Friday, June 19, 2015

Judge gives opinion about girl consenting to rape

There is a sickening trend towards judges and others giving opinions about whether an underage girl consented to rape. The whole point of statutory rape laws is that a girl cannot consent if she is below the age of consent.

Eugene Volokh reports:
Unsurprisingly, New Hampshire makes it a felony for adults to have sex with under-16-year-olds. And New Hampshire also makes it a more serious felony for adults to have sex with anyone when, among other things,
at the time of the sexual assault, the victim indicates by speech or conduct that there is not freely given consent to performance of the sexual act.
But earlier this month, in State v. Lisasuain, the New Hampshire Supreme Court interpreted this “aggravated sexual assault” provision as potentially covering even conduct where the victim remains totally passive.
*After reviewing the record ... the evidence was sufficient ... that she did not consent to the sexual assaults by the defendant."
The only evidence needed for that conclusion is that she was under 16, the age of consent.

Feminists are always complaining about blaming the victim, so I would think that they would complain about any discussion of consent by an underage girl. Instead they complain about this study:
A program that taught college women ways to prevent sexual assault cut in half the chances they would be raped over the next year, a Canadian study found. It was the first large, scientific test of resistance training, and the strong results should spur more universities to offer it, experts say.

Five percent of freshman women who went through the four-session program said they had been raped during the following year, compared to 10 percent of others who were just given brochures on assault prevention. Attempted rapes also were lower - about 3 percent in the training group versus more than 9 percent of the others.

The results are "startling," said a prominent researcher on sex assault ...
Startling? It used to be that all girl were taught prudent measures for avoid sexual assaults. Now this teaching is resisted by feminists who say that girls have a right to be sexually provocative and to pursue risky behavior.

But many of those same feminists would like to abolish the age of consent laws, and allow girls of any age to be sexually active and get abortions without parental permission.

And they deny that one rape can be any worse than any other rape. To them, stranger rape is the same as spousal rape, and raping a slut is the same as raping a virgin. I don't think that a jury can even be told whether or not the victim was a virgin. Weird.

Following up on a previous story, AP reports:
California’s attorney general is asking a judge to toss out a proposed ballot initiative that advocates killing anyone who engages in gay sex. ...

Even conservative groups in California have repudiated the proposed ballot measure.
It says "even conservative groups"?! Did someone really think that conservative groups might suppoert this? Read the initiative, as it is obviously a joke.

This is like saying: "Even conservative groups have repudiated a white gunman killing black church goers in Charleston.

It has some joke reponses, such as The Intolerant Jackass Act, but the California attorney general is supporting that.

No comments: