www.boards.straightdope.com

Jeremy_s_Evil_Twin #sexist #psycho boards.straightdope.com

@Lizard

A real-life example of a Lolita-type relationship like what I alluded to above(where the child is a willing participant) is that of Mary Kay Letourneau, a 36-year-old schoolteacher from Tacoma.
She slept with a student of hers for the first time when he was 12, and had two of his children before he was 15.
My link is old, but in new testimony from the “victim” (whose identity is now public because he is 18 and party to a lawsuit seeking damages from his old school system) the guy admits he made a bet with a classmate over who could sleep with a teacher first. Obviously, not a victim in the normal sense.

Not to hijack this into a GD/Pit thread or anything but…they aren’t traumatized until the social workers get a hold of them, is that what you’re saying?

Interesting that you brought up the Letourneau case. I always saw that so-called crime as a bittersweet “forbidden romance”, and very Lolita-like. (After all, he sought HER out, when she was released from jail the first time!) Also interesting to see that her “victim” is now suing the school for “failing to protect him”, and I can’t help but wonder…has his therapist convinced him that he was truly abused, and he’s working to set things right, or has age corrupted him to the point where he’s seeking out the big bucks? (A la Michael Jackson’s alleged lover…)

Merkwurdigliebe #sexist boards.straightdope.com

To me, statutory rape is an age issue like drinking where different culture determine their own lines for the “too young to fuck” category.

Like Rune said, in some countries the age is much lower. They seem to get by just fine.
Who reported the crime?Her parents?If the sex was consentual, and her parents filed the suit, then I think that it is bullshit to jump on the guy. I don’t know the circumstances under which he had sex. If he had sex with a 15 year-old who still doesn’t regret it then I agree that he shouldn’t face such a stiff penalty. Sure there should be a penalty, but its such a subjective matter.

And lets all remember our reactions towards the young boy who had sex with his teacher. Our opinions towards these matters are totally skewed by gender roles. At least a lot of people are. There are a lot of laws on the books that are just an arbitrary line drawn by someone who isn’t affected by that line. Drinking age is 21 in America but it is 18 or 16 in Europe.

It also depends if said 15-year-old has had sex before with another minor. That would affect matters greatly in my opinion. If she chooses to have sex with someone of her own age, it shouldn’t matter if she chooses an older guy
...
I am not saying that it is acceptable, but I can imagine a situation where I think it isn’t worthy of 10 years in prison. Imagine a guy who had some kind of prior relatioship with her who found her at a party where she had a little to drink where they laterwent off to a private room where they had sex and people heard them having sex and a couple of people heard them or may have walked in on them (your 1+ witness right there). If the word got out that she had sex with this guy through gossip and got back to her parents who decided to file suit, then I would think that it is less than fair.

But then there is the obvious chance that it was a dude who saw a really hot 15 year-old who was at a party who was really drunk and convinced her to have sex with him. That’s what wedon’tknow.

Tuckerfan #pratt #psycho boards.straightdope.com

Fundy signgle-mindedness? I don’t thinks so. This is not an issue of personal “morality” which doesn’t harm anybody. As soon as a person starts adding victims to his behavior he loses my support. A man in his 20’s who publicly has sex with a drunk 15 year old girl is a fucking scumbag- no exceptions


Yes, I do think so. Fundies make their decision based on the Bible, because they believe that it’s the word of God. You’re basing your decision based on the laws of the society you grew up in, you’re not taking into account the fact that other societies both presently and in the past have different definitions of what is correct. Hell, even different states in the US have different definitions as to what constitutes statutory rpe, and yet you’re still willing to appoint yourself supreme arbitor of what’s right and wrong.

You’ve labeled the girl a “victim” without ever meeting her. Do you know that she was traumatized by the event? Do you know if she’s ever had consentual sex with someone her own age prior to this?

When I was in my early 20s, I was bnging girls who were 16 and 17 (along with the occassional 30 year old), every one of those girls had more sexual partners than I did, and I treated them better than their partners who were their peers. I didn’t simply sleep with them, I took them places, listened to them talk about their hopes and dreams and treated them with the same kind of respect a person should treat anyone they love. Does that make me a bad guy, simply because of a law, which is more likely to be enforced against a man, who crosses an arbitrary barrier than a woman who does the same? Perhaps it’s the law that’s wrong.

I’m not advocating adults sleeping with young children, but that’s beside the point.


Abe_user, Sengkelat #sexist boards.straightdope.com

Abe_user: “’ve been reading about the whole R. Kelly indictment:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020605/ap_en_mu/r__kelly_accusations_14

And it occurs to me that since statutory rape crimes are ‘strict liability’ (i.e. the older person’s knowledge/lack thereof does not affect the criminal charge), how can you hold a man responsible for doing 14-17 y.o girls who look, act and dress like 18-19 y.o. s

These laws were written at a time when girls didn’t pretend to be older women, so perhaps its time for a change. Yes, it is difficult to prove that a guy ‘knew’ she was 17 not 18, but really…but if its ok for companies to sell thongs to 12 y.o., how’s a dude to know if he is commiting a crime??”

Sengkelat: ”Blaming the victim” always sounds like a bad thing to do. But if a 17 year old girl chases after and ends up sleeping with an older man, is she a victim?
My sister, when she was 16, dated a 22 year old guy. She was stoked that she got this guy. Both parties were pretty happy with the arrangement, and she wasn’t traumatized or permanently scarred. I certainly wouldn’t say she “entrapped” him, since he had the power to decline anything she offered, but at the same time I would say she’s 50% responsible for any statutory rape that occurred. Or possibly more, if she lied about her age. Am I now “blaming the victim”?
As for the laws, it’d be nice if there was a better way to define if a person is capable of giving consent other than their age. I know 25 year olds that don’t have the maturity to understand the consequences of their actions, and I have known minors who had better judgment than many adults.”

ms2001 #psycho #moonbat boards.straightdope.com

How do you define “child molester”?

Someone who makes sexual advances toward a youth who is unwilling or unable to consent. (“Consent” being defined according to common sense, rather than any legal age limits.)

(Looks like I’ve been misspelling molester. Oh, how far I’ve fallen since I was a spelling bee champion…)

So basically, nothing is abuse unless the child says “no”?

Or unless he’s incapacitated or drugged, or so ignorant about sex that his consent is meaningless. Same standard as I’d apply to anyone else, regardless of age

So, you are proposing a legal limit at around age 12?

No. I do not support legal age restrictions.

What you propose is reckless endangerment of kids at the hands of abusers, rapists, and molesters in the name of some cheap kicks for a few.

Nonsense. What I propose is allowing minors to make their own decisions about their own bodies. I do not condone abuse or coercion.

JustAnotherGuy #sexist boards.straightdope.com

A good policy for all people is to get clear consent before having sex. A little disclaimer along the lines of “Are you okay if we take this all the way? You don’t have to if you don’t want to” can go a long way and keep you out of a lot of trouble.

