Agreed. I just don't think that child rapist deserves "empathy and forgiveness".
“Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn others, or it will all come back against you. Forgive others, and you will be forgiven. Luke 6:37
From what I've understood, the girl pretended to be 16 and there was no rape. Sleeping with underage is automatically considered as rape in some countries even if there is consent.
I guess that is why he only spent a year in jail.
British law has age of consent at 16. Under that age, a person is not legally able to give consent.
I was going to say that in many US states a defense can be put forth if the assailant had strong reason to believe the victim was of age. I am thinking she was in a bar drinking so a person could assume she was 21 even if she was 16.
However, I found this article that states that he knew how old she was. And he only got 4 years? And he only served 1 (13 months maybe).
As for how the Dutch allowed him: my guess is that Dutch selection procedures do not have a clause that allows them to ban him. Based on what I read UK and Aussies have a provision. I am a bit removed from the USOPC process these days, but the two NGBs I did work for had no policy in place to address such a situation unless the person had been suspended by the NGB.
The way he served 13 months is that he was sentenced to 4 years in the UK, then resentenced in the Netherlands after 1 year and served 1 more month.
The reason he got off lighter in the Netherlands is because while the age of consent laws matter, sex with a willing minor of 12-16 is a lighter offense than rape (think of it as 2nd degree rape). I don't really agree with this law when it comes to a 12-year old but that's how it is.
Either way this case is really about the court of public opinion. He did his time and continued working his job (professional athlete) that doesn't involve minors. So the question is if you want such a man representing your country or not.
From what I've understood, the girl pretended to be 16 and there was no rape. Sleeping with underage is automatically considered as rape in some countries even if there is consent.
I guess that is why he only spent a year in jail.
British law has age of consent at 16. Under that age, a person is not legally able to give consent.
I was going to say that in many US states a defense can be put forth if the assailant had strong reason to believe the victim was of age. I am thinking she was in a bar drinking so a person could assume she was 21 even if she was 16.
However, I found this article that states that he knew how old she was. And he only got 4 years? And he only served 1 (13 months maybe).
As for how the Dutch allowed him: my guess is that Dutch selection procedures do not have a clause that allows them to ban him. Based on what I read UK and Aussies have a provision. I am a bit removed from the USOPC process these days, but the two NGBs I did work for had no policy in place to address such a situation unless the person had been suspended by the NGB.
In the article, it says that the parents found out after he took the girl to get a morning after pill. The parents then contacted authorities. When he was prosecuted, the girl was so wracked with guilt over the prosecution that she started engaging in self harm. They had a months' long online relationship that resulted in multiple sexual experiences that were labeled rape due to the girl's age (i.e. statutory rape). There was no indication that the girl did not want to have sex with this guy. There was alcohol involved. But none of the reports suggest that the girl was so drunk that she could not consent to having sex.
The idea that we can legislate when kids debut sexually through picking an arbitrary age line and enforce that through criminal sanctions is at best very problematic, at worst, a indirect effort enforce religious prohibitions on sex before marriage. I used to work in high schools and have kids in middle school and HS. Kids under the age of 16 are having sex. Lots of them are having sex. Whether they are ready physically and emotionally is an issue that is never addressed because parents and teachers all operate from the assumption that they shouldn't be sexually active and just tell them they are too young whenever the subject comes up. That doesn't work and the kids have no one to talk to about sex who will have a serious discussion about when is the right time to start having sex and how to do it safely. To kids, sex just ends up getting filed under the list of deviance that includes drugs, alcohol, skipping school, shoplifting, etc. Then when kids are caught, parents go to the police instead of dealing with the fact that their kid is sexually active and needs guidance and support.
This guy served his time. There was no evidence that he had a preference for under aged girls. There was no evidence that he was abusive, violent or coercive with the girl. It was a bad decision to have sex with a girl that young. But ruining people's lives because they at a young age acted with bad judgment on their sexual impulses is not something that will make our society better. Instead, it make sexual debut for young boys something that risks criminal prosecution which instills fear and keeps boys from ever talking with anyone other than their peers about it.
In the article, it says that the parents found out after he took the girl to get a morning after pill. The parents then contacted authorities. When he was prosecuted, the girl was so wracked with guilt over the prosecution that she started engaging in self harm. They had a months' long online relationship that resulted in multiple sexual experiences that were labeled rape due to the girl's age (i.e. statutory rape). There was no indication that the girl did not want to have sex with this guy. There was alcohol involved. But none of the reports suggest that the girl was so drunk that she could not consent to having sex.
