Differences in abuse
reality2k4
Registrant
I try and work through these things logically.
The one thing in all I read about child abuse cases, it seems to me that abused boys get the thin end of the wedge, often ending up being seen as complicit to the act.
Child abuse against a girl is totally different, because the punishment would be much harsher.
Why? Because girls are seen as weaker than boys, and also they can conceive.
1.)Just one case of a 14yo boy who was groomed by a perp, but because he kept going back, he was seen as complicit to the act, and the perp walks free.
I am not a judge here, but I simply cannot ignore the difference I see in sentencing across the board of the Judiciary.
2.) A teacher who gets four years for having sex with a girl age 13yo.
He has done it with more than one girl, but his counsel somehow turns the case around because of complicity. (Even though it ruined her life, the judge states that she passed her school tests, so she is getting over it.)
Hold on, am I missing something, or does the law not state clearly that a child cannot consent, so it is rape, male or female, it is rape, because children cannot be seen to consent to coercion.
All too often Attorneys use this thing that somehow the child conformed to abuse, even though the law states that they cannot do so.
We can all see these cases in our own minds of a kid trying to put a brave face on it, in a Court of law, and the lawyers breaking down their defences by outwitting them in Court.
It all comes down to the fact that lawyers do not have a clue about the hurt a child goes through, in cases like this, I do, because I have been there too many times.
What if any disclosure can a child get from an evil manipulator?
None! That is the fear, and we owe it to ourselves to change judges minds on the way they think on issues of complicity, and blow the perps up for who they are,
ste
The one thing in all I read about child abuse cases, it seems to me that abused boys get the thin end of the wedge, often ending up being seen as complicit to the act.
Child abuse against a girl is totally different, because the punishment would be much harsher.
Why? Because girls are seen as weaker than boys, and also they can conceive.
1.)Just one case of a 14yo boy who was groomed by a perp, but because he kept going back, he was seen as complicit to the act, and the perp walks free.
I am not a judge here, but I simply cannot ignore the difference I see in sentencing across the board of the Judiciary.
2.) A teacher who gets four years for having sex with a girl age 13yo.
He has done it with more than one girl, but his counsel somehow turns the case around because of complicity. (Even though it ruined her life, the judge states that she passed her school tests, so she is getting over it.)
Hold on, am I missing something, or does the law not state clearly that a child cannot consent, so it is rape, male or female, it is rape, because children cannot be seen to consent to coercion.
All too often Attorneys use this thing that somehow the child conformed to abuse, even though the law states that they cannot do so.
We can all see these cases in our own minds of a kid trying to put a brave face on it, in a Court of law, and the lawyers breaking down their defences by outwitting them in Court.
It all comes down to the fact that lawyers do not have a clue about the hurt a child goes through, in cases like this, I do, because I have been there too many times.
What if any disclosure can a child get from an evil manipulator?
None! That is the fear, and we owe it to ourselves to change judges minds on the way they think on issues of complicity, and blow the perps up for who they are,
ste