CreateDebate


Debate Info

48
39
Not-Justified Justified
Debate Score:87
Arguments:69
Total Votes:89
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Not-Justified (38)
 
 Justified (32)

Debate Creator

animedude639(1575) pic



Convicted of Rape and was sent for only 30 days in jail (read description)

About a few days ago a 42 year old teacher raped a 14 year old girl. The Girl was so traumatized that she commited suicide. This Woman(forget her name) defended this 42-year old rapist by stating that the girl was sexually ready and knew what was happening to her. He was then sentence to 30 days in jail. Do you think 30 days was right or not?

Not-Justified

Side Score: 48
VS.

Justified

Side Score: 39
4 points

This is not justified and actually the judge went beyond the sentencing guidelines which require a minimum mandatory sentence for conviction. The judge has to and will be re-sentencing this individual.

Side: Not-Justified

In my opinion, it was not justified. The man should've been put in for longer. The people who defended this rapist should be fucking ashamed! and no not all 14 year olds are sexually ready!

Side: Not-Justified
2 points

He's an ashloch.

Side: Not-Justified
2 points

He should have his title removed and banned from ever judging in a courtroom, along with any other courtroom related jobs.

Side: Not-Justified

huh ?

Side: Not-Justified
1 point

The Judge. The Judge who gave the guy only 30 days. Douchebag is obviously not capable of making rational decisions, which is sort of important in a courtroom.

Side: Not-Justified
2 points

Justice was certainly NOT served. If the girl committed suicide over this incident, then she was obviously not "sexually ready". Give me a break. Jerk should've spent his life in jail.

Side: Not-Justified
2 points

Having looked-up more information on the case I have to change my position.

Rambold (the teacher) admitted to raping Moralez (the girl) on several occasions.

Also, the judge (Baugh)'s sentence fell below the minimum for the conviction, his only justification being that Rambold had "been through enough". That's certainly not his decision to make. (I didn't see any significant reference to the testimony of the woman, or to the "willingness" of Moralez)

In his defence, Baugh did ask to go back on his sentence, but was blocked by the supreme court. But I do think it was just plain stupid of him to let out that sentence in the first place.

For more info look here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2414391/Montana-Judge-Todd-Baugh-jailed-rapist-teacher-just-30-days-girl-14-killed-herself.html

Side: Not-Justified

Hes 54 I mean srry :/

Side: Not-Justified
1 point

What does the woman mean by "she was sexually ready"? That she was going through puberty and she knew what sexual acts were being committed with her, even though they were against her will? Or that she wanted to have sex, but after she severely regretted it, developed depression, and killed herself? And even if it she wanted to have sex with him, wouldn't it have been wrong anyway for having relations with a minor? He should have received more than a 30-day sentence.

Side: Not-Justified
4 points

I feel like there is not enough information here to conclude much at all.

We know:

-a 14 yo girl had a sexual interaction with a 42 year old teacher

-The girl committed suicide after the incident (Immediately after? After the story was let out? After the conviction?)

-A woman (who's relation to the victim isn't specified) testifies against her

-The final sentence for the teacher was 30 days in jail.

The relationships between most of these points is unclear at best...

It could be the girl was legitimately raped and killed herself because of the trauma (in which case the woman is either a heartless liar, or extremely confused)

It could also be the girl was in fact consenting, and committed suicide out of embarrassment (or a handful of other reasons).

Either way, I disagree with any sexual interaction between people with this big an age gap and I think the teacher definitely has a problem. But (although we all know the judicial system is faulty) it would only be a guess to say that the verdict was wrong. Seeing as they only sent him to jail for 30 days, it must be that they couldn't prove a full-on rape. By lack of info, I have to assume that the conviction was appropriate. That's not to say the story doesn't make me want to puke.

Side: Justified
2 points

She shot herself after three years of bullying and media hype. The conviction itself seems to be more guilty of resulting in her suicide than the "rape" that the media is claiming.

But I guess this is my issue with just throwing that word around. If a guy has sex with a chick while she is on ecstasy, he legally raped her in many states.

Not to say that the actions of these non-violent rapists are "moral," but that's really what it comes down to. Punishment based on moral comfort. According to experts, and I wish we had some kind of testimony from the girl before she killed herself to analyze, it seemed that she wanted to have sex with the man. Some say "yeah, but that's because he's manipulating her" and maybe, but maybe he's not, and then what? We're just saying "fuck it, the law is the law let him rot in prison."