In my experience, but I am a guy, if I were to ask those questions, seem that unsure of myself, I would probably still be a virgin.

Date rape, by my definition, and feel free to disagree, is two people, out on a ‘date’ or otherwise going together into one of their bedrooms (usually a bedroom) consentually. Now, if the girl says no, and he forces himself on her and it isn’t some pre-arranged freakiness, I would call that date rape, punishable as rape. If the woman let’s herself get too drunk to say no, but stays conscious through the event … even without said or intended consent, I don’t think she has any case whatsoever. If she passes out… I don’t know that this would qualify as ‘rape’ but certainly a sexual assault of some kind, and definately a bit of a psyche problem on the man’s side.

Second thoughts the morning after does not a rape make.

Now, IMHO, if a woman asks me up to her bedroom after a hot, been sucking face, and having a great time night, she should probably expect me to make a sexual advance on her. However, if she says, beyond a whispered ‘no, we shouldn’t be doing this’ during the progression of actions, or I am required to become physical, that is a no-no. Many women say no during the negotiations of sex to hold out that ‘pure’ image they want to portray. Women, at least in my day, were still trapped in the slut or virgin categorization. But I don’t think there is anything wrong with continuing to try to persuade after a ‘no’. If she really means ‘no’ you can interpret pretty easily.

I think there is a ‘No’ (you are doing it wrong, try again)
and a ‘NO!’ (I don’t want to have sex with you.)

ms2001 #psycho #moonbat boards.straightdope.com


I don’t see the big deal about letting minors consent to sex. I remember being 13 and knowing which things I wanted and which I didn’t. Even at 9 years old, I held meaningful opinions about things that were happening to me
….

Problem: A 20-year-old man has sex with a 13-year-old girl. Was it consensual?
Solution: Let the girl know that her answer is entirely private and that no harm will come to her from answering or testifying in court. Then ask her if the sex was consensual. If she says yes, don’t waste any more taxpayer money on the case.

Let’s take your logic further -[b] Are there any 10 year olds who are capable of giving consent? 8 year olds? [/b]Certainly there are some who think that they are. Are they just because they believe it? Is there no victim?

I have no reason to think it’s impossible. I’d have to look at each case individually, unless presented with medical evidence that 100% of humans younger than N years are incapable of giving consent.

if the child doesn’t feel she has been victimized, she wasn’t subject to any force or fraud, and she (as an individual) hasn’t been found incapable of giving consent, I don’t think she’s a victim.

And I don’t think we can possibly help the child by telling her, “I know you don’t feel like anything is wrong, but what happened was very bad, and your friend is a very bad man who will be going away for a long time,” creating a painful memory from what was otherwise a pleasant (or at least unremarkable) experience

Voodoochile #sexist #psycho boards.straightdope.com

http://www.abcactionnews.com/stories/2004/06/040622teacher.shtml
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5299732
Recently in Florida a 23 year old female teacher has been accused of having sex with a 14 year old boy

Im not sure how people got this reversed, but she was not the one in the position of power; he was. As soon as they had sex, he had the power over her, not the other way around. He, literally, was fucking authority. He had her career in his hands at the same time he had other things.

What power had she over him? What, give him an F in reading class? 14 year olds arent stupid, the kid had to be aware that she had far more to lose than he did. No, the power was in his hands. If anything, I think a good case could be made that this is an issue of a male taking advantage of a female when she was in an emotionally delicate state. Show me a 14 year old who is stupid enough to think a junior-high or high-school teacher can have a lasting bad effect on them enough to be coerced into having sex and Ill show you a 14 year old in 5th grade.

Hell, [bshes only 23, barely out of childhood herself. The older I get, the less of a difference I see between a 23 year old and a 14 year old. Kids are kids.

And yes, I for one recently have a daughter. I believe, and will tell her so, that if something feels good, and she think she wants to try it, to go for it. Thats how one learns. If she doesntlike it, great. If she does, great. But then Im raising a human being, not a unit.
Who the hell cares if some people have sex a year ealier than the norm? So the hell what? Not being like everyone else is something to be proud of, not worried about.

ivan_astikov #sexist #psycho boards.straightdope.com

I’d be more inclined to believe Vidal’s account than anyone’s that has posted in this thread.

Regardless of what the statute books determine rape to be, why is it so difficult to consider that Polanski’s victim might have been a teenage slut?

Because even if she was a “slut,” it’s still rape to have sex with a 13 year old girl? And by her account, it was not just statutory rape but forcible rape?

Well, she would say that, wouldn’t she?

As for her age, I’d bet that at least 50% of males on this planet, if they had a physically mature, attractive young lady waving her tush at them, would have done the same thing. Knowing her age might decrease that number, but there still wouldn’t be only Roman Polanski answering the call.

Well, the judge believed her testimony. Why are you so determined to paint her as a conniving little slut–because Gore Vidal said so?

Why is everyone else so determined to paint her as an innocent young victim, is just as valid a question. I’m giving Polanski the benefit of the doubt, because I’ve heard enough stories about teenage “star-fuckers”; what are your reasons for believing her account of the event?

I’m no saint by any stretch. But I wouldn’t rape a 13 year old girl who thought she was willing. Nor would I forcibly rape any woman.Seriously, are you such a weak kneed pussy that you can’t hold your own against a 13 year old girl? Do you truly have less character and force of will than a 13 year of child?

Can you point out where I said I’d be among the 50% that would? I know I am a honorable man, but I don’t know that about everyone else. Polanski might not be a honorable man, but I wasn’t there when this incident happened, so I’m not going to pontificate about what an evil man he is, based on one girl’s testimony. Now, if you can show this was not an isolated incident, I might be more inclined to join in with your faux outrage.

ludovic #psycho #pratt boards.straightdope.com

No, there are not. There is no such thing as a “factually willing child” because children must trust the adults in their world due to the child’s lack of perspective and ability to make choices regarding their sexuality.

Ill be the first to be on your side when you are arguing that often, the culture of adult domination will cause children to do things they would not otherwise do. But simply claiming that they do not have the factual ability to make decisions about their lives and bodies does not make it so. After all, most of the sex that adults have outside of an explicitly committed relationship is for reasons other than being in love, so to be claiming that adults have so much more of a handle on the emotional impacts of sex is false.

Now, sex is so unimportant and confusing to most children that we will not gain much by legalizing it. But that does not mean that there are not exceptions, or that most children who actively and willingly engage in free contact with adults will invariably be forever condemned to nightmares of the horrific rape. In fact, I’d say that in most situations where a child initiated non penetrative sexual contact,[b\ they’d be less messed up if the adult engaged in it and no one found out than if they engaged in it and they were found out and the child were dragged through an investigation and trial and the adult were sentenced to 10 years in prison and the child were taken to less-than-useless “therapy” where they were told over and over that they were a victim. Of course, the best solution is for adults to not engage in sex with children. But if that does occur I’m not sure which solution of the above would be better for that child in the above scenario.

Sentences are “overly harsh” for child molesters? Truly? Will wonders never cease.

I don’t know what the sentence are, honestly. I’d say that for factual coercion with non penetrative sex it should be a couple-so years in medium or light, at least, more depending on circumstances. Without either factual coercion or penetrative sex I have no idea if there should even be prison time but the question is how do you tell them apart, especially if the children do not want the contact and are being threatened by those with a supervisory relationship over them if they tell.

catsix #sexist #psycho boards.straightdope.com

Here’s a tip: even if you get drunk, have dinner, go home with a guy, strip naked, kiss him, lay down and THEN decide you don’t want to have sex, you say no. If he persists…he’s raping you.

And if you do that with no intention of having sex with the guy, you’re the asshole, not him.

At no point was the situation out of your control. You easily could have walked out.

Hell yes she could have. Go in the damn house and call your mother to get a ride home. Shit, run in there and lock the doors.

It’s situations like yours that made me come round to the belief that rape needs an affirmative consent standard.

The only possible benefit I could see to this would be that it’d protect the men who get accused of rape by the woman who says ‘Yes, I went home with him from the bar, ripped my clothes off, kissed him all over, then dived in his bed, but I brushed his hand away once so he should’ve known I didn’t want sex.’

iamerror403 #psycho #moonbat boards.straightdope.com

[ (in regard to to catch a predator show catching pedos in sting operations) ]

Your problem is you re looking at pedophilia as a crime, but it’s not. Child molestation is.

If a pedophile crosses the line to become a child molester, that’s unforgivable, but even then I believe there are shades of gray.

No matter what Perverted Justice say, they are not acting like innocent adolescent children. I have a hard time buying that young girls would respond positively or even neutrally to some of the disgusting things these men say to them. Possibly these men do think that the girls they are talking to are truly underage and perhaps some have malicious intent. These people should go to jail, but I find it very difficult to swallow that these people are getting such harsh sentences for talking to what seem to be a willing or at the very least curious teenager.

My mom was 15 when she dated my dad who was 24. Today, my dad might as well be labelled a pedophile, but it was my mom who was the one who sought it out. It was consensual. She was not traumatized by the event in which I was conceived. Possibly because there wasn’t so much hysteria about it at the time. My grandmother didn’t prosecute my father and instead insisted they got married. There was no trauma because no one made my mother a victim!


It’s not like their completely oblivious to sex or what the consequences are at that age. I was well aware in elementary school what it was. i do not view 14 and 15yo girls the same way I view an 8yo. I think it is VERY different.

The fact that people are making it so black and white is disturbing in my opinion. When I was 18 and a senior I dated a 14 yo girl who was a freshman. We never had sex, but if I had consummated our relationship, would I have been labelled a pedophile? I am sure her parents wouldn’t have encouraged us having sex, but I don’t think they would have wanted me to go to jail either

stoid #pratt #dunning-kruger boards.straightdope.com

I’d just like to say that I’m really sick of the over-the-top outrage displayed by so many at every imaginable instance of sexual activity in anyone, especially females, under the age of 18.

18 is an arbitrary, (but certainly useful) dividing line between childhood and adulthood, it is not a precise and reliable measure of maturity in every human being.

When it comes to sex, nature itself says that human females are sexually ready at puberty, which can occur at almost any age, but is usually 11 or 12 and up. Therefore, it is not sick, twisted and worthy of a lynch mob when men find themselves responding to post-pubescent girls, no matter what their actual chronological age is. The tacky saying about grass on the field is technically true, and it’s not honest to demonize men for desires that are entirely natural. Nor are men who find themselves sexually attracted to post pubescent girls pedophiles. They are ephebophiles, and there’s really nothing wrong with that, in and of itself. It’s how we’re built.

And as long as I’m at it, I’ll bitch a little about rape, too: while the label “rape” may be justly applied to any sexual act that is non-consensual, not all rape is equal, or equally horrible and damaging. I’ve been a victim of “date rape”, when I was just a girl (a slutty girl who was inappropriately acting out her issues by giving it away to almost anyone) when a sailor I was on a “date” with forced me to have sex with him in a bathroom. It wasn’t a great experience. But I’m absolutely sure that it was a day in Disneyland compared to the experience of women who’ve been assaulted by complete strangers popping out from behind a bush with a knife, or suddenly appearing in their bedroom in the middle of the night

so what I guess I’m saying is that we have to stop reacting as though every instance of sexual “crime” is equal. They aren’t. And I think it undermines the very real and horrible damage that is done by genuine pedophiles and rapists when we treat everything the same. It’s also an injustice to the “criminals” themselves, when they are all branded as “sex offenders” no matter the nature of the offense.

Doreain #psycho #sexist #dunning-kruger boards.straightdope.com

[ Context: about a grown adult chatting with minors online ]
There’s nothing at all wrong with it. Up until the last 20 years, many older men used to enjoy talking with teens, both boys and girls, even having them as friends. Platonic ones, by the way.
..
Interaction with them brings out dreams of our past youth, the* paternal, maternal instincts,* and, with members of the opposite sex, a touch of sexual lure. (Don’t you dare sneer! It’s biology because kids are at their most sexually powerful between 14 and 25. History shows that most children were married from ages 12 to 20. Usually as soon as the girl had her period, she was considered marriage material!! Women reaching 22 without being wed were considered old maids!!) Teens can give off sexual cues without meaning to because of biology.
…
I love talking with teens on the web, watching them around town, listening to them chat in groups in stores, admire their grace and awkwardness as they go through that leggy, big footed state where their limbs seem to grow faster than the rest of them. The girls are cute as heck.
…

The best thing is their simple beauty, their unlined faces and most do not have that awful ‘look’ adults get over race, religion, job conflicts, accumulated emotional injuries, money problems, and all of the beatings a ‘grown up’ gets trying to live.
..
Several years back, I dug up the standard profile of child molesters and read it to find out what one needs to look for and, surprise, surprise! I technically fit the stereotype!!

...
You know you’re not going to go and seduce some kid, so don’t worry. Besides, you might be surprised at the amount of kids who try to seduce their young, good looking teachers in high school, especially by girls. Feel sorry for those male teachers in their twenties when some pretty young thing of 15, oozing sexuality from all pores, just busting with nubility thanks to nature telling her it’s time to reproduce, turns on the heat.

Philster #psycho boards.straightdope.com

I’m in favor of killing a few innocent people so that no guilty man goes free or lives another day, if he/she were facing the death penalty.

It is the sacrfice that some innocent people will have to make. Kind of like war. Innocent people die to protect us. In the war on crime, same thing.

Really? What if you were the innocent person?

It’d suck. What about the people who lived and/or avoided the wrath of someone who was a repeat offendor or parolie because we had a system that was more aggressive?

I’m not against the death penalty, and that is a GD issue.

We could go 'round and 'round, and we won’t because this is IMHO.

Kombatminipig #psycho boards.straightdope.com


You’d “encourage” him to find another job, but you wouldn’t bother to inform his employer that he has stated he wants to rape the childrn he’s entrusted to take care of?

Yes, for his own sake. He should question why he is in that line of work, and where it’s going to lead him. But I can’t force him to make the choice. Again, flaming liberal speaking. The oldskool kind of liberal.

Personally I’d have little moral problems with beating the living crap out of the individuals who have raped friends of mine, but would that make me unqualified to work in an environment where I come into contact with convicted rapists? I can control my instincts, why shouldn’t he be able to? Slight hyperbole, but merely stating an example.

“Whether he acts on his instincts?” So you’re willing to wait around until AFTER he’s already raped a baby (a BABY) to decide wether it’s dangerous to let someone who says he wants to rape babies take care of babies?

I’m not saying I like the idea, but once again…you’re promoting the punishment of an individual due to what’s inside his head. Lets wander that path a bit further, shall we? Would you like to have him locked up? Forbidden to use the internet? What about castrated?

Little_Nemo #psycho #sexist boards.straightdope.com

[on the brock turner case]


He had his choice of any set of words in the English language to protect his son. He chose “20 minutes of action.”
I was about to compose a sample statement to show how simple it is to write a tasteful statement that acknowledges the horror of the crime and places responsibility while pleading for leniency. But I don’t need to do take- you can imagine it. It’s not that hard to say something that isn’t reprehensible.

I don’t blame a parent for saying contemptible things in defense of their child. I’m not a parent but if I was I’d be willing to slander, defame, and lie about somebody if it kept my kid out of prison.

Crazy_canuck #psycho boards.straightdope.com

I voted none of the above. No matter what my loved ones do, I’m not calling the cops.

On the other hand, if I knew for sure that one of my loved ones was raping and/or killing children, an accident would happen. I would give them a quick, clean death at least.

Isamu #psycho boards.straightdope.com

for what crimes would you turn in a loved one

Nothing.

I would have included election tampering, witness bribery, gay bashing and animal abuse.

And I’m appalled that there are significant numbers of people who wouldn’t turn in someone for serious crimes like child rape or serial murders.

Well let me clarify my case. I don’t have any loved ones who could be capable of those things. If they did them, it would mean they were having a major brain malfunction or some similar crisis and I would make sure they got the help they needed, or some kind of isolation, rather than letting the police push them through the legal system into a hellish future of incarceration.

Rachellelogram #fundie boards.straightdope.com

[ on turning in a murderer . ]

If my suspicions are right and he is guilty, then he didn't commit a perfect crime. Therefore, any investigators worth their salt should have been able to crack the case. I don't feel obligated to go out of my way and make their job any easier.

Adaher #fundie boards.straightdope.com

[On the Duggars]

Most families don't continue to have children after being unable to protect their existing kids from sexual abuse.

Wrong. Most families take no action at all to protect their kids from sexual abuse by family members. Strangers they'll get all mama and papa bear on, but when it's within the family the reaction is almost always denial or lame attempts to keep them separated. "Don't ever leave the kids alone with Uncle Jim! You know how he is!"

Most families don't go on national television and present themselves as perfect families with this kind of shit in their closet.

Most families don't go on national TV, but most families who are well regarded in their community have secrets.


Most families don't run around on television telling grown women they shouldn't be allowed access to birth control or that gays stink.

Which has nothing to do with sexual abuse. Liberal families have sexual abuse problems too.

And for the eleventeenth time, WE HAVE NO IDEA IF THE ABUSE WAS SHORT LIVED. We don't know shit about the abuse. We don't know when it stopped or if it is still going on. The Duggars are bunch of badly educated dumb shits with too many kids and tiny little brains. Why the hell should we believe a word they say?

It's certainly possible that Josh Duggar is a very sick man who will always be a sexual offender. And when there's evidence that this is the case, I'll believe it.

They don't seem like a happy brood. They seem like a group of really dumb people with an idiotic belief system that encourages sexism, overpopulation, homophobia and deliberate ignorance. Jim Bob Duggar makes disgusting excuses for sexual abuse. Michelle Duggar talks like a five year old and refuses to educate her own kids properly. Her daughters sound like the kind of morons who want to join ISIS or the Westboro Baptist Church. Her eldest son is a pedophile and a sanctimonious asshole with a GED and an over inflated sense of importance.

It is deeply disturbing to see how many foolish people still blindly support them.

Sounds like part of your issue is their belief system. Fine, so show me a more liberal, secular family that handled sexual abuse within their family in a more productive way

Alan smithee #fundie boards.straightdope.com

on being friends with a pedophile that actively downloads real child porn


Hell, I'll go further than most, and say that I would continue to be friends with him even if he had actually done something provided that all of the following conditions were met: He was caught and convicted, he was punished, he complied with all of the elements of legal supervision (parole, registration as a sex offender, etc.), he admits what he did, he feels bad about it, it happened no more than once, he was under 22 when it happened, it has been at least 10 years since it happened, and all the other conditions of the OP are met.

I believe in judging people as they are now. It would take a lot of convincing for me to believe that all of those conditions were met (and of course things like his age and the length of time are not bright lines), but if he is really as good a friend as described, I think it would be possible.

I will add the following caveats: I have no kids. If I did, I think I'd still be friends under the OP's conditions, but very likely not if he'd actually done anything. I'm sure I'd agonize over it no matter what. And finally, I'm not sure this makes me a better person. My natural tendency is to react to people based on what I actually see, not on what else I know about them. It's easy to make this into a virtue, but it could just as much be moral laziness. Along with this is the fact that I don't tend to form extremely close friendships, so what I'm picturing as a continued friendship may be just an aquaintenceship to someone else.

Oh, and regarding the legal aspect, I voted that he would be convicted and it would stand (assuming he was convicted of obscenity, not child pornography), but actually, I believe that most people in that situation would plead guilty and not appeal it only to get the whole ordeal over with. (A decision they would possibly regret, but nevertheless what they would do. Fighting a legal battle is very expensive and extremely stressful and this story would undoubtedly be in the press a great deal while it was ongoing in court.)

Napier, Lionsib, even Sven ,Joey p, infovore #fundie boards.straightdope.com

on being friends with a pedophile that actively downloads real child porn


Napier: Tough one. I said I'd remain his friend, but without having experienced this scenario I can't say I'm sure


LIONsob: Stay friends and think that the prosecution is politicaly motivated thought-policing.