....
This guy served his time. There was no evidence that he had a preference for under aged girls. There was no evidence that he was abusive, violent or coercive with the girl. It was a bad decision to have sex with a girl that young. But ruining people's lives because they at a young age acted with bad judgment on their sexual impulses is not something that will make our society better. Instead, it make sexual debut for young boys something that risks criminal prosecution which instills fear and keeps boys from ever talking with anyone other than their peers about it.
That's a lot of words to mitigate and normalize child rape.
In the article, it says that the parents found out after he took the girl to get a morning after pill. The parents then contacted authorities. When he was prosecuted, the girl was so wracked with guilt over the prosecution that she started engaging in self harm. They had a months' long online relationship that resulted in multiple sexual experiences that were labeled rape due to the girl's age (i.e. statutory rape). There was no indication that the girl did not want to have sex with this guy. There was alcohol involved. But none of the reports suggest that the girl was so drunk that she could not consent to having sex.
....
This guy served his time. There was no evidence that he had a preference for under aged girls. There was no evidence that he was abusive, violent or coercive with the girl. It was a bad decision to have sex with a girl that young. But ruining people's lives because they at a young age acted with bad judgment on their sexual impulses is not something that will make our society better. Instead, it make sexual debut for young boys something that risks criminal prosecution which instills fear and keeps boys from ever talking with anyone other than their peers about it.
That's a lot of words to mitigate and normalize child rape.
No matter how you want to bend the truth, the facts are that a 19 year old had sex with a 12 year old.
An argument that a 12 year old has the capacity to consent to sex is an argument that is trying to normalize/legalize child rape.
Well it is still considered a crime, but when does one become capable of consent? If you go back in history, probably many people got married as young teenagers. I am not an advocate for changing laws but this is a complex and nuanced subject for the intelligent. The man is not going to serve life in prison. So he is going to have a life. Let him be.
Well it is still considered a crime, but when does one become capable of consent? If you go back in history, probably many people got married as young teenagers. I am not an advocate for changing laws but this is a complex and nuanced subject for the intelligent. The man is not going to serve life in prison. So he is going to have a life. Let him be.
This is exactly what I meant when I said that it was meant to normalize child rape.
You use the case of a 19 year old who has sex with a 12 year old to argue that consent "is a complex and nuanced subject."
Well it is still considered a crime, but when does one become capable of consent? If you go back in history, probably many people got married as young teenagers. I am not an advocate for changing laws but this is a complex and nuanced subject for the intelligent. The man is not going to serve life in prison. So he is going to have a life. Let him be.
This is exactly what I meant when I said that it was meant to normalize child rape.
You use the case of a 19 year old who has sex with a 12 year old to argue that consent "is a complex and nuanced subject."
The subject of the age of consent and what it should be is what is complex, not consent itself necessarily, although that too could be. You will find that the more intelligent one is, the more complex these matters will be to one. That of course is not a problem for most of you.
The subject of the age of consent and what it should be is what is complex, not consent itself necessarily, although that too could be. You will find that the more intelligent one is, the more complex these matters will be to one. That of course is not a problem for most of you.
We can all see the amount of thought you've put into the subject of when children should be able to give consent to have sex with adults.
It seems to be something you think about regularly.
The subject of the age of consent and what it should be is what is complex, not consent itself necessarily, although that too could be. You will find that the more intelligent one is, the more complex these matters will be to one. That of course is not a problem for most of you.
We can all see the amount of thought you've put into the subject of when children should be able to give consent to have sex with adults.
It seems to be something you think about regularly.
No not at all. But of course it is a huge issue. Some of you want to burn this man at the stake. It shows how mediocre your minds are.
I opened this thread thinking it was gonna be people wringing their hands over a 19 year old with a 17 year old girlfriend but 19 to 12 is some pretty gross stuff
That's quite an interesting thought; to link intelligence with opinions on age of consent.
Yes of course because the age of consent is arbitrary, but one only sees this if one has the requisite intelligence.
So are you saying that since the age of consent is arbitrary, there shouldn't be one? Please tell us more about your desires (changes in the law you'd like enacted.)
Yes of course because the age of consent is arbitrary, but one only sees this if one has the requisite intelligence.
So are you saying that since the age of consent is arbitrary, there shouldn't be one? Please tell us more about your desires (changes in the law you'd like enacted.)
I said it is arbitrary. Are you really that stupid? My preferences are irrelevant to the discussion. Perhaps it should be 25 or so.
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.