CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Maybe so but I still cant believe you would think it was ok for a man that old to have sex with a girl who's only 14 anyways. Whether she agreed or not. That is fucking sick! I'm getting the feeling that you support pedophiles and that you think its ok to have someone who's not even an adult yet to have sex with someone that old.
Going by your statement, "consent" can be grasped by someone younger than 18.
No? You are just putting words into his mouth, seriously, you are literally contradicting what he is saying and then you have the audacity to claim that your contradiction is what he is saying. You need to go with what people are saying, not what you suppose they imply.
It just doesn't make any sense how someone who is only 18 can grasp "consent" in one place, but then in another place someone who is only 16 and older can grasp consent.
If someone younger than 18 can actually grasp consent then whose to say that someone who is 14 years older or younger can't grasp "consent"?
Well there's always demographical differences, though when dealing with 'human nature' that may be negligible. Why US and UK have differing opinions towards sexual consent is interesting. In Denmark it's 16, but that doesn't mean people aren't skeptical if a 40 year old is sleeping with a 16 year old. It probably has a lot to do with circumstance. You could argue it should be lowered to something like 13 but most people would raise an eyebrow at that. Most people would agree that we ought to protect children from unwanted sex, but exactly how we arrive at a specific age is well, peculiar.
Yes, and it's even odder when you can consider that teens obviously consent to sex with each other before they get to that age, so what would stop them from consenting to sex with much older people?
You can't rightly call sex with a minor "rape" in every case, which is the problem there.
Since consent or willingness can obviously be grasped by a lot of them.
And you can't call it "consensual rape" if neither never tells the other to stop after prior consent.
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.
No the women who defended the rapist was the one who stated it. Just cause she stated something does not mean you should believe her. She said it because she said she was sexually ready at 14. She also said that all 14 year olds are ready. (which we all know is false)
Your an idiot! When did I say she was not forced to have sex! Where in the description of this debate does it say that! She was an innocent 14 year old who was forcefully raped repeatedly, who may I remind you after committed suicide! Do you have any idea how traumatizing rape is? It cripples and destroys your self-esteem!
here watch this video this guy not only talks about the rape but he hands out links. I think you should also listen what this guy has to say. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLplXo69-ZY
Well the video is just some stupid ass emotional appeal and not any real evidence.
Cherice Moralez, 14 at the time, was bullied by classmates after charges were brought against her Montana teacher Stacey Rambold, 48
She was bullied by her classmates for it, that could have been more than enough to cause her to commit suicide and not because she was "raped" by the teacher.
Rambold admitted to raping the vulnerable teenager on several occasions in 2007 in his marital home, car and office
Basically just had sex with her a lot.
was shunned and bullied by classmates after charges were brought against her Montana teacher Stacey Rambold
Again, this is most likely what caused her to commit suicide.
No one knows how willing she was to have sex with this man.
'Obviously a 14-year-old can’t consent. I think the people have in mind that this was some violent, forcible, horrible rape.
'It was horrible enough as it is just given her age, but it wasn't this forcible beat-up thing.'
According to many articles she was. Then again we wouldn't know because we weren't there to witness it. Even the woman who defended this rapist stated she was pressured into sex.
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.
He was held responsible for sex with a minor. not rape, which is (most likely) what he did.
you feel he deserved something more severe.
Okay, let's say this: We know, without a doubt, that he raped her (three times). Do you honestly think that the punishment he got was enough?
As far as anyone can tell, the man only had sex with a minor!
If that's all he did, why did he admit to raping her?
the crime was not very severe.
If we knew for certain that all he did was have sex with a minor, I'd partly agree with you. But there is evidence pointing to rape, and to me, that's severe.
He admitted to having sexual relations with the girl. He did not beat her or force her to have sex with her and there was no violence, WHICH was stated. Which is not rape.
But if you where to read on. you will see that there was no violence or forcing her to have sex involved.
That really doesn't mean he didn't rape her. It doesn't have to include violence. The judge even said: "Rape under any circumstances is a horrible violent offense. Some involved physical beatings, broken bones. Others, as here, involve young victims legally not capable of consenting. All are traumatic and all are crimes."
Even if she did "consent", in a court of law, her consent means nothing, because she is underage.
By definition he did not rape the girl, as far as we can tell.
By definition he DID rape her.
rape (noun)
1 the crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them. (by dictionary app on macbook)
OK so we can conclude that we don't know that she was raped. We are just arguing based off assumptions, which will get us no where.
True.
AND. It was stated that he did not harm or force the girl to have sex! THEREFORE, BY DEFINITION IT IS NOT RAPE!
If she didn't want to have sex, and he made her, IT IS RAPE. But, like you said before, we don't know enough about the case to decide whether or not it was rape. So neither of us can come to any conclusions.
~
Also, you never really gave me an answer to the question I asked before.
If we knew without a doubt that he had raped her, do you honestly think that the punishment he got was enough?