Joey P : I'd feel sorry for him but remain friends with him. He knows he has a problem and he deals with it in such a way that he's not harming anyone. What he does in his own house, by himself is his business, not mine, not anyone elses.


even sven: I'd have no problem remaining friends with him. People have all sorts of strange fantasies, and as long as you can recognize the difference between fantasy and reality, I see nothing wrong with beating off to whatever.

infovoreAs long as Al has never done anything to a real child and proactively keeps himself away from children, I would remain his friend. I would feel very sorry for him and it would probably squick me out--I'm not sure that the friendship would continue in the same form that it did before the material was discovered. But as long as he had not and would not hurt, bother, or otherwise cause mental or physical harm to actual kids, then yes, I'd stay his friend.

Sahirrnee #fundie boards.straightdope.com

[ on being friends with an active murderer. ]

Would not turn him in, would not question him, would not even let him know I know the sob is dead. Like Sgt Shultz, 'I know nothing'.

I don't know that he did it and I'm not about to ruin a friendship over suspicion, nor am I going to let someone know I think they might be guilty. If they are innocent I'm hurting their feelings, if they're guilty I'd rather they didn't think they have to get rid of me too.


Even if for some reason I was questioned I don't know anything, so there is nothing to tell.

However I will not perjure myself for anybody and once a 'friend' asked me to lie to the police for him and lie to the court for him. Nope! It was over a DWI though, not a murder.

FWIW I was kind of in this situation and I had my suspicions and I kept my mouth shut. Other peo

Jakeyjake #fundie boards.straightdope.com

How would you act if given absolute power over an alien civilization?

There is an episode of the Twilight Zone called the Little People where a couple astronauts get stranded on a distant planet and while repairing their ship, they stumble upon a race of tiny humans a who are sophisticated enough to build houses, boats, trucks, cities, and appear in all aspects to be identical to the humans in every way except their size.

You can probably guess what happens next. An alien version of Conrad's Heart of Darkness. One of the astronauts decides he's going to be their God and begins to dominate the little people through fear and cruelty, based on no godly qualities except the advantage of having evolved to be massively bigger than them. It was a cool episode.

Anyway, what's interesting and possibly shocking to some, is I don't think I'd act very differently from that guy in his circumstance. I could see myself becoming a tyrant to them and enjoy every second of it. If I somehow came across a planet of tiny little aliens that were the size of ants to me, I don' think I'd have much of a problem with crushing a few of their towns, provided that that no one (or at least no one who mattered) would find out or try to punish me for it. I'd actually think it's hard to blame a guy like me for taking advantage of the size difference. I would love the chance to be revered as a god, even if I'd very much be an old testament god. Well, except that instead of meting out discipline with lightning, I'd be tyrannizing the little aliens by squashing dissenters with my giant stinking feet. If they needed me to press a giant sneaker-shaped footprint in the middle of their capital to remind them to worship me, then that's fine. Actually, I'd probably do that anyway.

Here is where you may disagree, but to me it seems like nature taking its course and I don't think I can fault some giant alien who came to Earth doing this either. In the immediate moment he's planting a huge foot down on NYC, I'd probably think the alien was a giant jerk, but looking at the big picture, I know I'd be too insignificant to this being to even get his attention, much less communicate in any meaningful way. And does Godzilla care about the humans he steps on? Besides, I already step on bugs all the time, often purposely.

In spite of what I'd do in the above situation, I wouldn't consider myself to be evil, immoral, or unethical. Rather, I'm generally considered to be an all-around great guy by friends and coworkers. I help people all the time for nothing in return, have donated to charities, given people rides, and I even volunteer as an EMT when I can. I run competitively, coach track for no pay. I've never been arrested, vandalized property, or wanted to hurt anyone.

What do you think of the behavior I described? How would you behave when in a situation where you gain absolute power over others? Would you be kind or cruel? Or would you walk away from the situation? Try to stay respectful of one another!

Isamu #fundie boards.straightdope.com

I don't turn in friends or family, for anything.

How about if your brother molested your three-year-old daughter? I mean, surely there are exceptions to such blanket statement?


I don't have a daughter, so it's difficult for me to put myself in those shoes.

But say it was my brother who molested my little sister, I'd prefer to handle it in-house. I wouldn't stop my sister from going to the police though, and would support her is that's what she wanted.

Sahirrnee #fundie boards.straightdope.com

[ on being friends with legit racists and bigots ]

I have no problem being friends with people whose views are different. It's would be awfully boring to hang around with people who agreed on everything.
What matters is if we can respect each others position without agreeing with it and if we can agree to disagree and drop it.

Deal breakers for me are things I view as character flaws or worse.

I found out a co-worker and friend of a friend was a child molester. I couldn't even look at him let alone talk to him. Deal breaker.
When a 'friend' asked me to look up the symptoms of mesothelioma so he knew what to say to the doctor, he was always looking for a law suit to set him up for life. Deal breaker.
People who try to get on disability


There's the kind of prejudice that makes people afraid to drive into certain neighborhoods or make eye contact with certain people. I think all of us have this kind of prejudice, and it's not necessarily mapped onto racism.

However, I'm kind of sick of racism and sexism being likened to political differences. If someone thinks an entire group of people are animals and they are bold enough to make this known to others, then they deserve to be shunned and shamed. It is perfectly fine to be intolerant of this kind of intolerance.

I'm personally struggling with this because the aforementioned friend of mine was so bold. The way she was talking, she might as well have called me an animal. Now, I'm not a perfect saint and I really try to give people the benefit of the doubt. But I'm not obligated to forgive people just because otherwise they're decent. There are flaws and then there are defects. Everyone has the former, but not everyone has the latter.

I can be friendly with just about anyone, because I know how to be fake and phony while keeping my true feelings secret. But being friends is a different matter. The average black person spends much of their 9-5 playing the good ambassador and not going off on the ignorant racist assholes in their midst. But when they are with friends, they should be abe to relax and not worry about "playing nice" for the sake of racial harmony.

Saying "nobody's perfect" with regard to befriending racists...this sounds like something only a person with limited experience with racism and bigoty would be able say with a straight face.

Maybe it's different being white?
I have a black friend who will quite often go off on white people, how we are no good, how we are haters but hide it, how we are the devil incarnate. After a while I'll look at him and say 'uh excuse me but'. He'll give me a blank look and then he realizes I am white and says, 'well you're different, you know what I mean, it's not all white people, you're one of the okay ones'.
I'll say, 'uh huh I see'.
Then we laugh and move on to something else.
I know he doesn't really hate white people, I know he's venting, I know it's about racism and sometimes he lumps all of us white folk together even though he knows not all whites are racist.

Kambuckta #fundie boards.straightdope.com

Go fuck yourself Mrs. Sandusky

liar liar soul on fire
Now, now, woman. Ya'll reap what you sow.

He's raping little boys for years in the basement, and you never heard anything? Never saw anything? You make Helen Keller look like an eagle-eyed lookout.

For shame, you whining fuck. For shame.


Here's a woman who has spent how ever many years being married to an upright citizen, a man who has coached kids, probably attends church weekly and is for all intents and purposes a bloke beyond moral reproach.

Then the shit hits the fan with allegations, charges and sentences of child abuse.

If you were his wife, how would you respond? Me? I'd probably be in denial as well. To acknowledge otherwise would shatter my entire life. It would mean that *my* life had been a lie from the outset, that things I might have seen or heard along the way were not just innocent happenings, but toxic and horrid scenes. It would mean I'd have to let go of EVERYTHING I'd ever held precious. It'd mean that I was equally culpable even though I had nothing to do with the crimes.

Damn.....whatever Sandusky has done, it's just wrong to implicate his wife (and by extension, his kids) in the crimes. At the same time, it's time for her now to let him go and to get on with a life without him if she can.

Rock, hard place, fuck I'm glad it's not me.

Rachellelogram #fundie boards.straightdope.com

on sanduskys wife turning a blind eye to her husband molesting children


A spouse cannot be compelled to testify against a spouse for a reason. They're a single unit in the eyes of the law, as well as emotionally (for many/most couples). And come on, they are both old as fuck. It's way less upsetting to think that your husband was pilloried unfairly in court than it is to accept that you are married to a child molester--even if that does mean calling dozens of victims liars. It's easy to talk tough online. But I'm not even married yet, and I can't say I would likely do anything differently in her position.

Fotheringay-Phipps #fundie boards.straightdope.com

ISTM that Dottie Sandusky and the posters to this thread share a common premise, i.e. that the accusations against Sandusky are all-or-nothing. Either all are true down to the last detail, or all are false and Sandusky is a persecuted saint.

The reality is that it's possible that some accusations are true and some are not, and within valid accusations, that some details are true and some are not. Meaning that while based on all evidence Sandusky was a serial child molestor, that does not preclude the possibility that other opportunists also jumped in with a chance to score a financial settlement, settle an old score or whatever. And it does not preclude the possibility that some genuine victims are misremembering (or possibly even misrepresenting) details of or relating to their abuse.

So it's possible - just possible - that Dottie Sandusky is simply relating the truth as she knows it: she did not in fact ever hear any suspicious sounds coming from that basement. And either the victim in that case was not a genuine victim, or he was a genuine victim who misrembered after the years how loud the sounds were, or perhaps even misjudged it at the time etc. etc.


Where she's going wrong - assuming this is true - is in making the leap to the assumption that this accuser's entire story must be fake, and that the other accusers' stories must also be fake, and so on. However, this is a premise shared with many others on the other side of the issue, who assume that since the evidence shows Sandusky to be a serial molestor it must follow that the particular detail of this kid making noise in the basement must also be true.

View Post
So, she should call her own son a liar and ignore that her husband molested him? And, if she doesn't do that, but accepts that her son is telling the truth, then what - she should believe that he was molested, but all of the other kids were lying? OK, so maybe not all of them - maybe she just believes he moslested half of them - does that really change anything at all? I think if she said, "yeah, turns out he was a serial molester, but I never heard anything from the basement that one time" people might actually buy it. But right now she's landing square in the 'blind eye' camp and it's not unreasonable to assume she probably knew something was going on and chose not look too hard.

I wouldn't put too much into the "own son" bit.

Matt Sandusky is not the Sandusky's biological son and is not someone who was raised by the Sanduskys. He is a former juvenile delinquent who became their foster child at the age of 17 and was adopted at age 18. (
cite
.)

There's no particular reason for Mrs. Sandusky to find Matt Sandusky any more credible than any other accuser, and her feeling of betrayal would be even stronger.

HoneyBadgerDC #fundie boards.straightdope.com

There seems to be entirely too many people in this thread who are entirely too willing to dismiss completely abhorrent behavior as "kids being kids." It's very disquieting.

I think parents are looking for the best possible outcome. I believe that parents should have that right to raise their kids. Parents should be trusted to make family decisions until they have proven themselves to be lousy parents. Any attempt to be premptive in these types of issues will cause more harm than good.


you're OK with that? Why do we send any molesters to jail then?

when did I ever say i was ok with anything to do with molestation. I said for best possible outcomes families in most cases could best handle it themselves. When you involve social workers who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground and have an agenda going in you are flirting with disaster worse than the molestation.

View Post
Really? Really? This sounds more like people who have been badly victimized blaming themselves for what happened. Even assuming that a little girl who was asleep/lying there did "want it" (ugh), how does that make the guy any less of a molester--how is he supposed to know the girl wanted it?

These posts are starting to make me feel like I took a left turn off the the Fighting Ignorance one onto some Incest Is Best site.

Just the opposite of what you are saying, the adult is always at fault. What it does say is that a big part of the damage associated with molestation is a result of repressed guilt and shame and blaming themselves. Often they feel guilt about getting someone else in trouble when they feel it is their fault. It is always the adult fault regardless of wether or not a kid was flirting with them.

The young Dugar boy souns like he has some serious issues while in a lot of cases all the parties involved grow up to be responsible well adjust adults with no interference from law enforcement. Trying to be too preemptive and bringin law enforcement or social workers too soon would end up compounding the damage done.

Yeah, I'm not seeing the difference between that and "kids will be kids." And, just because "nobody said it was right" doesn't mean that people are not dismissing this. 'Dismiss,' in this context, meaning that the people chalking this up to "teens doing stupid stuff" are not reacting to this with nearly enough revulsion.

I have no idea what the statistics on things like this happening are but I do know that it is common enough to be considered a challenge of raising kids that we all hope we will never face. Adding guilt and shame to a bad decision driven by hormones does nothing for either of the children involved. It does not have to be a dramatic life changing event. If it does happen a best outcome might be turned into a learning experience and a little blip in the childrens lives.

This reminds me of homophobia, kind of a contest to see who can show the most disgust. Everyone is afraid if they don't show major revulsion they will appear to approve of this behavior. Evidenced by the number of politicians and civic leaders who come out the strongest against it.

I really don't see why it would be a bad thing for someone to feel guilty and ashamed about molesting someone. Why should hormones be a get out of jail/guilt free card?

They should feel guilty if they are normal kids, if they don't feel guilty they may have deeper problems. They also need to learn to forgive themselves and move on. there is a process involved in this that starts with an apology. If an apology is not possible then simply resigning themselves to never repeat behavior like this again is all that should be neccessary to resolve them of guilt and allow them to live a normal life.

Believe it or not, hormones are a powerful drug that can influence behavior. Some kids aren't driven as much as others and some have better self control. But the bottom line is that if they learned their lesson they should feel good about forgiving themselves and moving on.

Adaher #fundie boards.straightdope.com

So, it goes back to minimizing, denial, victim blaming, scapegoating and whitewashing. So, so gross. With much more to be said about the apologists than is getting mention.

That's the problem with your analysis though. There hasn't been any victim blaming. THe Duggars took the accusations seriously rather than resorting to denial, which is unfortunately what most families do in that situation.

