Ho. Lee. Shit.

[ms.peachy]

I don't even have the words to describe how fucked up this news story is. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4743354.stm)

Seriously, I do like to think that I'm a reasonably enlightened person and in theory I don't support the death penalty, but sometimes I just find it really hard to believe that some people should be allowed to continue to suck valuable oxygen away from the rest of us.

[abcdefz]

Unbelievable.

Stuff like this -- I'm amazed a guy can even get aroused to commit an act like that.

Stepdaughter, way underage, unconscious, bad head injury. These are turn ons?

[mp-seventythree]

That fucker needs his knees drilled out a bit, then some seriously barbaric shit done to him with a blowtorch and some pliers (yes I stole that from Pulp Fiction, fuck you).

[kll]

absolutely horrific.

[Jmoney77]

Thats Wack

[miss soul fire]

This is totally sick. (n)

[na§tee]

ugh. this makes living in glasgow not so cool right now.
before i even touched the link i knew it was gonna be about this - i was listening to the radio on my walk back from work and heard it for the first time and literally gasped at the horror of it.
not cool.

[mickill]

9 years? He should be held at gunpoint and forced to tear off his own balls with his bare hands and eat them.

[paul jones]

sick fucks like that need putting down instantly, not taking taxpayers hard earned money to keep them fed in prison (n)

[Qdrop]

yet, rather then kill this sick fuck...he gets to walk back into society in 9 years.

now you tell me what's more barbaric: the US killing heinous criminals with a death penalty.....or Europe letting a man who raped his dying daughter rather than save her, walk free in 9 years?

[mickill]

Death would be too humane. He should be forced to eat his own balls.

[Qdrop]

Death would be too humane. He should be forced to eat his own balls.

pointless.

vengance through torture wouldn't bring the daughter back.
it wouldn't bring any balance back to anything.

it would barely serve our overly-emotional sense of justice.




but straight out killing him would prevent him from ever doing this again.

[mp-seventythree]

straight out killing him would prevent him from ever doing this again.

Thank you, Minister for Stating the Bleedin Obvious

[Guy Incognito]

yet, rather then kill this sick fuck...he gets to walk back into society in 9 years.

now you tell me what's more barbaric: the US killing heinous criminals with a death penalty.....or Europe letting a man who raped his dying daughter rather than save her, walk free in 9 years?

I dont know too much about scottish prisons but I imagine he'll get a nice 9 year reception once the inmates find out what hes's done. But i take your point about the british justice system. This link below isnt as sick but 12 weeks isnt long enough for what happened to this girl last yearHit and run (http://www.burnleytoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=12&ArticleID=1358946)

[mickill]

Well, if he was forced to eat his whole penis then, my idea probably wouldn't be so bad.

[Qdrop]

Well, if he was forced to eat his whole penis then, my idea probably wouldn't be so bad.

basically, you're alluding to castration...
which, failing a death penalty, is a flawed option at best.

rape and other sexual crimes aren't always purely about lust...

[Qdrop]

Thank you, Minister for Stating the Bleedin Obvious

you say that, yet where's the death penalty in Europe?
are THEY ignoring the obvious, then?

[mickill]

Buy if you ate your whole dick, I'm sure you'd think about sex a little less.

[Anne Lauren]

pointless.

vengance through torture wouldn't bring the daughter back.
it wouldn't bring any balance back to anything.

it would barely serve our overly-emotional sense of justice.




but straight out killing him would prevent him from ever doing this again.


Yeah. But, it also kinda goes back to the rather old, yet quit popular, philosophy..."An Eye For An Eye".

The girl had to "suffer"...therefore, the step-dad should be made to "suffer".

Simply, sticking a needle in the man's arm and having him "pass away" peacefully would not surfice as "punishment"...in the eyes of the girl's loved one, most importantly.

However, what is the purpose of the "justice system"...to "punish" people that break the laws of the land or to "correct" the situation, so that the crime is not be committed again by that person?

[Qdrop]

Buy if you ate your whole dick, I'm sure you'd think about sex a little less.

okay, mike. you win.

the man should eat his own dick.

