• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Eighteen involved in gang rape of 11 year old girl in Texas

How does one person's unsubstantiated claim debunk another's? Just because your sympathies are for the girl doesn't mean her word is sacrosanct. Rape victims lie for any number of reasons, providing they are telling the truth about being a victim in the first place.


18 people rape, 11 year old, and you challenge the victim? seriously, you need to seek help.
 
Without a doubt. I seriously, like 95%, doubt she consented to anything.

But on that same note, when society hears the word "rape" they think violence. Force. Coercion. They don't think an 18yo with his 17 or 16yo gf on prom night. However, in many states, this is indeed statutory rape. Overuse of the word "rape" has numbed its original meaning.

And while I believe an 11yo girl can consent to sex with a same-age boyfriend, I don't believe that either of them know what the hell they're doing or getting into. But, at least in that case, neither of them is "taking advantage" of the other.

When an adult is involved with a child, the adult always looks down on the child. And the child naturally looks up to the adult. While a few preteen girls might want sex with an adult, it's up to the adult to say "No, I'm a grown up and you're a child. I know you think you want this and you probably do, but as the grown up it's my job to say, "no." It's when the adult thinks with the wrong head (or if a female, her girly parts) is when problems arise. Because the law says its rape, but society's views on rape don't involve two willing participants, regardless of age. It is confusing to an adult not thinking 100% straight and meaningless to a child, as even in their own eyes, they aren't being raped because they are consenting.

It's a conflict that will go on indefinitely until either everyone is in jail or the laws get changed. My grandmother got married at 13 to my grandfather who was 19. He was the stand up man of his community and even has a major street named after him. According to today's laws, he is a child sexual predator. That's almost so ridiculous it's funny. :lamo

That was at least 100 years ago and it's likely you don't know the whole story. Second, 100years ago is a damn site greater distance than the space between 11 and 13, Meaning even 100 years ago.... gang banging an 11 year old would still be sick, whether she consented, or not.
 
Last edited:
That was at least 100 years ago and it's likely you don't know the whole story. Second, 100years ago is a damn site greater distance than the space between 11 and 13, Meaning even 100 years ago.... gang banging an 11 year old would still be sick, whether she consented, or not.

What does it matter WHEN it was? If its raping a child now, it was raping a child then. You're saying that the law alone defines rape, not the act? And yes, I know the whole story of my own grandparents, as I talked to my grandmother about it when I was a child!! LOL
 
What does it matter WHEN it was? If its raping a child now, it was raping a child then. You're saying that the law alone defines rape, not the act? And yes, I know the whole story of my own grandparents, as I talked to my grandmother about it when I was a child!! LOL

What it means is societies standards have changed. We have come to realize that at that age, having the equipment doesn't mean you know how to use it. She was 11, there is no way that any of what happened to her is justified by any stretch of the imagination.
 
When, exactly, has it been culturally acceptable to gang rape an 11 year old in the US?

Anywhere else?
 
Are you implying that an eleven year old girl wanted to have sex with 18 men and then turned around and cried "rape"?

First of all, I do not believe they know all 18 people arrested did have sex with her. Secondly some of them were as young as 14 so it is not as simple as some portray it. Finally, I was only saying that she may not be fully telling the truth. I do find it doubtful that she would consent to sex with multiple people while being watched and recorded by several more people.

ELEVEN YEARS OLD.

Simply under statutory rape laws, she was raped.

I prefer to look at the question from a perspective rooted in reality rather than laws rooted in blind emotion. That a bunch of 50 year-old people think anyone under 17 is too stupid or naive to engage in responsible sexual behavior is not relevant to reality. Of course, if a person is coerced into sex that is rape no matter the age.

When an adult is involved with a child, the adult always looks down on the child. And the child naturally looks up to the adult. While a few preteen girls might want sex with an adult, it's up to the adult to say "No, I'm a grown up and you're a child. I know you think you want this and you probably do, but as the grown up it's my job to say, "no." It's when the adult thinks with the wrong head (or if a female, her girly parts) is when problems arise. Because the law says its rape, but society's views on rape don't involve two willing participants, regardless of age. It is confusing to an adult not thinking 100% straight and meaningless to a child, as even in their own eyes, they aren't being raped because they are consenting.