It's certainly fair to say the Duggars should have done something else, but until someone can show me a real world example of a family handling it better than the Duggars did, I'm not inclined to judge them harshly. The vast bulk of situations like these are allowed to go on forever with no intervention from the family. At best, the problem is usually ignored, at worst the victim is blamed or called a liar.


I also see a lot of criticism of the Duggars' "fundie cult", but it seems to me that their cultish moral values are what led to them believing the accusers rather than trying to deny or blame the victim. When you believe that we're all sinners, ruled by desires of the flesh, it's easy to believe that your son can do horrible things. Whereas non-religious families often seem to be under the impression that their kids can do no wrong.


And again, it sounds to me like that was done. Most sexual abuse cases I've seen it's ongoing for as long as the victim lives with the perp and the family is forever broken because of it. The Duggars seem like a happy brood, relatively unaffected by what was a very short-lived problem.

Again, show me a family that did a better job. Most families do a lot worse

Adaher #fundie boards.straightdope.com

Then you are special. In practice, the response to sexual abuse is nearly always to try to handle it within the family, or organization, whatever the case may be.

Also, while there is a lot of merit to taking such issues to the legal system, which can use experts to attempt to get at the truth, it's also outsourcing parental duties to the state, which is not really kosher either. When one kid beats another up, how many parents go to the police to get their kids charged with assault? I realize that sex crimes cause even more moral revulsion, but it's still something parents should handle when it's their children, if they can. If they can't, or won't, then the police should get involved. And I'd say the same thing about non-sexual assault too.


Ah, yes. The very parents who enabled the sexual molestation should handle it.
The little fuck committed a crime and got away with it due to his parents covering it up.

They covered it up from the legal system. They did take steps to end the abuse and by all accounts they did end the abuse.

Unless you've hauled your kid into the station for hitting a sibling, you believe in this method too. 99.9% of parents do not involve the legal system when a child assaults another child, whether physically or sexually. This is not a problem, this is what parents are supposed to do. It's a problem when the parents are unable to effectively deal with the situation, which is alas very common. But the Duggars handled it better than most families in their situation. In my experience, most families stigmatize the victim, accuse them of lying, or do ineffective things like try to keep them separated, which is not really possible when you live together. Stuff that rises to the level of what Josh did are a lot more common than you think. The court system would be inundated if we turned in every child who touched another child inappropriately.


If your 15-year-old neighbor admitted to molesting your five-year-old (son or daughter) on multiple occasions, what would your response be? Would it be "boys will be boys LOL!" Because if that's your reaction, you need to go to jail too.

It's funny how suddenly 15-year-old kids are so innocent and child-like. I wish black boys could catch the same break.

Kids get away with things all the time. We'd all have juvenile records if we were sent to the police for every crime we committed.

When kids misbehave, the answer isn't to get the government involved, it's to teach them to behave themselves. The Duggars did that.

llcoolbj77 #fundie boards.straightdope.com

can't believe I am wading in to this, but here goes...

I am a public defender representing mostly juveniles; including several juvenile sex offenders. I have two small children, and most of the prosecutors I work with have small children. We often discuss what we would do if we caught our kids acting out sexually. And it is a fucking quagmire.

Let me say, with some authority, that going the court route can be helpful. With the right combination of prosecutor, judge, attorney, probation officer, therapist, parents, race, socioeconomic background, and resources, there can be some real success with juvenile sex offenders. And the recidivism rates are much lower than with adults. HOWEVER, the stars do not usually align that way. Take any one of those factors out, and things can get bad really quickly.

Let's assume Josh was caught in my jurisdiction. He is 14. He had multiple victims, with multiple incidents, and some as young as 5. He is white, with involved parents, so maybe the prosecutor would not automatically jump to certifying him as an adult. But they might try. He could not go home, so unless the family could afford residential treatment, he would be in juvenile detention. His psychosexual eval (with the facts we know) would put him at a moderate to high risk level to recidivate. If he's lucky, he escapes with no felony convictions. If he's not, he gets juvenile felony convictions and the juvenile registry. He is at risk, however, for being certified as an adult, prison time (in adult prison) and the adult sex offender registry. Life over. Game over. Done. And don't forget what CPS might do with all the other kids in the home that Mom and Dad were not able to protect.

Knowing all this... what would I do? If my sweet kid did something unspeakable to my other sweet kid? I don't know. I would do everything in my power to protect both children.

Rittersport #fundie boards.straightdope.com


If you found out he had attempted to rape a 15 year old girl?

Yes, I am referring to the Kavanaugh case.

But really. Lets say you are a parent of a 17 year old boy. You find out thru sources he did it, you confront him. He becomes angry at first but then breaks down sobbing that he did it and he is now really, really, sorry.

What are your options? I can only think of the following:

1. Turn him into the police which will mean a trial and him possibly serving time plus being required to register as a sex offender.
2. Talking things over with the girls parents and working out some sort of resolution where he agrees to apologize and never speak of this again.
3. Nothing. Besides smacking the boy around and vowing to never letting him out of your sight again and hoping this goes away.
4. Moving.
5. Sending him away to go to say a boarding school or to live with another relative.

I'd probably attempt 2, and if that got nowhere, I'd maybe try to get him out of the country. If I even got a hint that 2 might not work, I'd probably try to get him out of the country. I know it's not the right thing, but it's hard to get past those parental instincts.

I'm really opposed to sex offender registries -- they seem like additional post-sentence punishment. Plus, why single out sex offenders? I'd also like to know if a murderer or burglar moved into my neighborhood. The existence of these registries would help me (wrongly) justify to myself that I'm doing the right thing by getting him out of the situation by any means necessary.

Tripolar #fundie boards.straightdope.com

Scenario 1: The Feds have captured a man involved in an extremist militia group. Through surveillance they have determined he was/is involved in the planning of an upcoming terrorist attack. Specifically, an impending bomb attack in a populated area, like a shopping mall or high street - somewhere that will potentially cause hundreds of casualties. Authorities are sweeping all likely buildings, but with no concrete details it's unlikely to be successful. Under standard interrogation he reveals that the bomb has been planted and the clock is ticking - it will explode in about 12 hours, but refuses to divulge its location. What do you do?

Scenario 2: The CIA have picked up a leading terror suspect. He is suspected of stealing a nuclear device from the Ruskies and according to surveillance the CIA has firm reason to believe that he is currently shipping it to your country - you have 12 hours maximum before the ship reaches any destination in your country, figuring in loading and unloading times. Unfortunately they haven't picked up the name of the ship or its destination, and once again he'd refusing to talk. The authorities are on the lookout for suspicious activity around ports, but without more concrete details there's a good chance that the stolen nuke will slip through and cause potentially millions of casualties. He refuses to say anything. What do you do?

