine a

child's

legal options?

I guess I should state the obvious. If a court won't allow a mother to
bargain away a minor child's right to child support why would a court allow
a mother to bargain away a minor child's right to access to the criminal
justice system?


The mother didn't bargain away anything.

"Prosecutors and defense attorneys had urged the judge to accept the deal for the sake of the boy involved. A
psychiatrist who examined the teenager told the judge at a previous hearing that the boy suffered extreme anxiety
from the media coverage of the case and does not want to testify."

And from whence came the extreme anxiety? Hmm... Living in a society that will consider him "gay" or "****ed up" for
not *enjoying* his rape at the hands of an attractive young woman, perhaps?

"From the media coverage" - it states so - perhaps there was some part you didn't understand?

- Ron ^*^

"Werebat" wrote in message news:4DiUf.289$t22.157@dukeread08...


Moon Shyne wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message news:ZX2Uf.27$pV4.14@dukeread03...

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...1823485407.htm

The question is, why was the boy so reluctant to testify?


Because his mother didn't want him to.

Good start, Moon.

And why was his mother pushing him not to testify?

According to the reports, because of all the publicity and media coverage.



A 14 year old girl is raped, her father pushes her not to testify. NOW descends on him like a flock of shrieking
harpies. Where are they NOW?

Why not ask them?


- Ron ^*^

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:ZX2Uf.27$pV4.14@dukeread03...





http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...20060321/18234
85407.htm

The question is, why was the boy so reluctant to testify?

Because his mother didn't want him to testify! Where is the father
in
all
of this and where is the father's opinion about how his son is being
treated
in this case? Shouldn't fathers have some say in how their sons are
treated
in the legal system? I can understand mothers with sole custody
controlling decisions about a child's education, religious training,
and
residence, but can a court decree a mother the right to determine a
child's
legal options?

I guess I should state the obvious. If a court won't allow a mother
to
bargain away a minor child's right to child support why would a court
allow
a mother to bargain away a minor child's right to access to the
criminal
justice system?

The mother didn't bargain away anything.

Please explain this comment that his "mother didn't bargain away
anything,"
when on another response you commented "His mother was the one pushing
for a
plea agreement so that it didn't go to trial." There must be some
nuance
there that I don't get.

You wanted to know how his mother could bargain anything away. She didn't
strike any bargains as she had no authority
to bargain anything.

She can make her feelings known, but she can't strike any bargains. It
wasn't about her.


And a bigger question that faces society today is - Should an
individual's
personal rights trump the public's right of conscience?

Absolutely. The boy has personal rights. Why would you want to trample
on his right to privacy, in the interest of
"the public's right of conscience"?

The judge rejected the plea bargain agreement because it "violated the
conscience of the court." The judge wanted the public's right of conscience
to be preserved and not allow it to be compromised by a personal desire not
to testify.

It was the prosecutor who decided the boys personal rights (lack of interest
in testifying because of anxiety over media attention) should trample on the
public's right to conscience. Normally a prosecutor represents the people
and is charged with the responsibility to uphold our laws in a "justice is
blind" atmosphere. That is not happening here and I suspect this case is
not over yet.

To me this is just another sign about how our judicial system is broken.
What we have exposed here is the tail wagging the dog, i.e. the prosecuting
attorney telling the judge screw you, you are wrong, so I am going to
embarrass you publicly. It is games like these that go on within the
judicial system that have caused me to lose all respect for the legal
system. The same thing happens in the CS system - The DA's tell the judges
how to rule.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:ZX2Uf.27$pV4.14@dukeread03...





http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...20060321/18234
85407.htm

The question is, why was the boy so reluctant to testify?

Because his mother didn't want him to testify! Where is the father
in
all
of this and where is the father's opinion about how his son is being
treated
in this case? Shouldn't fathers have some say in how their sons are
treated
in the legal system? I can understand mothers with sole custody
controlling decisions about a child's education, religious training,
and
residence, but can a court decree a mother the right to determine a
child's
legal options?

I guess I should state the obvious. If a court won't allow a mother
to
bargain away a minor child's right to child support why would a court
allow
a mother to bargain away a minor child's right to access to the
criminal
justice system?

The mother didn't bargain away anything.

Please explain this comment that his "mother didn't bargain away
anything,"
when on another response you commented "His mother was the one pushing
for a
plea agreement so that it didn't go to trial." There must be some
nuance
there that I don't get.

You wanted to know how his mother could bargain anything away. She didn't
strike any bargains as she had no authority
to bargain anything.

She can make her feelings known, but she can't strike any bargains. It
wasn't about her.


And a bigger question that faces society today is - Should an
individual's
personal rights trump the public's right of conscience?

Absolutely. The boy has personal rights. Why would you want to trample
on his right to privacy, in the interest of
"the public's right of conscience"?

The judge rejected the plea bargain agreement because it "violated the
conscience of the court." The judge wanted the public's right of conscience
to be preserved and not allow it to be compromised by a personal desire not
to testify.

It was the prosecutor who decided the boys personal rights (lack of interest
in testifying because of anxiety over media attention) should trample on the
public's right to conscience. Normally a prosecutor represents the people
and is charged with the responsibility to uphold our laws in a "justice is
blind" atmosphere. That is not happening here and I suspect this case is
not over yet.

In any event, it surely wasn't the mother who "bargained away" anything. I assume you get it by now?


To me this is just another sign about how our judicial system is broken.
What we have exposed here is the tail wagging the dog, i.e. the prosecuting
attorney telling the judge screw you, you are wrong, so I am going to
embarrass you publicly. It is games like these that go on within the
judicial system that have caused me to lose all respect for the legal
system. The same thing happens in the CS system - The DA's tell the judges
how to rule.

In most legal arenas, it's standard and common practice, when filing a motion, to indicate what sort of ruling the filer
is seeking.
"This is what I'm claiming, and this is the relief I'm seeking"

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:ZX2Uf.27$pV4.14@dukeread03...






http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...20060321/18234
85407.htm

The question is, why was the boy so reluctant to testify?

Because his mother didn't want him to testify! Where is the
father
in
all
of this and where is the father's opinion about how his son is
being
treated
in this case? Shouldn't fathers have some say in how their sons
are
treated
in the legal system? I can understand mothers with sole custody
controlling decisions about a child's education, religious
training,
and
residence, but can a court decree a mother the right to determine
a
child's
legal options?

I guess I should state the obvious. If a court won't allow a
mother
to
bargain away a minor child's right to child support why would a
court
allow
a mother to bargain away a minor child's right to access to the
criminal
justice system?

The mother didn't bargain away anything.

Please explain this comment that his "mother didn't bargain away
anything,"
when on another response you commented "His mother was the one
pushing
for a
plea agreement so that it didn't go to trial." There must be some
nuance
there that I don't get.

You wanted to know how his mother could bargain anything away. She
didn't
strike any bargains as she had no authority
to bargain anything.

She can make her feelings known, but she can't strike any bargains. It
wasn't about her.


And a bigger question that faces society today is - Should an
individual's
personal rights trump the public's right of conscience?

Absolutely. The boy has personal rights. Why would you want to
trample
on his right to privacy, in the interest of
"the public's right of conscience"?

The judge rejected the plea bargain agreement because it "violated the
conscience of the court." The judge wanted the public's right of
conscience
to be preserved and not allow it to be compromised by a personal desire
not
to testify.

It was the prosecutor who decided the boys personal rights (lack of
interest
in testifying because of anxiety over media attention) should trample on
the
public's right to conscience. Normally a prosecutor represents the
people
and is charged with the responsibility to uphold our laws in a "justice
is
blind" atmosphere. That is not happening here and I suspect this case
is
not over yet.

In any event, it surely wasn't the mother who "bargained away" anything.
I assume you get it by now?

I admit I used some softer language than I should have to describe what went
on here. I should have said the mother pressured the prosecutor into doing
a plea bargain agreement by using coersion and threats that her son would
not testify. She didn't "cut the deal." But she sure had a very strong
influence on its outcome because of the arbitrary stance she took with the
prosecutor to do it her way or else. Happy now?

To me this is just another sign about how our judicial system is broken.
What we have exposed here is the tail wagging the dog, i.e. the
prosecuting
attorney telling the judge screw you, you are wrong, so I am going to
embarrass you publicly. It is games like these that go on within the
judicial system that have caused me to lose all respect for the legal
system. The same thing happens in the CS system - The DA's tell the
judges
how to rule.

In most legal arenas, it's standard and common practice, when filing a
motion, to indicate what sort of ruling the filer
is seeking.
"This is what I'm claiming, and this is the relief I'm seeking"

Except in criminal cases in states with strict statutory sentencing
guidelines. In this case the prosecutor agreed to a plea deal below the
state's minimum sentencing guideline for the crimes the defendant was
copping to and the judge pushed back saying the prosecutor was agreeing to a
sentence below what the judge was mandated to order under state law.

wrote:
And a bigger question that faces society today is - Should an individual's

personal rights trump the public's right of conscience?



For starters, Yes I do think our rights come first. I don't think the
mother was pushing him to not testify. Because of the coments of the
psychologist, I believe she was just looking out for the better well
being of the child.
If the Father wanted him to not testify, would you all write letters to
him so that you could chastize him for stomping on our deminishing
rights? Is it not the right of the parent/parents to make decisions for
a minor? As a parent myself, I surely would not want the public or the
government stepping on my rights as a parent. GOD, they trample enough.


