Is An Adult Having Sex With A Ten Year Old Guilty Of Child Rape?

[nikolai_42]

Yes. I showed exceptions in both cases Neither convict wanted to shoot anybody.

Where I live a person has to deliberately intentionally intend to kill a person. Even if a person recklessly killls a person it won't be 1st degree murder.

Try going into a bank, demanding money and brandishing a weapon. If anyone is killed by a gun in your hand (whether intentional or not) you are going on trial for capital murder. Intent is shown in the threat. Not in a possibly transient thought going through your mind at the time. Otherwise, why not just say you accidentally pulled the trigger out of nervousness and were trying to think of a quick and quiet way out? The action determines the intent far more than the thought.

 

[eider]

Try going into a bank, demanding money and brandishing a weapon. If anyone is killed by a gun in your hand (whether intentional or not) you are going on trial for capital murder. Intent is shown in the threat. Not in a possibly transient thought going through your mind at the time. Otherwise, why not just say you accidentally pulled the trigger out of nervousness and were trying to think of a quick and quiet way out? The action determines the intent far more than the thought.

You have not focused upon the two case histories being discussed.

What about the driver outside the bank, or the unarmed bag filler in the gang?
​​​​​​

 

[nikolai_42]

You have not focused upon the two case histories being discussed.

What about the driver outside the bank, or the unarmed bag filler in the gang?
​​​​​​

I was just responding to the specific example you gave here :

Is the above correct, where you are?
A convict was executed in Texas last week. He was 45 yrs old, when he had been 18 yrs old he had taken a relative's handgun and threatened an elderly man with it while trying to steal that man's vehicle. The man grabbed the gun, there was a struggle and the gun fired, shooting the victim between the eyes.

The convict said, all along, that he had never intended to shoot the gun.

In that case (based on the facts as you presented them), the 18yo man possessed a handgun and threatened an elderly man with it. That right there - as I understand it - is all that's needed to establish intent. In other words, if the gun goes off in whatever ensues (and the one threatening has possession of the gun) then the responsibility rests on him. Not knowing a whole lot more about it, I would also add that the victim being shot between the eyes means the 18yo man kept trying to push the gun on the older man. Either that or he shot immediately. Either way it would tend to support the offender's intent. It is a parallel to the robbery scenario I described. Going in with a gun and using it to directly threaten others establishes intent. His saying that he never intended to shoot anyone with the gun doesn't seem to me to be much of a factor in establishing intent. The evidence all points to the contention that he did intend to use it.

The driver and the bag filler cannot be directly guilty of murder - but would carry some culpability given they knew the situation.

For the record, I'm not for holding a 5 year old fully responsible for murder. In days gone by, the parents would carry some of that responsibility (if not most of it - being age and crime dependent).

 

[Lon]

You're overcomplicating things here. Substitute 13 for 10 years old if that helps and the comparison is here for a reason. The notion of executing children is abhorrent full stop, at least it is to any normal person and non extremist wingnuts or sociopaths and trolls. The reason I bring the comparison is twofold. Those who often advocate for the more extreme in terms of society (making homosexuality a capital crime for example) often argue that societal acceptance of such would open the floodgates to paedophilia being accepted in turn. That age of consent laws would be lowered etc. The law (and again, normal people) recognize that an adult having sex with a thirteen year old is guilty of child rape because the child is too young to give informed consent. If anyone promotes that five year old children are fully cognizant of their actions and can be "executed" for murder then they have to also say that a thirteen year old is fully aware of what they're doing if they have sex.

It's execrable all ways up as in both cases they're children and this needs to be taken into account as the law does.

I still believe the comparison is lost in the details, even here the story is about rape and not about the real issue thus capital punishment isn't going to be the focal point.

There was a ten year old that choked out an 8 year old girl, killing her. He didn't receive the death penalty, but he was a mean, disturbed little kid and he was placed in juvenile detention and immediately to go to prison for the rest of his life.

The greater discussion, and you touch lightly upon it, is childhood development and what the child is capable of understanding and doing at specific stages but as I said, your title and material take this discussion far away from the intended (even your response is mostly removed from pertinent discussion, as evidence of my assessment AND I'm A GLOBAL THINKER! ).

