This woman is a predator who took advantage of a child and she should receive the same punishment as a man who'd done the same thing (which, unfortunately, is not a whole lot, but still). I'm not at all familiar with NZ law so I can't comment there.
Sorry, but yeah. Of course I don't believe that the child is making it up, but I also do believe in due process, because even in scenarios in which it seems that there's no chance that an accused is innocent, it's actually possible (remember this? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/girl-lied-about-father-rape_n_1402468.html).
The articles make it seems as if the 11 year old is the father of the child (OK typing that up is just...gross), but the woman claims she didn't touch the boy? How would she do that if paternity tests have been done?
It's a really fucked up situation, and if that woman is guilty hopefully she'll lose access to both her children and she'll be sentenced to the maximum (and hopefully NZ will re-evaluate these laws, because I don't quite understand the logic behind not charging this woman with rape).
Even with context, I still think you might want to take a step back and reevaluate your wording in the future, just for the sake of avoiding misunderstandings. The precedent of casting doubt upon rape cases is way, way too common. People are super sensitive about it, and rightfully so.
I know that, which is why I chose my words to place the burden of proof on that woman, but still I understand why my intentions were misconstrued and frankly would react much the same way had I read such commentary. I'm not defending myself, because I think the criticisms are fair, I just have personal issues with not covering all my bases when commenting.
Sorry, but yeah. Of course I don't believe that the child is making it up, but I also do believe in due process, because even in scenarios in which it seems that there's no chance that an accused is innocent, it's actually possible (remember this? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/girl-lied-about-father-rape_n_1402468.html).
The articles make it seems as if the 11 year old is the father of the child (OK typing that up is just...gross), but the woman claims she didn't touch the boy? How would she do that if paternity tests have been done?
It's a really fucked up situation, and if that woman is guilty hopefully she'll lose access to both her children and she'll be sentenced to the maximum (and hopefully NZ will re-evaluate these laws, because I don't quite understand the logic behind not charging this woman with rape).
Please do not use isolated examples of when people have lied about rape to justify your wording. It's still offensive, because most victims of sexual assault and rape do not lie about their attacks and there's no evidence to believe otherwise. There is no reason to add an "assuming the boy is not making it up" clause - or any clause like that, ever, when discussing a sexual assault. The fact that this has not yet gone to court takes care of the ambiguity.
Without going to everything that's fucked up about this article, the fact that they refer to the the 11 (12?) year-old boy as the father is just blowing my mind right now.
I agree, I guess it just seems exceptionally odd to me because they seem to have a charge that has the same maximum sentence (according to some sources), so I don't understand why they'd differentiate if they know that other sort of attacks can occur?
I just hope she gets the maximum, and all available help is made available for that little boy.
Comments 37
assuming that the boy isn't making this up
Really? Was this necessary?
Reply
The articles make it seems as if the 11 year old is the father of the child (OK typing that up is just...gross), but the woman claims she didn't touch the boy? How would she do that if paternity tests have been done?
It's a really fucked up situation, and if that woman is guilty hopefully she'll lose access to both her children and she'll be sentenced to the maximum (and hopefully NZ will re-evaluate these laws, because I don't quite understand the logic behind not charging this woman with rape).
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
That poor kid. An eleven year old kid. Fuck, this makes me mad.
Also, I'm going to cosign zinnia_rose's last sentence.
Reply
Sorry, but yeah. Of course I don't believe that the child is making it up, but I also do believe in due process, because even in scenarios in which it seems that there's no chance that an accused is innocent, it's actually possible (remember this? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/girl-lied-about-father-rape_n_1402468.html).
The articles make it seems as if the 11 year old is the father of the child (OK typing that up is just...gross), but the woman claims she didn't touch the boy? How would she do that if paternity tests have been done?
It's a really fucked up situation, and if that woman is guilty hopefully she'll lose access to both her children and she'll be sentenced to the maximum (and hopefully NZ will re-evaluate these laws, because I don't quite understand the logic behind not charging this woman with rape).
Reply
Reply
Not only are you just casting doubt on a child here, but you're victim-blaming a rape victim.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I just hope she gets the maximum, and all available help is made available for that little boy.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment