The judge SAID the victim claimed it was consensual. Was she coerced? Was she beaten? was she threatened? This is a society where women don't have a helluva lot of rights as it is. They even have a large group called the "Obedient Wives Club" excuse me if I'm a little skeptical.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Rapist released on probation due to "bright future" in ten-pin bowling
- Thread starter Pandemic
- Start date
- Status
The judge SAID the victim claimed it was consensual. Was she coerced? Was she beaten? was she threatened? This is a society where women don't have a helluva lot of rights as it is. They even have a large group called the "Obedient Wives Club" excuse me if I'm a little skeptical.
SugarDaddy
Member
It's all about age difference, if he was 15 and she was 13 everything would be aces (depending on where you live). Which I don't fully understand. In Connecticut, if you're 16 and have consensual sex with a 13 year old it's considered first degree sexual assault. Age difference laws really don't make much sense in my opinion; not that i'm trying to advocate not having them. It may be morally wrong, but the laws are pretty whacked some times.
Monumental
Banned
Well then you can sit there and be outraged at your imagined mishandling of this case.
How am I "imagining" it when Malaysian law clearly states that sex with someone under 16 years of age WITH OR WITHOUT consent is rape and
The fact that the judge in this case decided to ignore Malaysian law tells me a lot about the judge and very little about the rapist.
So you are implying that the judges could be covering up the rape? I mean I guess that's possible but I don't know that. I'm just going by what I know.
Could be? Undeniably IS. Someone posted the Malaysian penal code on the last page. Read it. This is undeniably rape and it should be a 5 year minimum sentence. When someone in a country like Malaysia is deliberately ignoring a law about rape it really says a LOT about the country's view about women's rights.
Well I can't argue with you there. The law is the law I suppose. I'm not sure if there really is a conspiracy to put this girl down or if she actually did consent. But I still think this situation is a little grey and not so cut and dry. She was 13 he was 19, they were both still kids. He didn't try to deny it either, and according to the judge, the victim said it was consensual. I'm pretty sure that if the judge was lying, these advocate groups that are denouncing the decision would mention the fact that the judge was lying. I'm pretty sure SOMEONE would.
But what I'm saying is that it says a LOT about the situation when Malaysian law is not followed in a rape case with the excuse being that she "consented" (which is irrelevant) and that the rapist has a "bright future" as a BOWLER which is even less relevant. Whether it's a "conspiracy" or not isn't the point, the point is that laws aren't just randomly ignored, a judge doesn't just reach into a hat and decide "well, today I'm going to ignore the law on all theft cases and take the accused out for ice cream!" when a rape law is ignored in a way that is favorable to the rapist the obvious inference is that the judge is being deliberately favorable to the rapist which is INHERENTLY harmful to the rights of the victim.
I was going to talk about cultural norms and females in many asiana and african cultures get married at very young teens. And many gets married as kids.
hence, you need to look it from the cultural point of view. For example,from a cultural point of view, which would be wose in this situation? sex without marriage or two teenagers having sex?
hence, you need to look it from the cultural point of view. For example,from a cultural point of view, which would be wose in this situation? sex without marriage or two teenagers having sex?
They're not just "two teenagers" though. This is an adult and a child well below the age of consent. If anything the fact that Malaysia has SET an AOC at 16 tells you were the government wants it's cultural norm to be.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Culture is irrelevant when the law in that country says that having sex with someone at the age of 13 is rape.
I'm with Gaborn on this one, it's kinda ridiculous that the judge ignored the law like this.
It's not merely that, it's the element of coercion that tends to exist when you have a sizable age gap with a minor. 13 year olds are also more suggestible than older people, they're more easily manipulated and DON'T have the level of judgment someone older has to not be taken advantage of.
Yes, of course. How exactly are you going to prove the "consent" of a minor wasn't coerced in some way? I think the AOC should at LEAST be the same as the driving age. Otherwise you're getting to a point where people that can't drive, can't form legal contracts, are NOT living on their own, are dependent on others for food, clothing, etc. Are probably not working, probably don't have most of the skills needed to be totally independent and are probably more vulnerable to suggestion, threats, and other forms of coercion like gifts are being targeted. A minor could BELIEVE they consented to sex without it actually being their choice.