 

[Lon]

Yes. I showed exceptions in both cases Neither convict wanted to shoot anybody.

I agree with Doser on this, they both had loaded guns, thus intent and forethought.

Where I live a person has to deliberately intentionally intend to kill a person. Even if a person recklessly killls a person it won't be 1st degree murder.

Where I live, a person who doesn't want to shoot anybody doesn't walk around with a loaded gun committing criminal actions against others.



Maybe you guys do it differently over there.

It does explain disparity, but I think it is an odd distinction (as well as the other two Americans in thread). That said, I wonder if a 10 year old is cognitively able to be that deliberate, thus would think our laws should reflect that, but these are done state-by-state.

Wearing the shoes of any particular state that does support the death penalty, I realize that 'any' murder is discouraged by the death penalty. There are studies as to whether these laws work this way, but the biblical idea is to 'purge the sin from among you.' There were cities of refuge for accidental deaths which might account for the loaded gun discussion. Certainly people cleaning their guns have no intent, with the loaded gun-thought-empty of harming themselves or others at the moment of cleaning.

There are complications when children are involved and I grasp society in support and against the death penalty. The disagreement, I don't believe, is ever about the value of a child, but rather about the greater importance of following law as a society. Is it demonstrable that Texas, for instance, with the death penalty have fewer murders than those of states where incarceration is the punishment? Moreover, does it set a precedent of fear for committing murder? There used to be laws on the books that a spouse could get away with killing their cheating spouse, justified.

For me, there is no way I can influence laws in Texas (very little anyway). What is beneficial, however, are the sociological case studies behind the alternate consequences.

While I appreciate passionate "what about the children!?" the more important is if/what message and influence either decision has upon society from a careful study. It isn't that I don't care about those children, but that studies with clear facts and indication are the only way any of us can do anything about it. Texas doesn't give a whit about "Lon" (Lon who?) but they will sit up and take notice of facts regarding the matter.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I still believe the comparison is lost in the details, even here the story is about rape and not about the real issue thus capital punishment isn't going to be the focal point.

There was a ten year old that choked out an 8 year old girl, killing her. He didn't receive the death penalty, but he was a mean, disturbed little kid and he was placed in juvenile detention and immediately to go to prison for the rest of his life.

The greater discussion, and you touch lightly upon it, is childhood development and what the child is capable of understanding and doing at specific stages but as I said, your title and material take this discussion far away from the intended (even your response is mostly removed from pertinent discussion, as evidence of my assessment AND I'm A GLOBAL THINKER! ).

Um, Lon, this thread is not about child development itself and was never intended to be. Yes, it's child rape no matter what, no argument there. Even if the child were to say they were a willing participant it's still child rape as they're not legally old enough to give informed consent which is at it should be.

Now, if someone advocates that a child as young as five should be tried and executed for murder in just the same way as an adult then they must surely by association believe that a ten year old is fully aware of their actions if they agree to sex. It's a complete double standard if they were to try and argue otherwise. In both instances they are children and in the latter a victim and the law rightfully recognizes that children can't be judged as adults and need protecting from those who would seek to prey on them too.

I'm really not sure what is tripping you up on this.

 

[Lon]

Um, Lon, this thread is not about child development....

Remember that in a second...

...itself and was never intended to be. Yes, it's child rape no matter what, no argument there. Even if the child were to say they were a willing participant it's still child rape as they're not legally old enough to give informed consent which is at it should be.

...see, this is child development. Or are you placing a greater value on human life at 5 than 22? If a child, 5 years old, hated his brother, got dad's gun out and shot his brother, meant to do it, was he capable of a fully conscious meditated murder? I'd say yes. He knew the basics: gun, bang, brother out of the picture forever....

Was he developmentally able to know what 'forever' was? :nono: What death means? :nono:

I don't believe there is an inherent value between a 5 year old, over and above a 22 year old (perhaps potentially, but that is a child development ('potentiality') discussion).

If you are stating that children inherently have more value, I can walk that mile with you, but need it demonstrated (else, again, a development discussion as to 'why' we do not execute 5 year olds).