It's a conflict that will go on indefinitely until either everyone is in jail or the laws get changed. My grandmother got married at 13 to my grandfather who was 19. He was the stand up man of his community and even has a major street named after him. According to today's laws, he is a child sexual predator. That's almost so ridiculous it's funny. :lamo

The thing is that one could say it about any difference in age. Someone who is 50 might look down on someone who is 20 and someone who is 20 look up to someone who is 50. A 50 year-old may be more capable of manipulating someone who is 20. Of course, the real difference is in the mindsets of people. An astute and capable 20 year-old is capable of manipulating people many years their senior. The same would be true of even younger individuals. Yet talking about that has far less acceptance. We have separate legal systems for youth because of that very perception that someone who is under a certain age simply cannot do what someone over that age can.

18 people rape, 11 year old, and you challenge the victim? seriously, you need to seek help.

There are plenty of people who challenge the 18 people more severely so one more will be of no use. I am at least not reaching definite conclusions, since publicly available evidence is sparse, unlike you assuming all 18 people are rapists just because you saw it on the news.
 
First of all, I do not believe they know all 18 people arrested did have sex with her. Secondly some of them were as young as 14 so it is not as simple as some portray it. Finally, I was only saying that she may not be fully telling the truth. I do find it doubtful that she would consent to sex with multiple people while being watched and recorded by several more people.



I prefer to look at the question from a perspective rooted in reality rather than laws rooted in blind emotion. That a bunch of 50 year-old people think anyone under 17 is too stupid or naive to engage in responsible sexual behavior is not relevant to reality. Of course, if a person is coerced into sex that is rape no matter the age.



The thing is that one could say it about any difference in age. Someone who is 50 might look down on someone who is 20 and someone who is 20 look up to someone who is 50. A 50 year-old may be more capable of manipulating someone who is 20. Of course, the real difference is in the mindsets of people. An astute and capable 20 year-old is capable of manipulating people many years their senior. The same would be true of even younger individuals. Yet talking about that has far less acceptance. We have separate legal systems for youth because of that very perception that someone who is under a certain age simply cannot do what someone over that age can.



There are plenty of people who challenge the 18 people more severely so one more will be of no use. I am at least not reaching definite conclusions, since publicly available evidence is sparse, unlike you assuming all 18 people are rapists just because you saw it on the news.

Trying to completely remove emotion from the laws governing an emotional people is folly.
 
Trying to completely remove emotion from the laws governing an emotional people is folly.

It is not about completely removing emotion, but not allowing emotion to control the law.
 
It is not about completely removing emotion, but not allowing emotion to control the law.

It's not about controlling law....emotion can not be removed from law or it will be crueler than any crime.
 
First of all, I do not believe they know all 18 people arrested did have sex with her. Secondly some of them were as young as 14 so it is not as simple as some portray it. Finally, I was only saying that she may not be fully telling the truth. I do find it doubtful that she would consent to sex with multiple people while being watched and recorded by several more people.

Well, ten having sex with her while the other eight watch is not much better... of course she could have started out agreeing to sex with one guy and then the rest rushed up, or whatever, and then she lied about agreeing to sex in the first place, but that matter is irrelevant once the gang pile starts up anyway.
 
It's not about controlling law....emotion can not be removed from law or it will be crueler than any crime.

I am not sure I agree with that, but I do think that emotion cannot be removed from law since humans create laws and humans are emotional creatures. The two are intertwined, and no matter how logical we want to be, some core of us is emotional. When we hear that 82 year-old granny was robbed and raped and killed by some thugs, we apply our logical side to create a consequence for the thugs, but we are also disgusted by the behaviour, we are angered by their actions, etc. We can apply the law as neutrally as we can, but there is still emotion. Seeing, thinking, smelling, touching... all create emotional responses. We see the bad guys and an emotional response ensues. We hear them defend themselves, or their lawyers, and an emotional response ensues. We think about what has transpired and apply the law and an emotional response ensues...
 
I am not sure I agree with that, but I do think that emotion cannot be removed from law since humans create laws and humans are emotional creatures. The two are intertwined, and no matter how logical we want to be, some core of us is emotional. When we hear that 82 year-old granny was robbed and raped and killed by some thugs, we apply our logical side to create a consequence for the thugs, but we are also disgusted by the behaviour, we are angered by their actions, etc. We can apply the law as neutrally as we can, but there is still emotion. Seeing, thinking, smelling, touching... all create emotional responses. We see the bad guys and an emotional response ensues. We hear them defend themselves, or their lawyers, and an emotional response ensues. We think about what has transpired and apply the law and an emotional response ensues...

All I'm saying is that our laws do not exist in a vacuum, They can not serve humanity (which is what they are for) if they ignore what it is that makes humans human.
 
It's not about controlling law....emotion can not be removed from law or it will be crueler than any crime.

If emotion controls law then it will also be crueler. Certainly emotions like compassion for people who have been hurt and people who might be hurt is important, but things like anger and hatred only corrupt the process.
 
If emotion controls law then it will also be crueler. Certainly emotions like compassion for people who have been hurt and people who might be hurt is important, but things like anger and hatred only corrupt the process.

For example, life in prison (safety) vs the death penalty (revenge).
 
If emotion controls law then it will also be crueler. Certainly emotions like compassion for people who have been hurt and people who might be hurt is important, but things like anger and hatred only corrupt the process.

That's not what I said. Emotion can not be removed from law.
 
That's not what I said. Emotion can not be removed from law.

It MUST be removed from law if by "law" you mean sentencing, and pretty much, it is.

With people talking about cutting off people's dicks (what do you do about a woman child molester?) and killing people who touch kids, that's pure emotion speaking, rational thought has left the building. We don't mutilate people for crimes. If the rightwingnutjobs want that so much, then they would be VERY happy in Iran. While people have every right to get emotional over such a thing, that emotion has no place in the courtroom. The law is about punishment for a crime. That punishment does not go up or down with whether people are emotional about it or not. Since emotion can't affect prison sentencing, people have invented a new method of punishing people like that, the sex offender registry. Since there hasn't been a single study that concluded the registry has protected anybody from anything but have been numerous studies citing its extreme cost, lack of accuracy, broad reach, harming the children of sex offenders whos friends ridicule and tease them because their loved one was discovered on the registry, etc etc as inhibiting its original intent to the point where it's almost useless, it can be said that doing away with the registry or keeping it out of the public's eyes can and should be considered. However, people will be punished with retroactive increases in length of registration without due process, which of course is illegal and unconstitutional and is being found so in cases across the country.

Most people don't give a rats ass about someone growing pot and smoking it themselves, yet get caught doing that, and you go away for a very long time. There is almost neutral emotion to that crime, yet the sentence is off the charts. I know child molesters who did 3 months in jail and 5 years probation, and child porn downloaders who, for a first offense, did 10 YEARS in a federal prison with lifetime probation. There is something wrong with that picture. While I don't like to quantify "badness" of crimes, at some point, a rational person would say that someone who actually touched a child should do far longer than someone who did nothing but click a computer mouse. At least that's how I feel about it. And I don't mean production or distribution, I mean simple possession.
 
Last edited:
It MUST be removed from law if by "law" you mean sentencing, and pretty much, it is.