I am not disagreeing about law or what you believe or what the law says.
The fact is many cultures in that region still do not see this magical number of 18 or 16 to be suddenly becoming of adult and all of a sudden know what is right or wrong.
Obviuosly , the juge job is to protect the law, and he fails. regardless of what cultural norm might be.
I know especially in India where kids get married even earlier than 13. I just believ you have to understand the history of the culture before labeling from your own cultural norm. Right or wrong.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
While putting down an AoC is pretty arbitrary, the development of the child really isn't.
So, purely based on how they've biologically and psychologically matured, we can say that getting married at, say, earlier than the age of 13 damaging both physically and mentally.
Vermillion
Banned
Talking strictly from the perspective that the law is the law, I agree that this is ridiculous.
On the other side, I didn't see the court case, nor do I know the girl in question or how she'll feel about this when she's older. A blanket stat rape law is therr because on average, children of that age have no clue what they're doing. Now, there may be exceptions, but that's difficult to determine. Simply, I know nothing about the trial, but the law says a certain thing, and apparently that was overruled by bowling... or maybe that's sensationalism. I don't know.
On the other side, I didn't see the court case, nor do I know the girl in question or how she'll feel about this when she's older. A blanket stat rape law is therr because on average, children of that age have no clue what they're doing. Now, there may be exceptions, but that's difficult to determine. Simply, I know nothing about the trial, but the law says a certain thing, and apparently that was overruled by bowling... or maybe that's sensationalism. I don't know.
Daydream Sequence
Banned
Big difference between experimenting with your fellow 13 year olds and being a 19 year old taking advantage of the naivety of a 13 year old.
FUCKING WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW
cutmeamango
Banned
So 14 for a learner's permit (as long as you are accompanied by an adult!), 16 for a restricted or full license. (In the US of A, of course.)
Niiice.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Age gap is a huge factor and laws often take it into account. There isn't some gray area here of a vaguely defined law.
in other words, 16 in the US because my standard is basically the point society feels a teen can be autonomous enough to have their own driver's license should be the point they're autonomous enough to have sex with people outside their immediate age group. I also think, of course that "romeo and juliet" laws that allow for people 2 or so years above the AOC to have sex with people 1-2 years under the AOC are a good idea as a general practice too.
You're automatically assuming that it's entirely coercion and never consentual. I think it's possible that a 13 year old could have a crush on a 19 year old and fully encourage sexual advances. Of course it could involve a lot coercion, but that's up to the courts to figure out just how much. They're not just taking the story of one side, and through interviews with the female I think it's possible for a judge to determine just how consentual it was on her part.
I'm not saying that consentual statuatory rape is not a crime, but I do think it can be significantly different from violent assault rape and should not be treated as an equal crime with identical punishments.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
I disagree.
But it's also apples and oranges. The arrange marriage have parents involved and are some what protected. Compare to this incident where the young was much more vulnerable.
So, is this case you might and are probably right. but, overall I don't think there is right or wrong.
I don't agree with these made up AOC ages. But I understand the need since as society evolves , people in it live accordingly and there mentality is set that way.
For example a women raised in India would be less depress about arrange marriage because of the cultural norm and what perceive as right and what perceive to make her feel good about actions. unlike women in west.
So I agree the value of AOC as socirety evolve. but at my core I also have a hard time comparing culture as if one is right or wrong.
I'm assuming no such thing. I'm saying that the law is more concerned with coercive elements in this type of relationship and thus, to protect the child's best interests these types of relationships are punished much to the chagrin of pedophile rights groups and to catch a predator guest stars.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
It's simple, a 13 year old cannot ever consent to sexual activity.
PS3GamerKyle
Member
This thread is wild.
My opinion, I think some statutory rape cases are silly (16 and a 19); if it is consensual, that's ok. But in this instance, a 13/19 year old is a bit too big of a division. But defining the line is difficult and that's a discussion for another thread.
