HEADDESK HEADDESK HEADDESK

[filkertom]

Sexually abusing a teenager is less serious a crime if the girl is not a virgin, Italy's higher court said on Friday.

Comments

[bardicwench.livejournal.com]

OMG!!! What fucking bullshit is that?

[skemono.livejournal.com]

As they say,

The supreme court is no stranger to controversial judgments.

In recent years it has ruled that "an isolated and impulsive" pat on a woman's buttocks at work did not constitute sexual harassment, and returned a verdict that a woman could not have been raped because she was wearing skin-tight jeans.

To which I would add their recent ruling that "Calling a foreigner a "dirty negro" in Italian is not necessarily a racist insult".

[atalantapendrag.livejournal.com]

*head explodes*

[cleverthylacine]

This is the same Italian court that said women can't be raped if their jeans are too tight because the rapist wouldn't be able to get them off by force. They're a bunch of fucking idiots.

[birder2.livejournal.com]

Aaaarrrggh!

[salkryn.livejournal.com]

I think I just failed another sanity check just by reading that. Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life on this planet.

[faxpaladin.livejournal.com]

This actually did have me banging my head against the monitor...

[sarekofvulcan.livejournal.com]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and agree with the court in one respect. While I think that castration would not be an inappropriate punishment here, I do see a slight difference between having a child's first experince of sex be with a lover or with an abuser.

[sarekofvulcan.livejournal.com]

I don't know if that should be a factor in sentencing, though.

[bardicwench.livejournal.com]

I don't see how you could agree with anything that the court said... they're saying that it's less serious of a crime to sexually molest a teenager who's not a virgin than it is to molest a virgin...

That's almost the same as saying: "Well, she's had sex before so she was asking for it."

Sexual Molestation is Sexual Molestation. The words "less serious of a crime" shouldn't ever come into play here, no matter if the teenage was a virgin or not. It's the same crime regardless of if it was the girl's first time or not. Believe me, just because you've had sex before doesn't make it any less mentally or emotionally damaging when you're molested or raped.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Indeed. Let's take an extreme example: Let's say the girl is, oh, Juliet, having given her all to Romeo. Now let's say that she, at least, survives the end of the play. Now let's say her parents divorce over the whole thing, her mom remarries, and her new stepfather determines she's a slut )because of her love for Romeo and the deflowering therefrom) and forces her to perform oral sex.

The court just said Stepdad was only partly to blame, 'cause Juliet's a slut.

I'm not insinuating that the girl in the actual case in Italy is anywhere near cosmically in love with whomever she was with, but I hope you get the idea.

[sarekofvulcan.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying in any way that she, or anyone else, is asking for rape or any abuse short of rape. I'm just saying that it's possible that it might be less damaging: there's no way to do a comparison. "Less damaging" does _not_ imply "not damaging": rape is rape.

[daundelyon.livejournal.com]

So what you're saying here is, just because I have consensual sex with my husband/boyfriend/girlfriend/whatever, if I'm later raped or abused against my will, it should be "less damaging?" I'd be bruised, probably bleeding, psychologically devistated, most likely depressed and suicidal. Every good experience I would have had in physical relationships up to that point would have been erased in one burst of violence. How is this "less damaging"? There is no need for a comparison, because this sort of thing does happen and the results are documented. Rape and abuse are just as damaging for the sexually experienced as they are for a virgin.
Those judges should be deeply ashamed of themselves.

[dadandgirl.livejournal.com]

Yes, but - What if, on top of everything else, you were six years old?

Does that not make it worse? I think that's what the previous poster is trying to say. It's "less damaging" in the same way that being stabbed in the heart is less damaging than having all your skin flayed off with a vegetable peeler and then being stabbed in the heart.

Unfortunately, this doesn't sound like the court's reasoning.

[catalana.livejournal.com]

That's disgusting.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

Raping anyone, of whatever age, is completely unacceptable. Castration should be the minimum penalty, not the maximum. However, if the court is going to take the fact that the victim's calendar age is 14 as an aggravating factor, I think they should at least consider evidence that she's not as innocent and pure as a 14 year old is "supposed" to be as a mitigating factor against that aggravating factor. I don't think either her age or her experience should be a factor; washed up old prostitutes still have the same right not to be raped that innocent teenagers do. But if you consider one you should consider both.

[r-caton.livejournal.com]

They should graft his genitals onto his forehead.....

Ahhhh La Bella Italia.

[selenesue.livejournal.com]

Castration, however tempting the notion, is no kind of answer. Rape is an act of violence. Castrate a rapist and he'll just use a broom handle next time. If you have to cut something off, make it his hands. [feral grin, with teeth]

Remember, this is a classic Catholic country and the Sanctity of Virginity means something to them on a deep level. Not a judgement of right or wrong but it's still a powerful symbol.

I beg to differ

[bobmage.livejournal.com]

Yes, rape is an act of violence. However, testicular removal generally results in lower testosterone levels. As testotsterone is a factor in agressiveness, lower testosterone "should" result in less agressive, or 'violent' behavior.

And if castration is an official punichment for such behavior, and is actually implemented....well, that's a damn good negative incentive, now.

You will still have violent, uncontrolled people commiting such acts, but the number of "opportunists" would go down. And said violent, uncontrolled people would no longer be swimming in the gene pool.

This, of course, does require that the police and courts actually believe victims and prosecute cases.
My hopes are on a real "lie detector" technology. (based on brain scans, not stress tests) A non-intrusive, non-humiliating way to confirm that a victim's story is truthful should silence the "she's just lying" crowd. (And maybe result in domestice violence cases getting the attention they deserve.)

Should this be necessary? No, but as long as police use their "judgement" to decide if complaints are worth following up, a lot of cases will fall through the gaping holes in the system.

Re: I beg to differ

[selenesue.livejournal.com]

I csn certainly agree with a full heart about the "negative incentive" aspect. O, that pesky "cruel and unusual punishment" clause though.

However, I do believe that behavior this heinous originates in the mind rather than the glands and simple hormone moderation fails to address the real issues, and therefore still endangers everyone around them. Goodness knows, my gentlemen sex maniac friends have equal hormonal output and never assaulted me [in a way I didn't thank them for, in any case. (Smile)]

I can also agree with your need for a reliable lie detector technology, although I cannot envision the form it would take short of actual telepathy or better still, time-travel to view past events without the flaws of subjunctivity. Given your hypothetical true lie detector technology: the first thing is to imprison rapists, preferably in solitary confinement so as to pose no danger to fellow inmates.

Re: I beg to differ

[chaotic-nipple.livejournal.com]

IIRC, studies done in those European countries where chemical castration is allowed, the recidivism rates for rapists who were treated were about 5%. For non-treated rapists, something like 50% become repeat offenders. Unfortunately, I can't find the article I read this in. Stupid Internet, failing me when I need it most... Anyway, surely the important thing is whether or not the treatment works, not 'the message it sends people'?

Something I forgot:

[chaotic-nipple.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, the drug treatments are voluntary, the criminals agreed to them in exchange for a lighter sentence. That might have something to do with their effectiveness, criminals who are forcibly 'castrated' might not benefit as much. Only one way to find out...

Re: I beg to differ

[codevixen.livejournal.com]

However, testicular removal generally results in lower testosterone levels. As testotsterone is a factor in agressiveness, lower testosterone "should" result in less agressive, or 'violent' behavior.

...like fixing a dog!

[smoooom.livejournal.com]

"???????????" The thing that is really scary, is that I have no doubt that there are people both in Italy and the rest of the world who would agree with the court.

[figmo.livejournal.com]

Yeesh.

Clearly someone isn't clear on the concept of "incest."