Sorry Mark, these people do not get treatment and get "better". And

that isn't even the point. The point is that this sexy young female
rapist is being treated very differently than she would be if she were
a
man who had raped a 14 year old girl.

With treatment and a little faith, I do believe people can get better.
For someone that sounds like he wants equality, you probably shouldn't
be catagorizing this woman. Don't get me wrong, you are a free man,
call her what you will. But I see her as a woman that needs help,
nothing else. Sexy, young, female, male, ugly, short, tall, I could go
on forever. You make it sound like the punishment of certain crimes
should be catagorized by looks, social status, or stature.

Quite the opposite. You sure are twisting things around here.


Did she rape this individual? It sounds to me that he was pretty
willing. If I remember from what I read, she even asked if this was ok.
(several times mind you)
Rape-The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts,
especially sexual intercourse.
Key word FORCING
I am going to step up to the plate here.

Ah, so if a 30-year-old man asks your 14-year-old daughter if it is OK
is he ****s her, and she agrees, then it isn't really rape? Really? OK
so what is it then?

Last time I checked, when a man did it to a girl, it was statutory rape.
And the law books don't make a distinction for women doing it to boys,
even if the public does.


The only thing she did wrong here is misled the parents of many
children.

Yeah, that and commit statutory rape. Helloo-oo?


We put trust in our teachers. Our children are with them many
hours and days of their lives. We trust they have the same mind set we
do, that they are going to look out for the childrens better well being.

And when they instead commit statutory rape on them, we should give them
a free pass if they happen to be cute and female?

- Ron ^*^

Moon Shyne wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message news:lziUf.287$t22.214@dukeread08...


Moon Shyne wrote:

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message nk.net...


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
thlink.net...


"Werebat" wrote in message
news:ZX2Uf.27$pV4.14@dukeread03...


http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...20060321/18234


85407.htm


The question is, why was the boy so reluctant to testify?

Because his mother didn't want him to testify! Where is the father in all
of this and where is the father's opinion about how his son is being

treated


in this case? Shouldn't fathers have some say in how their sons are

treated


in the legal system? I can understand mothers with sole custody
controlling decisions about a child's education, religious training, and
residence, but can a court decree a mother the right to determine a

child's


legal options?

I guess I should state the obvious. If a court won't allow a mother to
bargain away a minor child's right to child support why would a court allow
a mother to bargain away a minor child's right to access to the criminal
justice system?


The mother didn't bargain away anything.

"Prosecutors and defense attorneys had urged the judge to accept the deal for the sake of the boy involved. A
psychiatrist who examined the teenager told the judge at a previous hearing that the boy suffered extreme anxiety
from the media coverage of the case and does not want to testify."

And from whence came the extreme anxiety? Hmm... Living in a society that will consider him "gay" or "****ed up" for
not *enjoying* his rape at the hands of an attractive young woman, perhaps?


"From the media coverage" - it states so - perhaps there was some part you didn't understand?

"The media coverage"? WTF Moon you're proving my point for me. He's
afraid of people thinking he's a freak for being a boy who had the nerve
to *complain* about being raped by such a nice piece of ass.

- Ron ^*^

And when they instead commit statutory rape on them, we should give them
a free pass if they happen to be cute and female?

No, all I am saying is that there is more to this than meets the eye. I
don't know what the 14 year old boy is doing or thinking, nor will we.
My opinion is that at least she is not trying to hide anything and
being honest. (At least it seems this way) She clearly states she did
wrong and is willing to accept the penalty. Get this one, actually
admitting she has a psychological problem in front of the whole world.
Wait maybe she is trying to pull the wool over our eyes, ahhhhh but she
was being treated for a problem way before this happened.

Last time I checked, when a man did it to a girl, it was statutory rape.
And the law books don't make a distinction for women doing it to
boys,
even if the public does.

Give me a break, it does make a distinction. Statutory rape is still
Sexual relations with a person who has not reached the statutory age of
consent. And yes they have to distinctly state what that age is.
What is the age in FL, CA, NY, WA, WI, MI, IL, TX,
CO,...................

Let me ask you this. What would have happened if the boy had feelings
for her, but just to get out of being in trouble with his parents, said
it was all her Idea and she seduced him???
I do believe she would have been put away for quite a long time. Or
maybe he admitted to his parents that is was a fantacy of his own, and
he went with it. Believeing that Debra was being honest and was sorry,
that he didn't want to see her get hurt was being very noble of him. I
commend him, if this was the case. Everyone deserves a second chance.
I am not much of religious man, but I do remember Jesus forgiving the
two men next to him when he was himself nailed to the cross.

Here is a site that might help a few of you out. How accurate it is I
don't know, but I find it very interesting.

http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

wrote:
Here is a site that might help a few of you out. How accurate it is I
don't know, but I find it very interesting.

http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

I don't need to tell you what sort of people frequent that website, do I?

- Ron ^*^