Scenario 3: A ruthless criminal gang have kidnapped your close loved ones - wife/mother/sister/daughter/husband/father/brother/son, delete as applicable. You receive note asking for a ransom of $1 million in 12 hours. The police tell you that in 100% of cases involving this particular gang, even if the ransom is delivered the captees are murdered anyway. Fortunately meticulous forensics performed on the ransom note - DNA and fingerprints - are already on the police radar and they pick up the suspect. They recognise him as one of the head-honchos of the gang who, if he doesn't know where your family are, at least knows where to find someone who does. He's the only lead you have, but isn't saying a word. What do you do?

All 3 scenarios, "I'd personally break out the thumbscrews and harsh methods right away."

These scenarios aren't real and don't happen. But if they did, I wouldn't hesitate. Of course it would be part of a more complex good cop/bad cop setup, but I'd prefer to be the bad cop.

In each of these cases you present some kind of assurance that the suspect has actual information that could be revealed. But only an idiot says "I know where the bomb is and I won't tell you" because he is inviting torture. Now if you have nothing but suspicion, you can't use torture, because that would make you evil. But if I do know someone has information that would save lives and might be revealed by torture, I have no reason to hesitate.

Ranchoth #fundie boards.straightdope.com

Well, I got to figure that with the nuke example, with the stakes that high, I really don't have much to lose. Maybe the torture won't work, but there's a chance that it might, and the bomb can be stopped. If we don't torture him, there's no chance. It's as good as if I set the bomb off myself.

Either way, I've got the blood of at least one person on my hands—I just have the chance to keep the blood of 999,999 others off of them.

Of course, there's also the Realpolitik take on the situation—stopping the bomb might prevent a nuclear retaliation on the terror group and/or any country that was harboring them, which could conceivably be much MORE than a million people. Especially if there was a risk of word getting out that a government agent had the chance to get information out of the terrorist that could have stopped the bomb, but didn't, because he thought it would be immoral—otherwise, the government risks getting voted out (or toppled) in exchange for the kind of leaders who'd vow to never let that massacre happen again. At any cost.

In practical terms, that'd probably set back the cause of human rights and ethical government action back a lot farther and a lot faster than one would-be mass murderer coming to harm, and then quietly "disappearing."


But where do you draw the line? Would you torture an innocent person if it would save a million lives?

Take this for an example...the nuke terrorist has a five year old girl, who he loves dearly. Who you've also managed to take into custody, and is in the next room over.

Fushjoomang #fundie boards.straightdope.com

Dying teen in jail told to ‘suck it up’

MIAMI -- A supervising guard at a juvenile jail told a dying teen to “suck it up” as the boy retched, wept and moaned from stomach pain, evidence given to a grand jury shows.

Some guards tried to get help for 17-year-old Omar Paisley before he died of a burst appendix, the records show, but their supervisors and jail nurses believed he was faking or exaggerating.

“Ain’t nothing wrong with his ass,” one nurse said, according to seven boxes of documents examined by The Miami Herald for a story published Friday.
...
https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20040228/dying-teen-in-jail-told-to-suck-it-up


Maybe I'm the only one who's seeing the oddity here, but a prisoner who was in for a sentence of unstated length for attacking his neighbor suddenly gets 'ill' on the FIRST day he's there? I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for this kid. His family, yea, seeing as any death in any family is a personal tragedy, but here's a thought for all you people calling for the heads of those who allowed this kid to die...

Where was he and why was he there?

He was in a jail for attacking his neighbor. He was in JAIL for ATTACKING HIS NEIGHBOR. Oh, let me repeat that just once more, so there is NO question. HE WAS IN JAIL FOR ATTACKING HIS NEIGHBOR.

*sighs* Ok, now, let's move on.

A ruptured appendix, from what I remember on my first-responders class can lead to death in 12-24 hours if surgery is no performed to clean out the lower bowels. What you have here is a punk kid, a criminal, who's been in a jail for (if the timeline provided within the story is accurate) under 48 hours. Now, tell me, at what point did he suddenly feel 'real bad?' From what I remember from my first-responders class, an inflammed pre-rupture appendix is supposed to rate somewhere between "stabbed in the gut" painful and "stabbed in the gut with a rusty knife" painful. If he was able to simply state that "My stomach (hits buzzer, sorry bub, wrong body part!) hurts real bad" then the staff physician ain't going to look for appendicitis. If he'd said something like "I've got a sharp pain below my stomach" then he might have gotten a bit more attention.

As far as symptoms, puking, shitting, and sweating were all symptoms of MY last bout with influenza, so if this guy is doing it, I doubt that anyone's gonna take a second look.

Finally, for those of you who are calling for the head of the nurse who "didn't want to take that shit home to her kids," lets ask what type of nurse was she? Was she a nurse-practicioner? Was she a registered nurse? Was she an LPN? No, the article doesn't say. She may or may not have been qualified to do something. How well stocked was the clinic in this punk's jail? Again, the article doesn't say. You don't know that she could have done anything even if she was inclined to do so. What it does say is that she (the nurse) did come, did examine him (however briefly,) concluded that (in combination with the doctor's previous assessment that it was a stomach virus) "Ain't nothing wrong with his ass" and then proceeded to file the paperwork to get him transferred to a hospital.

Ladies and gentelmen, the folks in the jail did their job. If that kid wasn't a criminal, then maybe he'd be alive today. Isn't this what the same ones of you in the 'dumbass driver, silly car-wreck' type threads refer to as karma? You know, he fucked up, and it came around and bit him in the ass?


You are blaming the kid of being in prison in the first place for his inhumane death caused by negligent nurses and doctors who didn't do their fucking jobs.

You are blaming a teenager (who probably dropped out of school) for not being able to explain clearly where the pain was to a doctor. Moreover, it's all fucking speculation... you don't even fucking know what exactly happened, what the kid said, how he cried...

Fuck you!


Well, yea. Seems you've figured out what I'm trying to get at. It engaged in a criminal behavior, and was found guilty of said behavior before a court of law, and was placed by said court in a juvinile confinement facility for a (as yet unknown) term. If it had not engaged in it's criminal activities, well, then it wouldn't have been hauled in front of a court, sentenced, and jailed, and thus exposed to the (as it seems to be a concensus in here, with myself being the only dissenting voice) incompentent and lazy docs and nurses.

The teenager put himself in this position. The teenager got what he had coming to him. As far as the "What the kid said, how he cried..." bit, go ahead, pull my heart strings (yes, I do have them. I'm not totally inhuman.) In this case, nothing's gonna happen. I reserve my compassion for folks like our fellow Doper "Lady Kate" who caught the shit end of a stick from her SO. I feel badly for the kid who got outed in the thread that "Matt_MCL" put up earlier this week. But these folks didn't get themselves into the prediciments that they were in. Someone else did something to them. The shit in our article here got himself into this prediciment. Sorry, no sympathy here.

What I really want to know is did this kid pray for forgiveness for what he did to get himself into this situation before he died, or did he die believing that he'd done no wrong? If someone can come up with a cite that shows he'd had some remorse for his crimes and expressed it as his time came, the I'll apologize for my words.