Rape by 8 and 9 year olds?!!

**aja5191** · November 21, 2007, 06:05 PM

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/law/1...ape/index.html

IS this even possible?

I don't think that these kids even know what sex is, much less rape, and I sincerely doubt they have hit puberty yet.

Thoughts?

**~~removeduser_487563287433~~** · November 21, 2007, 06:07 PM

Politics goes in politics forum.

**LoZz** · November 21, 2007, 06:16 PM

this topic is already in the thema devia.

**sephodwyrm** · November 21, 2007, 06:19 PM

Uh oh...I can see Mansa Musa lambasting the Christian Country of the Amerikkkaners for this crime....

**~~Scar Face~~** · November 21, 2007, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by aja5191

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/law/1...ape/index.html

IS this even possible?

I don't think that these kids even know what sex is, much less rape, and I sincerely doubt they have hit puberty yet.

Thoughts?

Just because you have yet to hit puberty does not mean you are incapable of gaining an erection, and so every ability to rape has already been given. Though, the article states the boys claim they never actually raped her, and that it was consensual. What I find disturbing about this article is not the rape itself, but that the charges must continue even if it has been proven they did not in fact force her into sex. To quote the article:

But Wilkie said children that young cannot legally consent to sex, "so we have to go with the charges we have."

Isn't this a little backwards? Both the Girls and the Boys were very young, no charges should be filed. The Girl can not consent to sex-nor can the Boys, are we going to file charges on both parties? Just seems to be a terribly backward law. I know that in Canada, it is legal to have sex with someone who's age difference is only a few years. I don't know if it extends all the way down to eight though.

**LoZz** · November 21, 2007, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by Scar Face

Just because you have yet to hit puberty does not mean you are incapable of gaining an erection, and so every ability to rape has already been given. Though, the article states the boys claim they never actually raped her, and that it was consensual. What I find disturbing about this article is not the rape itself, but that the charges must continue even if it has been proven they did not in fact force her into sex. To quote the article: Isn't this a little backwards? Both the Girls and the Boys were very young, no charges should be filed. The Girl can not consent to sex-nor can the Boys, are we going to file charges on both parties? Just seems to be a terribly backward law. I know that in Canada, it is legal to have sex with someone who's age difference is only a few years. I don't know if it extends all the way down to eight though.

i think the question is (and without sounding like a perv or anything) can a boy of that age get an erection as easly or as "on command" as a man can, all a man has to do is think of a certain thing, a boy of 8 who isnt sexually active doesnt have these thoughts and wouldnt have the ability to turn himself on as a grown man can. when i was 8, i dont remember getting any but if i did they sure as hell where random.

the law itself is backward because firstly is the age of criminal responsibility that low in this state?!. they are going to persue this case now till the better end like they do with all rape cases, but as with most rape cases like this there is no evidence, its her word vs their word. and how can children this young indeed know what to say to such an adult thing how will they be able to convince a court full of adults they did or didnt do it.

like has been said, this is a case of "you show me yours, i will show you mine" and the girl was caught by her parents and in a panic to not get told off she said she had been raped by them. i am suprised no adult with a level head has thought of this already as its impossible in my mind for 8/9 year olds to be able to do this, they are just not devloped enough to even know what to do.

hopefully a decent judge will dismiss this case within 5 mins, and if nessicery a test can be done on the girl to see if she is talking **** or not.

Originally Posted by Earl of Rochester

I don't understand. If they consented then why isn't the girl also being charged with rape?

Seems rather hypocritical to me.

legally speaking a girl cant be charged with rape because she is unable to do it (rape requires penetration)

she could be charged with underage sex, which is what usually happens in child sex cases where the kid agreed to it. however she is claiming to of been raped remember, so she didnt want to have sex with them, so you cant charge her, not unless she is proven to have lied.

but guys this topic is already in the thema devia

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=132718

**Earl of Rochester** · November 21, 2007, 07:38 PM

But their argument is that even if it was consensual, then the boys still have to be charged with rape.

These kids are 8. I remember when getting erections at eight it was rare and completely random. I imagine its the same with pretty much all boys.

This girl is 11 and at the age where girls start getting sexual impulses. I think its by far more likely that she tricked them into having sex with her.

