pfft nine is tots old enuff to be gagging for your 40-year-old stepdad's cock; they should've forced her to carry the twins to term to teach all young girls a lesson about that kind of promiscuity
For it to be rape in the eyes of the law, it requires mens rea - guilty mind - on the part of the rapist. No mens rea, no rape, just some legal technicality along the lines of non-consensual sexual interaction blah blah. Whether the stepfather was guilty - which requires a determination of mens rea, which requires a determination of whether he does and is capable of understanding the nature of his acts, is a question of fact and law and is to be decided by a court or a jury or the laws of Brazil or blah blah blah. However unlikely it might be, someone somewhere if it is possible to do so, would sue MSNBC for libel or defamation of character or /something/ if they failed to put "alleged" in front of a not-yet-determined-by-a-recognised-by-the-US-government-other-government's-court-at-law-guilty suspect's supposed crimes.
That's not actually true, at all. Statutory rape is still rape, and has no mens rea requirement. That she was raped is not at issue, just who the rapist is. That's the entire point - not whether they say "alleged rapist", but that they say "alleged rape victim".
True, but what- REALLY- are the chances that she'll ever be able to GET that - given where she lives and that people around her wanted her to carry TWINS to term?
She had the abortion despite Brazil's stupidfucking laws, so clearly some people care enough about her well-being to provide something like that. Fatima Maia, the person from the University, sounds reasonable (and has a very Moslem name, as an aside). And the step-father was jailed, so that's a positive sign.
None of the means I don't want to punch Marcio Miranda really, really hard in the cock.
Again: technicality of law - if someone claims she is a victim of rape, it requires that whomsoever did the act be a rapist, and thus require a finding of guilt. If the same source (in this case MSNBC) reports that the stepfather is the suspect and doesn't stick "alleged" in front of the "rape", there's an implication of a legal finding of fact and law where there has not yet been one. Statutory rape is created by one or both (or all) of the people involved being under an age of consent, making it impossible for them to provide legal consent - if the person who victimised the other was incapable of understanding what they were doing, even in statutory rape charges, it's still not rape - they have a defense to that specific crime. It's a term of law, as well as being understood commonly as (or by various definitions depending on the aims of the definer) the use of some manner of force in conjunction with a sexual act thereby negating the production of consent to the sexual act by the victimised party. And under US law, there is a well-established precedent that a news media outlet can't just say "nothing we say is intended to reflect actualities", for then they're not journalists and lose their constitutional protections as well as the benefit of the doubt by judges and juries.
The distinction of "rape" as a term of law requiring a finding of fact and law resulting in a conviction, is why some idiot judge barred the victim of a rapist, and her counsel and the prosecution, from using the word "rape" during a rape trial some time back, based on the notion that saying "rape" unfairly prejudiced the jury - which was bullshit. It's the fucking charge, levelled by the victim and the state, and the entire reason they're there. If you cannot level the actual charge in court, something is wrong. If the charge can't be levelled in court, then the accused can't confront their accuser - which is often wrong.
None of this is meant to imply that I wouldn't fling the stepfather into the sun if I knew that he did it.
Asdie, apropos of nothing: I can never think of a sufficiently agonising torture for child rapists. Flinging them into the sun seems too brief and merciful. The depredations of decades in drainage ditches seems too brief and merciful.
Again- Very True.. SOMEBODY pulled their head out of the collective @$$hole and helped her, and this DOES give cause for hope. Still- I wonder what kind of mental trauma this is going to leave her with. Is she EVER going to be able to have a relationship with ANYONE that isn't shadowed by this? Don't know- a lot of that is going to depend on her, and on what sort of therapy she gets.
Though yes- I'd like to join you in the punching, followed shortly thereafter by castration with a SPOON.
Ew; I hate it when people pull the "the victim would be better off dead herself" thing. I think it betrays, mostly, a complete unwillingness to deal compassionately with the difficulties a victim of such a crime will have throughout zir life. We're so icked out by the crime happening that we don't even want to think about someone trying to overcome it, much less think about helping them do so. It'd be easier *for us* if the victim were dead; then we could just be cleanly outraged on her behalf.