This shit is tragic. A girl killed herself because she couldn't handle the exposure and the constant claims of RAPE and telling her that she WAS A VICTIM and how all her peers made fun of her because they've been taught that this shit is "wrong". Society is to blame for shit like this, not some horny old bastard. He's lost his job, his family, his ability to teach, and will probably end up working as a cashier at McDonalds for the rest of his life because society doesn't want him. With all this social "justice" already happening, is it really moral to lock him in a cage?

Now, I'm merely basing my argument on the article intangible posted here, and more information could show if this was REALLY rape or just a sexual relationship among sexually active people that happen to be very pathological and have a major age difference. She might have major father issues and compensates by sleeping with older men, he may find it difficult to connect with people of his age or women in general, and he may not be getting satisfaction from his wife.

SO MANY THINGS WE DON'T KNOW. But this is what it's like living in a civilization of any sort... dealing with the power of mass hysteria.

Side: Justified

was sexually ready and knew what was happening to her.

So this means she was willing?

Then it wasn't rape, the charge was only "child molestation", which isn't equivalent to the charge for rape and it technically wasn't even molestation since she was willing, but it was against the law for someone that old to have sex with someone that young in.

It's morally wrong in some places, to have sex with someone at that age, while you are much older than that person, but he does not deserve a longer just because of it.

Since she was willing.

Side: Justified
Depressed(355) Disputed
1 point

The law in USA states that someone under 18 is incapable of being willing for sex since consent is a concept only grasped by over 18's (In Uk it's 16).

Side: Not-Justified
Intangible(4934) Disputed
1 point

So when 14 year olds have sex with each other it isn't other the consent of the other?

So those 14 year olds should be sent to jail/juvenile hall.

Side: Justified
Intangible(4934) Disputed
1 point

since consent is a concept only grasped by over 18's (In Uk it's 16).

Going by your statement, "consent" can be grasped by someone younger than 18.

That limit is merely there to imply that you should not have sex with someone younger than 18 if You are 18 and older. (or 16 in the U.K)

Side: Justified

(In Uk it's 16)

Are you British?

Side: Not-Justified
ThePyg(6738) Disputed
1 point

Age of consent depends on the State, and with more inclusion of social science into legal considerations, "rape" when it comes to minors is becoming more of a case-by-case basis.

Some states actually have age of consent laws at the age of 14. I know in my state of Florida, our age of consent is 16 so long as the older person is not older than 23.

Some states suggest that a teen can not consent unless there is parental permission. Others say a teen can consent if married to the partner.

And back to Florida, a 16 year old having sex with a 15 year old is a third-degree felony.

The United States itself, though, only has federal laws against child-pornography. But even that reaches a gray area when you consider nudist families putting up pictures of their vacations on the internet or two teens recording themselves having sex.

Laws are quite convoluted.

Side: Justified
Saurbaby(5581) Clarified
1 point

Please read more up on that, there's so many details that go with that statement, that isn't one hundred percent true.

Side: Not-Justified
1 point

Not all 14 year olds are sexually ready you know. Many of them don't even know what was happening to them.

Side: Not-Justified
Intangible(4934) Disputed
1 point

Exactly. Not all not None of them. This one obviously was, as it has been stated.

Side: Justified
amylynn93(115) Disputed
1 point

So you're going to believe that a girl who KILLED herself after the incident was "willing"? Why? Just because some random woman said she was? Wtf?

Side: Not-Justified
Intangible(4934) Disputed
1 point

She probably killed herself because of all of her classmates shunning and ridiculing her over the fact that she had sex with the teacher.

She did not immediately kill herself after the rapes.

Side: Justified
hannah165(523) Disputed
1 point

So this means she was willing?

I don't think that means quite the same thing. She could have been under pressure, or he could have actually raped her.

Also, just because you're physically ready doesn't mean A) you should or B) you're mentally ready.

it technically wasn't even molestation since she was willing

I think at this point we need to raise the question if she was capable of making those decisions. Our brains don't fully develop until our mid-twenties. He was 54, meaning he had a clear advantage in in the situation, and he should be held responsible for sex with a minor, whether she wanted it or not.

Side: Not-Justified
Intangible(4934) Disputed
1 point

he should be held responsible for sex with a minor, whether she wanted it or not.

The thing is...HE WAS HELD RESPONSIBLE, you people are just not satisfied with the punishment because you feel he deserved something more severe.

As far as anyone can tell, the man only had sex with a minor! Basically. That is all!

Why should he be punished so severely for that?

He did not harm the girl or do anything vicious to her. So his punishment was enough.

I think that it's just to punish pedophiles based off of the severity of the case and not because of some other supposed instance.

The crime was not very severe.

Side: Justified