Of course this will not seriously be looked at. It always is the boys fault

**LoZz** · November 21, 2007, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by Earl of Rochester

But their argument is that even if it was consensual, then the boys still have to be charged with rape.

These kids are 8. I remember when getting erections at eight it was rare and completely random. I imagine its the same with pretty much all boys.

This girl is 11 and at the age where girls start getting sexual impulses. I think its by far more likely that she tricked them into having sex with her.

Of course this will not seriously be looked at. It always is the boys fault

again a female can not legally rape as it requires penetration. and at this time she is the victim. after this case, depending on the outcome she could be charged with perverting the course of justice. and while children have sex is ilegal if both parties are minors and both concent then nether one can be charged, that is what happens now in the eyes of the law when kids have sex, they are not even arrested because charges can not be bought

i must admit this states law system is a little messed up, the fact an 8 or 9 year old can be charged with a juvenile type of rape. but when a society demands harsh sentenceing for rapists and the like, this is what you get.

i wouldnt say its bias against boys, the problem is in these cases steps have to be taken incase it turns out true, again this only seems like bias or unfair treatment because their is doubt over the boys being guilt. if cctv evidence showed they did it we wouldnt be complaining about the charges or treatment. rape is a serious crime and us such is treated seriously, the only downside is that the innocent have to go threw so much already before being proven right.

to me this sounds like a scared silly little girl who wanted to have sex and tricked some little lads into doing it, then she was caught and in her panic cried rape, and because society is so up in arms about rape and how its the worst most serious crime ever (which to a degree is true) stupidly tuff laws are put in place, like every charge must go to court, and every acused person is arrested on the weakest of evidence (i.e victim reporting it). but these are the laws people demained, sadly though this state hasnt had the brains to not apply it to children.

Clad in blue jumpsuits, the two 9-year-olds and one 8-year-old appeared in court in Cobb County, north of Atlanta, on Monday afternoon and were ordered to remain in custody until a further....

that did sadden me a bit, their lives, even if found innocent are pritty much ****ed up now they are on the inside, why on earth these boys cant stay at home with their parents under some form of house arrest i dont know, we do that in the uk (though i have never know a case like this in the uk) but again when you demand tuff treatment of rapists, this is what you get

**Earl of Rochester** · November 21, 2007, 07:26 PM

I don't understand. If they consented then why isn't the girl also being charged with rape?

Seems rather hypocritical to me.

**MaximiIian** · November 22, 2007, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by Earl of Rochester

I don't understand. If they consented then why isn't the girl also being charged with rape?
Seems rather hypocritical to me.

If both parties consented, then by definition, it is not rape. Thus, neither party should be charged with rape.

However, the investigation seems to be ongoing, so the decision that al parties consented is far from definitive. Therefore, allegations of rape should remain pending.

EDIT: Oh, it's in ****ing Georgia. No wonder...

**Earl of Rochester** · November 23, 2007, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by MaximiIian

If both parties consented, then by definition, it is not rape. Thus, neither party should be charged with rape.

However, the investigation seems to be ongoing, so the decision that al parties consented is far from definitive. Therefore, allegations of rape should remain pending.

EDIT: Oh, it's in ****ing Georgia. No wonder...

I understand.

But they are saying even if they consented, then the boys will still be charged because they have nothing else to charge them with.

**MaximiIian** · November 23, 2007, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by Earl of Rochester

I understand.

But they are saying even if they consented, then the boys will still be charged because they have nothing else to charge them with.

If all of the parties involved consented, they shouldn't be charged with anything at all!

**Earl of Rochester** · November 23, 2007, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by MaximiIian

If all of the parties involved consented, they shouldn't be charged with anything at all!

obviously, I agree.

But the problem is these kids are below the age of consent. They are not allowed to consent to sex. So instead of charging them for something like illegal sex they are just charging the boys with rape. Which I find hypocritical. Hence my post...

There should be a thread for age that everyone lost their virginity lol..

**God-Emperor of Mankind** · November 21, 2007, 09:21 PM

What a strange case.
If they did hit the girl with a rock before the "deed" then I can see why they would say rape but they are 8 and 9.
They need to learn their lesson sure enough but going to trial ??
Seems pointless.
Meh weird case.