With people talking about cutting off people's dicks (what do you do about a woman child molester?) and killing people who touch kids, that's pure emotion speaking, rational thought has left the building. We don't mutilate people for crimes. If the rightwingnutjobs want that so much, then they would be VERY happy in Iran. While people have every right to get emotional over such a thing, that emotion has no place in the courtroom. The law is about punishment for a crime. That punishment does not go up or down with whether people are emotional about it or not. Since emotion can't affect prison sentencing, people have invented a new method of punishing people like that, the sex offender registry. Since there hasn't been a single study that concluded the registry has protected anybody from anything but have been numerous studies citing its extreme cost, lack of accuracy, broad reach, harming the children of sex offenders whos friends ridicule and tease them because their loved one was discovered on the registry, etc etc as inhibiting its original intent to the point where it's almost useless, it can be said that doing away with the registry or keeping it out of the public's eyes can and should be considered. However, people will be punished with retroactive increases in length of registration without due process, which of course is illegal and unconstitutional and is being found so in cases across the country.
Oh, good grief, you don't even want them to have to register?
 
For example, life in prison (safety) vs the death penalty (revenge).

The death penalty is about revenge as much as life in prison is. They are both equal in there logic or emotional stance.
 
ith people talking about cutting off people's dicks (what do you do about a woman child molester?) and killing people who touch kids, that's pure emotion speaking, rational thought has left the building.

Absolutely incorrect. When arguing that a molester should be put to death, I am being completely logic and making an ethical argument, not an emotive one.
 
The death penalty is about revenge as much as life in prison is. They are both equal in there logic or emotional stance.

Korimyr put forth one of the most interesting arguments I've ever seen for the death penalty, and it was based on compassion for the criminal.
 
Absolutely incorrect. When arguing that a molester should be put to death, I am being completely logic and making an ethical argument, not an emotive one.

Actually, it could be either depending on the content of the argument.
 
It MUST be removed from law if by "law" you mean sentencing, and pretty much, it is.

I mean from law.

With people talking about cutting off people's dicks (what do you do about a woman child molester?) and killing people who touch kids, that's pure emotion speaking, rational thought has left the building. We don't mutilate people for crimes. If the rightwingnutjobs want that so much, then they would be VERY happy in Iran. While people have every right to get emotional over such a thing, that emotion has no place in the courtroom. The law is about punishment for a crime. That punishment does not go up or down with whether people are emotional about it or not. Since emotion can't affect prison sentencing, people have invented a new method of punishing people like that, the sex offender registry. Since there hasn't been a single study that concluded the registry has protected anybody from anything but have been numerous studies citing its extreme cost, lack of accuracy, broad reach, harming the children of sex offenders whos friends ridicule and tease them because their loved one was discovered on the registry, etc etc as inhibiting its original intent to the point where it's almost useless, it can be said that doing away with the registry or keeping it out of the public's eyes can and should be considered. However, people will be punished with retroactive increases in length of registration without due process, which of course is illegal and unconstitutional and is being found so in cases across the country.

Leave partisanship out of it. It's about being outraged that such a thing happened to a little girl, could happen to a little girl. People here making excuses for the rapists is antagonizing this outrage.

Most people don't give a rats ass about someone growing pot and smoking it themselves, yet get caught doing that, and you go away for a very long time. There is almost neutral emotion to that crime, yet the sentence is off the charts. I know child molesters who did 3 months in jail and 5 years probation, and child porn downloaders who, for a first offense, did 10 YEARS in a federal prison with lifetime probation. There is something wrong with that picture. While I don't like to quantify "badness" of crimes, at some point, a rational person would say that someone who actually touched a child should do far longer than someone who did nothing but click a computer mouse. At least that's how I feel about it. And I don't mean production or distribution, I mean simple possession.

You're right, child molesters should get life in prison.
 
absolutely agreed, just in my case it is the former instead of the latter...

What would be your content/logic based argument for child molesters being put to death?
 
Oh, good grief, you don't even want them to have to register?

I think at the very least keeping it out of public availability is a good thing. How can one expect these people to become functioning citizens if they must automatically makes themselves pariahs wherever they go? What I think is people who consider keeping it out of the public eye a seriously bad thing really just want to be able to harass these people and drive them out of the area or at least lock them out of the community.
 
Back
Top Bottom