As for this thread, I think this is ridiculous and bowling isn't even a legitimate excuse. IF you were going to use this "bright future" excuse, at the very least he should be a doctor on the verge of discovering a foolproof treatment for cancer or something.
My opinion, I think some statutory rape cases are silly (16 and a 19); if it is consensual, that's ok. But in this instance, a 13/19 year old is a bit too big of a division. But defining the line is difficult and that's a discussion for another thread.
As for this thread, I think this is ridiculous and bowling isn't even a legitimate excuse. IF you were going to use this "bright future" excuse, at the very least he should be a doctor on the verge of discovering a foolproof treatment for cancer or something.
Daydream Sequence
Banned
Don't some states have Romeo and Juliet laws to protect 18-19 year olds from statutory rape cases when they have sex with their slightly younger consenting partner? 19-13 would not, and should not, be covered under that exception. People can talk about intelligent 13 year olds all they want, but the law is protecting them for a reason - they need protection.
MWS Natural
Member
I agree but I wouldn't call it pedophilia though.
ashrafazlan
Banned
Please don't assume that all Malaysian's are like this. The vast majority of us are outraged at the judge's decision.
pants
Member
Colombia 12 (F)/ 14 (M)
Panama 12 (F)/ 14 (M)
Spain 13
Japan 13
Syria 13
wiki said:
To be clear I'm not defending bowling dude, but there are states that disagree with your assessment. It's important to remember these when having this debate.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
You know she can't actually consent, right, at least how US law views it, it's treated as a statement without value.
In the us, I'm phrasing my statements in accordance with US law.
Also some really screw up things there, unless it's marriage, that's still goofy, but it's different than 40 year slobbering sex offender can bang 12 year old Panamanian girl.
Well, if you're going to bring up Colombia they also let Pedro Alonso Lopez go free after he was CONVICTED of murdering 110 young girls.
edit - ooooh, man, whole thread is full of weirdo rape apologists. I retract my question outright, Manos. Not because it isn't a valid question, but because it's now a weird one.
even though I don't see this random connection you are trying to make. But there were other countries beside colombia
Japan, while having a national age of 13, typically by-district sets it much, much higher to accepted superior world average of 16 or even beyond.
Also, two of the countries in that list sets the age of consent lower for women. That's a big fucking problem. It doesn't even follow the usual idiot logic of "women can get pregnant thus underage girls shouldn't sex EVER" that you see parroted in the teacherXstudent threads to justify young boy fucking.
FlutterPuffs
Member
Malaysian here.
Yeah, most of us here are up in arms about it, although a large number of those protesting this haven't read the article and/or doesn't understand statuory rape. I'm against it, by the way. I know how kids are but for fucks sake, the dude is 18 while the girl is 13.
Plus he really has the creepy moustache and greasy hair look going on.
Anyway, where does women's rights come into this? I understand how corrupt things can be here but isn't this more to do with our juvenile act?
Daydream Sequence
Banned
What an odd assertion. I don't see anyone apologizing for rape. I see some people questioning the notion that an 18 year old having sex with a consenting 16-17 year old is rape. Hell, the world can't even agree on what age an individual can legally consent to having sex.
Stuff like this is indication of wider social injustices against women, rather than singularly being an women's right issue by themselves.
"It's not rape-rape"
pants
Member
Unless there is some minimum marriage age I can see some old dudes getting away with marrying kids that are way too young and .. you know.
Also, this guy wouldn't have broke any laws if in Japan, nor Spain. Countries I do not perceive as especially backwards. It's troubling.
I remember that name ... really messed up, but not really what we're talking about here.
I'm really glad someone else said this before me! Seems like a really superficial thing to get hung up on, but that moustache looks creepy as hell
Daydream Sequence
Banned
I assume they're saying (albeit callously) it's not the same as a violent rape or acquaintance rape, which in the eyes of the law it isn't. Thus the change in name and cases are tried much differently with different punishments meted out if guilty. Ultimately, though, it's rape. That doesn't make them rape apologists.
Naw. I mean, some are. I can sort of get behind the notion that violent rape is worse. But a good chunk of the posters were all "it's not rape rape" because they didn't think it was rape full stop.
- Status