[mp-seventythree]

I don't know if you noticed, but European politics is almost as fucked up as US politics.

I was thinking about his sentence, and 9 years in a Scottish prison would be like a life sentence in a French prison (and they're notoriously brutal). I'm guessing this guy will be bumping into a few things and falling down a lot of stairs in the coming weeks, if the other inmates don't remove his intestines with a spoon.

[Anne Lauren]

basically, you're alluding to castration...
which, failing a death penalty, is a flawed option at best.

rape and other sexual crimes aren't always purely about lust...

They're mainly "hate crimes"...it's a power thing.

[mickill]

okay, mike. you win.

the man should eat his own dick.
HA! I took you down in a debate in less than 5 posts. In your face, sucka. How's it feel, looooooooser?

[Qdrop]

Yeah. But, it also kinda goes back to the rather old, yet quit popular, philosophy..."An Eye For An Eye".

The girl had to "suffer"...therefore, the step-dad should be made to "suffer".

Simply, sticking a needle in the man's arm and having him "pass away" peacefully would not surfice as "punishment"...in the eyes of the girl's loved one, most importantly.
and that's the instinctual response many of us have.
that's the emotional side of it.

the logical side says torturing does nothing to ultimately remedy the situation.
it doesn't reverse what happened.
it doesn't bring back the dead, or heal the injured.

However, what is the purpose of the "justice system"...to "punish" people that break the laws of the land or to "correct" the situation, so that the crime is not be committed again by that person?

and excellent question....plenty of debate to go around.
i say it's to keep society safe, and efficient.

torture plays no role in that.

[Qdrop]

HA! I took you down in a debate in less than 5 posts. In your face, sucka. How's it feel, looooooooser?

umm...like i ....ate my own...dick??

[Ace42X]

underage

Two years or less underage...

but straight out killing him would prevent him from ever doing this again.

Is he likely to happen across a mortally injured, unconscious, female step-child again?

Are you worried that he'll be hanging around waiting for some sort of horrific accident before he molests again?

'cause making sure he doesn't go near any booze and drugged up step-children would "prevent him from ever doing this again."

[roosta]

still doesn't make me support the death penalty..but it is completely fucked up.

[abcdefz]

Two years or less underage...



...age of consent there is 16?

Maybe we can get R. Kelly to emigrate.

[Planetary]

that's dispicable, so is nine years in jail, but i don't agree with the death penalty, nor do i want my taxes to go towards feeding him, but then again, i don't want my taxes to go toward a brand new jaguar for the entire labour cabinet, or the millenium dome, or the london eye...

[fucktopgirl]

yo know what,instead of doing massive genocide in the name of power and politic.THye should just fucking kill all the freakng pedophiles ,sexual offender,,,like a massive clean up of thoses fuck.yeah!

HAve a camp concentration where they make suffer all thoses insane human who are totally deprive of inteligence.judgement and morale.And do experimentations on them instead of doing them on the monkeys.They should be uses as cobaye for the science and medecine.

No death penalty,to easy,make them suffer a little bit and usefull for society.

[Ace42X]

...age of consent there is 16?

Yah, and, of course, no chick takes it seriously. I don't think even 50% of the girls at my school were virgins turning 16, and I come from a relatively affluent and non-chav area. Without knowing the details, it is quite possible that the girl in question was already sexually active. Especially if she was drinking and taking drugs of her own volition, which seems to be the case, as the step-dad would be going down for longer if he had a part in her death.

[Planetary]

i think there's a violation of human rights there somewhere...

[Ace42X]

HAve a camp concentration where they make suffer all thoses insane human who are totally deprive of inteligence.judgement and morale.And do experimentations on them instead of doing them on the monkeys.They should be uses as cobaye for the science and medecine.

It's funny, a derranged old hag says that exact same thing in The Magic Christian too.

[Anne Lauren]

...age of consent there is 16?

Maybe we can get R. Kelly to emigrate.

Now, I didn't read the context that was written about...the whole "underage" deal.

But, generally, in the US...it follows the same kinda idea. Well, that if someone is underage and they are having "sexual relations" (not rape :rolleyes: ) with someone that is overage (18+)...then as long as that person that is underage is right around only being 2 years younger, than, it's OK.