Now, if someone advocates that a child as young as five should be tried and executed for murder in just the same way as an adult then they must surely by association believe that a ten year old is fully aware of their actions if they agree to sex.

Problem: In the murder scenario, just one. The trigger puller, no matter if the other is a willing participant (not part of this conversation and rare/bizarre). In the rape, two, because it advocates on paper that the child was 'willing.' The perp is an adult, and the child is the victim, so really, I have to assess again, there are way way too many differences for this to be comparable AND whatever the point, it is lost, gone, and perhaps meaningless behind all the mismatched data.

It's a complete double standard if they were to try and argue otherwise.

If the two synched well by comparison but there are all kinds of problems with the two.

In both instances they are children and in the latter a victim and the law rightfully recognizes that children can't be judged as adults and need protecting from those who would seek to prey on them too.

:think: This is back to developmental stages again, unless there is an inherent value in children verses 22 year olds...

I'm really not sure what is tripping you up on this.

The thread didn't start out clear and the metaphors are spiraling away from clarity. That's the part that 'trips me up on this.'

 

[eider]

I was just responding to the specific example you gave here :



In that case (based on the facts as you presented them), the 18yo man possessed a handgun and threatened an elderly man with it. That right there - as I understand it - is all that's needed to establish intent. In other words, if the gun goes off in whatever ensues (and the one threatening has possession of the gun) then the responsibility rests on him. Not knowing a whole lot more about it, I would also add that the victim being shot between the eyes means the 18yo man kept trying to push the gun on the older man. Either that or he shot immediately. Either way it would tend to support the offender's intent. It is a parallel to the robbery scenario I described. Going in with a gun and using it to directly threaten others establishes intent. His saying that he never intended to shoot anyone with the gun doesn't seem to me to be much of a factor in establishing intent. The evidence all points to the contention that he did intend to use it.

Well.......... you turned a scuffle between victim and killer (outside) in to a walk-in bank robber brandishing a gun...... I still think that a bank robber who can show a court that he did not mean to shoot the gun, if the defendant can show that, that a secondary or tertiary degree of murder might prevail, that's all. Where I live we wouldn't execute the convict.

The driver and the bag filler cannot be directly guilty of murder - but would carry some culpability given they knew the situation.

For the record, I'm not for holding a 5 year old fully responsible for murder. In days gone by, the parents would carry some of that responsibility (if not most of it - being age and crime dependent).

Agreed...... yes.

 

[ok doser]

In the rape, two, because it advocates on paper that the child was 'willing.' The perp is an adult ...

What if the adult is mentally handicapped with a developmental age less than that of the child?

 

[ok doser]

What if the child is the initiator?

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...stitution-ring

 

[Arthur Brain]

Remember that in a second...

...see, this is child development. Or are you placing a greater value on human life at 5 than 22? If a child, 5 years old, hated his brother, got dad's gun out and shot his brother, meant to do it, was he capable of a fully conscious meditated murder? I'd say yes. He knew the basics: gun, bang, brother out of the picture forever....

Was he developmentally able to know what 'forever' was? :nono: What death means? :nono:

I don't believe there is an inherent value between a 5 year old, over and above a 22 year old (perhaps potentially, but that is a child development ('potentiality') discussion).

If you are stating that children inherently have more value, I can walk that mile with you, but need it demonstrated (else, again, a development discussion as to 'why' we do not execute 5 year olds).

No, I'm not arguing that life has inherently more value dependent on age and you are going off on tangents here that are both needless and also irrelevant. Why are you so determined to complicate this and make this into something it isn't? A five year old child lacks the developed understanding of an adult although apparently you think otherwise? You honestly think that a five year old kid knows full well that pulling that trigger means that his "hated" sibling is going to be "out of the picture forever" as you so charmingly put it and did so with complete, premeditated malice aforethought?

Problem: In the murder scenario, just one. The trigger puller, no matter if the other is a willing participant (not part of this conversation and rare/bizarre). In the rape, two, because it advocates on paper that the child was 'willing.' The perp is an adult, and the child is the victim, so really, I have to assess again, there are way way too many differences for this to be comparable AND whatever the point, it is lost, gone, and perhaps meaningless behind all the mismatched data.

Of course it's rape in the second because a child can't give informed consent, that's entirely the point! The whole reason I started this thread was in reaction to at least one person on here who believes that children as young as five should be tried and executed for murder, something they can't possibly understand in relation to an adult. Likewise, a ten year old can't be deemed guilty of any impropriety where it comes to sex because they're too young to understand it in turn, hence why the adult who has sex with a child is always the perpetrator and the child the victim.

Anyone, however, who thinks that a five year old kid is deserving of being put to death for murder doesn't get to say that because they've set the benchmark for culpability at so young an age that they can hardly cry "foul" if a ten year old child says it knew fully well what he/she was doing where it came to sex. What, it's okay to judge a five year old child for killing but not an older one for having sex? It's execrable all ends up as is often the way with religious extremism but the double standard would remain for anyone who would support the former. It's especially ironic because some on the way out far right think that society is on the verge of accepting paedophilia as the "norm" when it most assuredly isn't.

There is no "mismatched data" going on here. Five year old children should not be executed for anything and children are always the victims where it comes to an adult abusing them for sex.

If the two synched well by comparison but there are all kinds of problems with the two.

No, there really isn't.

:think: This is back to developmental stages again, unless there is an inherent value in children verses 22 year olds...

Never the point to start with.

The thread didn't start out clear and the metaphors are spiraling away from clarity. That's the part that 'trips me up on this.'

It was clear enough until you felt the need to spiral it away from clarity yourself.

 

[Rusha]

In response to the OP, yes. Children do not have the ability to consent.

 

[ok doser]

In response to the OP, yes. Children do not have the ability to consent.

Wrong

https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...18-counts-in-alleged-ottawa-prostitution-ring

 

[nikolai_42]

Well.......... you turned a scuffle between victim and killer (outside) in to a walk-in bank robber brandishing a gun...... I still think that a bank robber who can show a court that he did not mean to shoot the gun, if the defendant can show that, that a secondary or tertiary degree of murder might prevail, that's all. Where I live we wouldn't execute the convict.

If the principle is intent, then the only evidence needed is the threat of a loaded weapon. If the weapon was found (later) to be not loaded, then I can see reducing the intent - but the person on the other end of the gun has to infer from the threat that it is real and that the person making the threat intends on making good on that threat. The threat of deadly force has to be perceived as intent to kill. You can't (legally speaking) base that intent on flimsy evidence (like the possible thought going through the assailant's mind at any given time). You can make a case about his mental situation - but that, I expect, will only make the sentence a little less.

Take that to a child, now, and you have someone who doesn't have the legal capacity to make certain decisions. So, as I understand it, a child shouldn't be able to be tried for murder - like an adult can. Once you get to the teen years, a case can be made for it - especially where there is violent history - but a 5 year old? There's no way I could see convicting a prepubescent child of capital murder. No matter how horrible the situation, I don't believe a child has the ability to understand what he's doing. He might be acting out on some impulse provided by exposure to violent video games or bad examples at home - he might even be possessed. But I can't envision any scenario where I would consider putting a 5 year old to death for anything.

EDIT : I'm not a lawyer. But I have watched Law & Order....(grin)

 

[nikolai_42]

Wrong

https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...18-counts-in-alleged-ottawa-prostitution-ring

Testimony to the horrendous state of the home life of many in the Western world. If parents were made more responsible for their childrens' actions, I suspect it might change things - at least some. Instead, we just lower the bar for what is acceptable - and if we don't like what we see in another home, we call the government on them.

 

[eider]

If the principle is intent, then the only evidence needed is the threat of a loaded weapon. If the weapon was found (later) to be not loaded, then I can see reducing the intent - but the person on the other end of the gun has to infer from the threat that it is real and that the person making the threat intends on making good on that threat. The threat of deadly force has to be perceived as intent to kill. You can't (legally speaking) base that intent on flimsy evidence (like the possible thought going through the assailant's mind at any given time). You can make a case about his mental situation - but that, I expect, will only make the sentence a little less.