No one's ever better off dead; if you're alive there's still hope. And while I'm generally against the death penalty for a number of reasons, in this case I'd quote Hannah Arendt, and her final endorsement of Eichmann's execution: we find that no one, that is, no member of the human race, can be expected to want to share the earth with you. This is the reason, and the only reason, you must hang.
You and me both. :D The feeling of total helplessness in the face of such utter stupidity and blatant bullying bastardy makes my blood boil fit to match the sun.
You know what pissed me off about the article I read most? I mean other than a 9 yr old pregnant incest victim? The fact that they're going out of their way to explain that she had to have an abortion because there was no way she could carry the children to term because her uterus was too small, and her life was in danger. SERIOUSLY SHE IS NINE AND SHE IS PREGNANT BY HER FATHER SHE DOESN'T NEED TO MEDICALLY JUSTIFY AN ABORTION. OMG I want to stab someone so bad after reading this shit. The bishop excommunicating her mom and doctor was just brownie points at the end.
Do we really want to be a society that thinks up, in detail, and then enacts, vicious punishments on a similar or greater level to some of the really truly fucked-up sick things that some people get up to? I mean, it's not if there's going to be much of a deterrent here.
I mean, while it would be poetic justice to have child rapists sentenced to a lifetime of being skullfucked by killer robots, in practical terms do you really want to be someone who voted for someone who got the Kiddie Fiddler Robot Skullfucking Act of 2011 passed, or work for a company that makes the Nonce Jackhammer 3000?
She is 9. She is pregnant. She has, by definition, been raped.
There is no "allegation" of this fact. She has been raped, full stop, because it is absolutely impossible for a nine year old human to be pregnant without having been raped.
if you want to get absolutely technical, which you really should when you're writing news stories, she's an alleged rape victim until it's proven that she's been penetrated. After that she's a rape victim. The law leaves some room for the impossible until thing go to court.
It seems like it would open up a huge can of worms. "Your honor, I did not bash his brains in; I was innocently swinging my axe, and his head imploded in exactly the appropriate shape and at exactly the time as I was near. You cannot prove otherwise; you must acquit." And so I'm having problems believing what you say; can you explain further the boundaries on when the law requires us to entertain impossible explanations for events?
fact that they're going out of their way to explain that she had to have an abortion because there was no way she could carry the children to term because her uterus was too small, and her life was in danger.
I know! seriously, she probably COULD carry to term... they just have to make up some bullshit medical excuse why she couldn't, because under Brazilian law, rape isn't grounds for an abortion.
It's possible to get pregnant without penetrative sex occurring.
Unlikely, but possible. Whether it would then count as rape, or whether it would count as statutory rape (which are two separate things, I suspect, the latter being probably more broad a definition), that really depends on very fine technicalities.
I certainly wouldn't want to be the reporter who put up an uncareful headline without getting it checked by Legal first...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-06 09:04 pm (UTC)I can't even click the link, dude, I really can't.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-06 09:05 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-06 09:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-06 09:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-06 09:16 pm (UTC)Humor does have limits as a coping mechanism, it seems.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-06 09:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-06 09:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-06 09:49 pm (UTC)Or possibly it's just that they think they have to.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-06 09:52 pm (UTC)For it to be rape in the eyes of the law, it requires mens rea - guilty mind - on the part of the rapist. No mens rea, no rape, just some legal technicality along the lines of non-consensual sexual interaction blah blah. Whether the stepfather was guilty - which requires a determination of mens rea, which requires a determination of whether he does and is capable of understanding the nature of his acts, is a question of fact and law and is to be decided by a court or a jury or the laws of Brazil or blah blah blah. However unlikely it might be, someone somewhere if it is possible to do so, would sue MSNBC for libel or defamation of character or /something/ if they failed to put "alleged" in front of a not-yet-determined-by-a-recognised-by-the-US-government-other-government's-court-at-law-guilty suspect's supposed crimes.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-06 09:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-06 09:57 pm (UTC)Christian love and compassion: suck it up.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-06 10:00 pm (UTC)You don't need to “allege” that she is the victim.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-06 10:04 pm (UTC)Re: *ENGFEH*
Date: 2009-03-06 10:08 pm (UTC)What the fuck? Yeah, this is unimaginably horrifying for her. Better she were dead? Or, better she had love and support to build a life?
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-06 10:09 pm (UTC)Re: *ENGFEH*
Date: 2009-03-06 10:15 pm (UTC)Re: *ENGFEH*
Date: 2009-03-06 10:16 pm (UTC)Re: *ENGFEH*
Date: 2009-03-06 10:19 pm (UTC)None of the means I don't want to punch Marcio Miranda really, really hard in the cock.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-06 10:20 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-06 10:21 pm (UTC)The distinction of "rape" as a term of law requiring a finding of fact and law resulting in a conviction, is why some idiot judge barred the victim of a rapist, and her counsel and the prosecution, from using the word "rape" during a rape trial some time back, based on the notion that saying "rape" unfairly prejudiced the jury - which was bullshit. It's the fucking charge, levelled by the victim and the state, and the entire reason they're there. If you cannot level the actual charge in court, something is wrong. If the charge can't be levelled in court, then the accused can't confront their accuser - which is often wrong.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-06 10:28 pm (UTC)Asdie, apropos of nothing: I can never think of a sufficiently agonising torture for child rapists. Flinging them into the sun seems too brief and merciful. The depredations of decades in drainage ditches seems too brief and merciful.
Re: *ENGFEH*
Date: 2009-03-06 10:29 pm (UTC)Re: *ENGFEH*
Date: 2009-03-06 11:31 pm (UTC)Though yes- I'd like to join you in the punching, followed shortly thereafter by castration with a SPOON.
Re: *ENGFEH*
Date: 2009-03-06 11:32 pm (UTC)Re: *ENGFEH*
Date: 2009-03-06 11:35 pm (UTC)Re: *ENGFEH*
Date: 2009-03-06 11:36 pm (UTC)No one's ever better off dead; if you're alive there's still hope. And while I'm generally against the death penalty for a number of reasons, in this case I'd quote Hannah Arendt, and her final endorsement of Eichmann's execution:
we find that no one, that is, no member of the human race, can be expected to want to share the earth with you. This is the reason, and the only reason, you must hang.
Re: *ENGFEH*
Date: 2009-03-06 11:38 pm (UTC)Re: *ENGFEH*
Date: 2009-03-06 11:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-07 01:58 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-07 02:05 am (UTC)I mean, while it would be poetic justice to have child rapists sentenced to a lifetime of being skullfucked by killer robots, in practical terms do you really want to be someone who voted for someone who got the Kiddie Fiddler Robot Skullfucking Act of 2011 passed, or work for a company that makes the Nonce Jackhammer 3000?
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-07 03:22 am (UTC)I wonder how much a plane ticket would cost, and how much bail money I'd need.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-07 03:59 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-07 04:01 am (UTC)or
I swear, your honor, I didn't know she was nine!
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-07 04:04 am (UTC)She is 9.
She is pregnant.
She has, by definition, been raped.
There is no "allegation" of this fact. She has been raped, full stop, because it is absolutely impossible for a nine year old human to be pregnant without having been raped.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-07 04:37 am (UTC)The law leaves some room for the impossible until thing go to court.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-07 04:39 am (UTC)(no subject)
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-08 04:43 pm (UTC)Does the law require us to admit impossibility?
Date: 2009-03-08 04:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-09 02:28 pm (UTC)Not in the case of statutory rape. That's usually a strict liability offense. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal))
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-09 02:33 pm (UTC)I know! seriously, she probably COULD carry to term... they just have to make up some bullshit medical excuse why she couldn't, because under Brazilian law, rape isn't grounds for an abortion.
Re: Does the law require us to admit impossibility?
Date: 2009-03-10 01:01 pm (UTC)Unlikely, but possible. Whether it would then count as rape, or whether it would count as statutory rape (which are two separate things, I suspect, the latter being probably more broad a definition), that really depends on very fine technicalities.
I certainly wouldn't want to be the reporter who put up an uncareful headline without getting it checked by Legal first...
Re: *ENGFEH*
Date: 2009-03-10 01:02 pm (UTC)