If that makes sense...like, if the guy is 19 and the girl is 17...then it's OK.

[Whatitis]

Is he likely to happen across a mortally injured, unconscious, female step-child again?

Are you worried that he'll be hanging around waiting for some sort of horrific accident before he molests again?

'cause making sure he doesn't go near any booze and drugged up step-children would "prevent him from ever doing this again."


He probably won't run into that situation again but....If he could do something as deplorable as what he did, what else is he capable of?

[Ace42X]

But, generally, in the US

In the UK, any guy over the age of consent having sex with a girl under the age of consent is committing statutory rape, AFAIK.

[Ace42X]

He probably won't run into that situation again but....If he could do something as deplorable as what he did, what else is he capable of?

I don't know, and neither do you. We don't imprison or execute people based on "what ifs".

How do I know what you are "capable of" ? Hmmm?

[abcdefz]

....or vice-versa, presumably...

[Anne Lauren]

In the UK, any guy over the age of consent having sex with a girl under the age of consent is committing statutory rape, AFAIK.


So, if a guy is 18 and his girlfriend (that he is banging) is 16...a grade behind him...and let's say her parents bust them one night in her bedroom gettin' it on and they are absolutely pissed about it...then, they could press "statutory rape" charges against him and, more importantly, they would stick?

If so...damn, that's some scary shit for some young men over there in the UK!

[Ace42X]

....or vice-versa, presumably...

No, in the UK women are generally not considered to be capable of statutory rape. Presumably due to their inability to penetrate, what with having no suitable genitals. Possibly a legacy to Queen Victoria's inability to accept that lesbianism could possibly occur - a reason why lesbianism has never been legislated against, unlike male homosexuality.

They can be guilty of lesser molestation charges though, indecent assault, etc.

[Ace42X]

So, if a guy is 18 and his girlfriend (that he is banging) is 16.....then, they could press "statutory rape" charges against him and, more importantly, they would stick?

If so...damn, that's some scary shit for some young men over there in the UK!

No, because 16 is the age of consent. However, if the guy was 16 and the girl 15, then yes, yes it would. Although, the judge would quite possibly be lenient, as would the jury.

If so...damn, that's some scary shit for some young men over there in the UK!

All the more so, given the current paedo-geddon hysteria that is quite rampant.

[abcdefz]

No, in the UK women are generally not considered to be capable of statutory rape. Presumably due to their inability to penetrate, what with having no suitable genitals. Possibly a legacy to Queen Victoria's inability to accept that lesbianism could possibly occur - a reason why lesbianism has never been legislated against, unlike male homosexuality.

They can be guilty of lesser molestation charges though, indecent assault, etc.



...I was talking about an older woman raping a boy.

[Anne Lauren]

No, because 16 is the age of consent. However, if the guy was 16 and the girl 15, then yes, yes it would. Although, the judge would quite possibly be lenient, as would the jury.



All the more so, given the current paedo-geddon hysteria that is quite rampant.

Ok, yeah...whatever...you understood my point, at least.

And, actually, I don't think the 2 year age difference thing is actually a statute (a written law)...but, more or less, a case law (meaning that it's been decided before in past rulings and is now commonly practiced as a "rule of thumb")

[Ace42X]

...I was talking about an older woman raping a boy.

Yes, I know, hence me replying to that. For it to qualify as rape, it would have to be non-statutory, and the male would have to be seriously threatened. For example, the old woman who raped people at gunpoint because she was terminally ill and wanted some young-gun booty.

[Qdrop]

I don't know, and neither do you. We don't imprison or execute people based on "what ifs".

How do I know what you are "capable of" ? Hmmm?

to quote your own native tongue: BULLOCKS!

are you going to pretend that it would be some kind of stretch to consider this man a danger to society even without drunk 14 year old girls falling at feet?

come on, man.


i would bet that if your prime minister was caught in this same situation, you would be all for his removal from office...and NOT simply due to a "embarrassing image" issue. but because such actions in would tend to indicate a sincere issue in morals, ethics, judgement...