Take that to a child, now, and you have someone who doesn't have the legal capacity to make certain decisions. So, as I understand it, a child shouldn't be able to be tried for murder - like an adult can. Once you get to the teen years, a case can be made for it - especially where there is violent history - but a 5 year old? There's no way I could see convicting a prepubescent child of capital murder. No matter how horrible the situation, I don't believe a child has the ability to understand what he's doing. He might be acting out on some impulse provided by exposure to violent video games or bad examples at home - he might even be possessed. But I can't envision any scenario where I would consider putting a 5 year old to death for anything.

EDIT : I'm not a lawyer. But I have watched Law & Order....(grin)

Fair enough.

 

[Lon]

No, I'm not arguing that life has inherently more value dependent on age and you are going off on tangents here that are both needless and also irrelevant. Why are you so determined to complicate this and make this into something it isn't? A five year old child lacks the developed understanding of an adult although apparently you think otherwise? You honestly think that a five year old kid knows full well that pulling that trigger means that his "hated" sibling is going to be "out of the picture forever" as you so charmingly put it and did so with complete, premeditated malice aforethought?



Of course it's rape in the second because a child can't give informed consent, that's entirely the point! The whole reason I started this thread was in reaction to at least one person on here who believes that children as young as five should be tried and executed for murder, something they can't possibly understand in relation to an adult. Likewise, a ten year old can't be deemed guilty of any impropriety where it comes to sex because they're too young to understand it in turn, hence why the adult who has sex with a child is always the perpetrator and the child the victim.

Anyone, however, who thinks that a five year old kid is deserving of being put to death for murder doesn't get to say that because they've set the benchmark for culpability at so young an age that they can hardly cry "foul" if a ten year old child says it knew fully well what he/she was doing where it came to sex. What, it's okay to judge a five year old child for killing but not an older one for having sex? It's execrable all ends up as is often the way with religious extremism but the double standard would remain for anyone who would support the former. It's especially ironic because some on the way out far right think that society is on the verge of accepting paedophilia as the "norm" when it most assuredly isn't.

There is no "mismatched data" going on here. Five year old children should not be executed for anything and children are always the victims where it comes to an adult abusing them for sex.



No, there really isn't.




Never the point to start with.



It was clear enough until you felt the need to spiral it away from clarity yourself.

In the first, a child shoots a gun, in the second, a child is acted upon by an adult so it is still apples/oranges. I realize you want this to be simple, but analogy, simile and metaphor are supposed to be a lot closer than this for the comparison. Regardless of your 'no, there really isn't' protest. There really is.

 

[Lon]

What if the adult is mentally handicapped with a developmental age less than that of the child?

You still hold that one accountable (institutionalized). There is a strength factor regardless of the mental age (like a 3 year old being able to beat up an 8 year old). Or did you have something else in mind?

 

[ok doser]

You still hold that one accountable (institutionalized). There is a strength factor regardless of the mental age (like a 3 year old being able to beat up an 8 year old). Or did you have something else in mind?

I have a memory of an incident in which kids- teens maybe 13 14 15 - were sexually abusing a developmentally delayed adult. I can't remember any more details of it so I can't search for it but if I remember correctly he was held blameless (and rightly so in my opinion) and the children were charged with sexual molestation or rape.

 

[Arthur Brain]

In the first, a child shoots a gun, in the second, a child is acted upon by an adult so it is still apples/oranges. I realize you want this to be simple, but analogy, simile and metaphor are supposed to be a lot closer than this for the comparison. Regardless of your 'no, there really isn't' protest. There really is.

No, there isn't Lon, not if you get the point here. I recognize that children can't be held accountable for their actions as an adult, something that any rational person and the law does as well. Therefore a five year old child can't be tried and executed for murder because they're simply not capable of understanding their actions at such an age due to lack of development. I can also say, without any double standard going on that a child of any age can't give informed consent to sex as again, due to lack of development which again, any rational person would acknowledge and the law does as well. Now, if anyone who advocates that a five year old child should be put to death for murder because they're as accountable for their actions as an adult then they can't exactly say that a child twice their age and more aren't aware of what they're doing where it comes to sex, not without a complete double standard going on.

If you still don't get the point then bear in mind that this in relation to the fringes of far right religious extremism. Maybe that'll help.