[Ace42X]

i would bet that if your prime minister was caught in this same situation, you would be all for his removal from office...and NOT simply due to a "embarrassing image" issue. but because such actions in would tend to indicate a sincere issue in morals, ethics, judgement...

Yes, because I don't think convicted criminals should be in positions of authority, depending on the crime. However, it would not be "because I think that being prime-minister would make him rape again!" or any other irrelevant emotive bollocks.

This guy couldn't get a job in the police after his release, nor in any number of vocations, so your comparison is really pointless. He is disbarred from these professions.

However, by your argument, all convicted criminals, no matter how petty, should be executed, as "such actions in would tend to indicate a sincere issue in morals, ethics, judgement..."

[Guy Incognito]

to quote your own native tongue: BULLOCKS!

are you going to pretend that it would be some kind of stretch to consider this man a danger to society even without drunk 14 year old girls falling at feet?

come on, man.


i would bet that if your prime minister was caught in this same situation, you would be all for his removal from office...and NOT simply due to a "embarrassing image" issue. but because such actions in would tend to indicate a sincere issue in morals, ethics, judgement...

Its BOLLOCKS. But you're right

[Whatitis]

I don't know, and neither do you. We don't imprison or execute people based on "what ifs".

How do I know what you are "capable of" ? Hmmm?

True. But I can presume that he is a sick fuck that should be locked up forever. Can someone really honestly say that he had ONE little slip in judgement that led him to do what he did.

[Guy Incognito]

No, because 16 is the age of consent. However, if the guy was 16 and the girl 15, then yes, yes it would. Although, the judge would quite possibly be lenient, as would the jury.



All the more so, given the current paedo-geddon hysteria that is quite rampant.

Just been lookin for a news story on this but cant find it - A guy who was 17 was caught havin sex with a fifteen year old and got reported and sentenced (dont know how long for - not long) but he remained with this girl - he's still with her but he cant apply for the teachers position he wants cos he is still on sex offenders register. I know i have probly missed some facts there but thats the law at its most ass-like.

[Qdrop]

Yes, because I don't think convicted criminals should be in positions of authority, depending on the crime. However, it would not be "because I think that being prime-minister would make him rape again!" or any other irrelevant emotive bollocks.

This guy couldn't get a job in the police after his release, nor in any number of vocations, so your comparison is really pointless. He is disbarred from these professions. the point of the analogy being: a heinous act would tend to predict distinct possibility of future heinous activity. to assume it was a one-time thing would be beyond ignorant.

However, by your argument, all convicted criminals, no matter how petty, should be executed, as "such actions in would tend to indicate a sincere issue in morals, ethics, judgement..." oh, that's a brilliant strawman.
obviously the level of criminal activity would be held in account.
and you KNEW that, you just wanted to look for a chink in the armor to build your strawman on.

[Planetary]

to quote your own native tongue: BULLOCKS!

it's actually BOLLOCKS!

[Ace42X]

obviously the level of criminal activity would be held in account.

So obvious that you totally failed to mention it, or construct a coherent argument. How does "the level of criminal activity" get "held in account" when you are dealing with a "possible tendancy that may or may not indicate or suggest..." Hmm?

Put together something other than emotive and irrelevant nonsense, and then you might get a sensible reply.

the point of the analogy being: a heinous act would tend to predict distinct possibility of future heinous activity. to assume it was a one-time thing would be beyond ignorant.

If by "beyond ignorant" you mean "equally likely."

But I can presume that he is a sick fuck that should be locked up forever.

Well, that's ok then. As long as we are basing our criminal justice system on something as concrete as presupposition and your personal level of moral outrage.

[ms.peachy]

Mind you, I didn't actually intend for this to be debate about the death penalty - I was just saying, although I am not infavour of the death penalty, I do find it difficult on an emotional level to justify why a person like this is entitled to keep breathing.

It would be sick enough if it was a 50 year old man having sex with a 14 year old gilr. It's even sicker if that man is someone who is supposedly the father-figure, whose job it is to, oh, protect the girl from those that would seek to harm her. But this - to deliberately take an girl who is unconscious as the result of a head injury and in fact actuallydying at that moment and instead of thinking "Holy crap, I had better call an ambulance" think "I know what I'll do, I'll take her up to the bedroom and fuck her" is so, so, so beyond anything I can comprehend, I don't evern know what to say.

Ace - what does it matter if the girl was sexually active before this or not?

[Ace42X]

Ace - what does it matter if the girl was sexually active before this or not?

It doesn't, as it is completely irrelevant. But, how many people here pre-supposed the victim (by virtue of being an underage girl) to be a paragon of wholesome virtue?

I know that some have, as I have had a few PMs from people saying "But it is WORSE because she was so pure and innocent and vulnerable."

All of which (other than 'vulnerable' - and any unconscious person would be equally vulnerable, whether a 14 year olf girl or Mr T) is supposition, and totally beside the point except for some hand-wringing and emotive outrage.

[Qdrop]

So obvious that you totally failed to mention it, or construct a coherent argument. How does "the level of criminal activity" get "held in account" when you are dealing with a "possible tendancy that may or may not indicate or suggest..." Hmm?

Put together something other than emotive and irrelevant nonsense, and then you might get a sensible reply.
so i have to spell out that those who are caught stealing are likely to steal again?
those that rape are likely to rape again?
those that commit dispicable acts such as this one are likely to commit others in the future?

the logic being, that there is a pre-existing psychological or environmental issue that is causing this behavior, and unless either is remedied....the behavior is likely to continue.

this really isn't a complex thing...i'm sorry. i didn't think i needed to explain that to you in such detail.

(and DON'T embarrass yourself by calling the activity this chump engaged in to be purely "environmental" or even purely "situational", as if he never in a million years would have done something like this had these circumstances not laid out JUST as they did)

If by "beyond ignorant" you mean "equally likely." no. that's obviously not what i meant.

[ms.peachy]

It doesn't, as it is completely irrelevant.
OK.

Personally I didn't presume that she was so very 'innocent,' if that is the right term - as you know I work with kids this age, and some of the girls are definitely active, some with multiple partners. That said, even though they may be living in a way that most might consider 'playing it fast and loose', it is quite easy for me to see that although they may be active, they actually aren't any less naive than other girls (perhaps even in some ways more so), and are innocent in the sense that quite often they almost literally know not what they do, and certainly not why they do.

But as you say, it's irrelevant - if she was a 14 year old junkie prostitute, what this guy did was equally as horrific to me as if she was a choirgirl.

[Ace42X]

so i have spell out for that those who are caught stealing are likely to steal again?
those that rape are likely to rape again?
those that commit dispicable acts such as this one are likely to commit others in the future?

Yes, you do have to spell out your massive and unsubstantiated assumptions.

the logic being, that there is a pre-existing psychological or environmental issue that is causing this behavior, and unless either is remedied....the behavior is likely to continue.

Logic? The ASSUMPTION being. What if, hypothetically, he did what he did in a state of traumatised delirium? He was, temporarily, totally off his conkers nutso, due to having a close family member dying right infront of him? Why will that make him likely to reoffend?

But it's easier just to brand him and anyone like him a pervert, and pile on the righteous indignation.

(and DON'T embarrass yourself by calling the activity this chump engaged in to be purely "environmental" or even purely "situational", as if he never in a million years would have done something like had these circumstances laid out JUST as they did)


Heaven forbid that I should consider a possibility other than your assumption of preference!

It's not like most crimes are opportunistic... Oh wait, it is...

[P of R]

:mad: (n)

[Qdrop]

What if, hypothetically, he did what he did in a state of traumatised delirium? He was, temporarily, totally off his conkers nutso, due to having a close family member dying right infront of him?

jesus.
you're like some kind of over-the-top "bleeding-heart liberal" character on a TV show...the kind that you see and go "oh come one...no one's THAT liberal..."

never mind ace.
never mind.

[Ace42X]

jesus.
you're like some kind of over-the-top "bleeding-heart liberal" character on a TV show...the kind that you see and go "oh come one...no one's THAT liberal..."


What, because I'm not willing to dismiss the counter arguments out of hand and join in with the pitch-forks and effigy burning, that makes me a "bleeding heart liberal" ?

[Qdrop]

What, because I'm not willing to dismiss the counter arguments out of hand and join in with the pitch-forks and effigy burning, that makes me a "bleeding heart liberal" ?

no, because your "devils advocate" routine becomes insulting and disrespectful when it gets to that level of lunacy.

[Bob]

maybe ace is his lawyer

[Qdrop]

Words to live by Q, words to live by.
yeah, thanks....thanks.
i'll remember that.

[abcdefz]

What, because I'm not willing to dismiss the counter arguments out of hand and join in with the pitch-forks and effigy burning, that makes me a "bleeding heart liberal" ?



....that and your Ché Guevara T-shirt.

[Ace42X]

no, because your "devils advocate" routine becomes insulting and disrespectful when it gets to that level of lunacy.

"That level of lunacy" ?

You might not be aware of it, but people do all manner of insane and irresponsible things when traumatised and distraught. There are countless examples of the elderly performing acts of necrophilia on their recently dearly departed whilst in the first stages of denial, etc. The was one example on a documentary a few months ago of an old man who had kept his dead wife decomposing in their marriage bed for weeks, and it was only when the smell was bothering the neighbours that authorities discovered she had passed away.

You might not believe it was the case here, but it is certainly not unfeasible.

And, FYI, I find the band-wagon-jumping "death's too good for them, string'em all up from the lamposts, no need for a trial, iron coat-hanger down the japs-eye" routine insulting and tired.

Just because it's a group no-one likes, doesn't mean that it is suddenly ok to disregard principles. Yeah, so they're an easy target, how does that legitimise sweeping generalisations and reactionary tub-thumping?

[TurdBerglar]

i think im arroused




yep. i am

[Bob]

i think im arroused




yep. i am

string him up by his balls

[Qdrop]

There are countless examples of the elderly performing acts of necrophilia on their recently dearly departed whilst in the first stages of denial, etc. countless, huh?
countless because there are so many, or countless because you could only find one?

i'm not saying it's never happened (insane and irresponsible things when traumatised and distraught), but think this more a red-herring on your part.

And, FYI, I find the band-wagon-jumping "death's too good for them, string'em all up from the lamposts, no need for a trial, iron coat-hanger down the japs-eye" routine insulting and tired.

Just because it's a group no-one likes, doesn't mean that it is suddenly ok to disregard principles. Yeah, so they're an easy target, how does that legitimise sweeping generalisations and reactionary tub-thumping?
you don't see me advocating torture either....i've stated that i find it pointless on this very thread.
nor do i advocate a trial-less execution.

[Ace42X]

countless, huh?
countless because there are so many, or countless because you could only find one?

Countless because it features in Bizarre magazine (http://www.bizarremag.com/) semi-regularly. There was a pullout special on it with half a dozen of the weirdest and most twisted examples. Like the guy who performed taxidermy on the wife to keep her fresh and stuff.

i'm not saying it's never happened (insane and irresponsible things when traumatised and distraught), but think this more a red-herring on your part.

How often do you think it happens? As it is certainly not a red-herring if it happens enough to make a big dent in your sweeping generalisation. Or even a small dent, that is added to by other possible "exceptions" to your "they're all gonna re-offend" argument.

Fact of the matter is, you were putting forward an assumption of re-offending, which you generalised to a massive and ill-defined group of people, without a shred of evidence.

How sure are you that he will re-offend at the end of the nine years? How likely do you think it is?

nor do i advocate a trial-less execution.

And yet feeding the hysteria leads to just this sort of thing. Trial by media, the more outrageous and offensive the allegation, the greater the desire for the emotive populace to bring about their own retribution. And in no time at all, the enormity and atrocity of the allegations is used as a yardstick for their voracity, thus the death of justice.

[ms.peachy]

I can't tell you two how pleased I am to have provided you this opportunity for yet another mutual wankfest.

[Ace42X]

I can't tell you two how pleased I am to have provided you this opportunity for yet another mutual wankfest.

Hey, fair's fair. The board provides you with regular wankfest material in the form of every sex thread ever posted. Turnabout's fair play.

[mickill]

Make him eat his peener.