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

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Well, obviously they are but in a related thread it's postulated from certain quarters that a five year old can be charged, tried and executed for murder so if the ten year old was a "willing participant" then they're just as culpable as the adult aren't they? After all, it's hardly likely that the ten year old would be married (nor should they be because they're a child) so they must be guilty of a sexually immoral crime and fully understand their actions if we were to live in a supposedly "Godly" society where five year old's can be "lawfully killed"?

It's probably the most sickening thing I've heard on this forum where someone proposes the killing of a five year old child as if they're fully cognizant of their actions but if anybody holds to that view then they've no choice but to declare that a ten year old is fully cognizant where it comes to sex if they're "willing".

In Non Weirdsville the law recognizes that a child is incapable of giving informed consent or being anywhere near as accountable as an adult where it comes to killing.

Funny though, I've heard numerous garbage from the far right about how tolerance for homosexuality would open the floodgates for paedophilia and the lowering of age of consent laws where child molestation would become commonplace so how about it for anyone who supports the execution of five year olds? Care to address this or will the crickets (and trolls) have a field day?
 

Lon

Well-known member
Well, obviously they are but in a related thread it's postulated from certain quarters that a five year old can be charged, tried and executed for murder so if the ten year old was a "willing participant" then they're just as culpable as the adult aren't they? After all, it's hardly likely that the ten year old would be married (nor should they be because they're a child) so they must be guilty of a sexually immoral crime and fully understand their actions if we were to live in a supposedly "Godly" society where five year old's can be "lawfully killed"?

It's probably the most sickening thing I've heard on this forum where someone proposes the killing of a five year old child as if they're fully cognizant of their actions but if anybody holds to that view then they've no choice but to declare that a ten year old is fully cognizant where it comes to sex if they're "willing".

In Non Weirdsville the law recognizes that a child is incapable of giving informed consent or being anywhere near as accountable as an adult where it comes to killing.

Funny though, I've heard numerous garbage from the far right about how tolerance for homosexuality would open the floodgates for paedophilia and the lowering of age of consent laws where child molestation would become commonplace so how about it for anyone who supports the execution of five year olds? Care to address this or will the crickets (and trolls) have a field day?

Some problems with the correlation that won't work. Its apples and oranges at this point and the main point is lost in the details in a thread "Not about statutory rape."

While a child has no puberty steering rape, thus not even a willing participant, murder requires a conscious act of pulling the trigger. The metaphor simply breaks down for any kind of meaningful discussion too quickly.

The merits of trying a child for murder are better argued on merits of the discussion without the confusing metaphor (statutory) that distracts and isn't good for the comparison.

My two cents: I'm not for the death penalty of a child murderer, but that child is going to be messed up the rest of his/her life. It might be better for the child to have his/her life ended, (life-long harm with a poor rate of remedy among murderers)but what it'd do to us, as a society is harmful as well. It is my preference and vote to hope against hope, against the death penalty toward rehabilitation and life change (the more important discussion to me)..
 

eider

Well-known member
.................................., murder requires a conscious act of pulling the trigger.

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.

Other cases involved convicts who took part in crimes where a victim died, and so become murderers by association.
 

eider

Well-known member
Well, obviously they are but in a related thread it's postulated from certain quarters that a five year old can be charged, tried and executed for murder so if the ten year old was a "willing participant" then they're just as culpable as the adult aren't they? After all, it's hardly likely that the ten year old would be married (nor should they be because they're a child) so they must be guilty of a sexually immoral crime and fully understand their actions if we were to live in a supposedly "Godly" society where five year old's can be "lawfully killed"?

It's probably the most sickening thing I've heard on this forum where someone proposes the killing of a five year old child as if they're fully cognizant of their actions but if anybody holds to that view then they've no choice but to declare that a ten year old is fully cognizant where it comes to sex if they're "willing".

In Non Weirdsville the law recognizes that a child is incapable of giving informed consent or being anywhere near as accountable as an adult where it comes to killing.

Funny though, I've heard numerous garbage from the far right about how tolerance for homosexuality would open the floodgates for paedophilia and the lowering of age of consent laws where child molestation would become commonplace so how about it for anyone who supports the execution of five year olds? Care to address this or will the crickets (and trolls) have a field day?

The child-convict execution part of the proposed Christian Theonomy-type government is just the tip of a very very strange and weird world, imo.

Plucking crimes at random from the laws of Moses, quoting apostles (rather than Jesus) to support same, etc, would just produce a country of terrifying suppression, domination and above all.... corruption. Can you imagine what the police, military and judicial heads would be like not long after the formation? And nobody could vote it in to extinction........ only a very bloody and horrifying war might, just might, achieve that.

The world must be careful what it wishes for.

As for the idea of convicting and sentencing a child for a capital crime after being raped by an adult, that's just a disgusting 'tell' of what could happen. One wonders what would happen to raped women if the rapist declared that she wanted to take part.............. the sentences for fornication, adultery etc could also be quite terrifying.

And who would be the Judges? Shocking thought....
 

ok doser

Well-known member
Some problems with the correlation that won't work. Its apples and oranges at this point and the main point is lost in the details in a thread "Not about statutory rape."

While a child has no puberty steering rape, thus not even a willing participant, murder requires a conscious act of pulling the trigger. The metaphor simply breaks down for any kind of meaningful discussion too quickly.

The merits of trying a child for murder are better argued on merits of the discussion without the confusing metaphor (statutory) that distracts and isn't good for the comparison.

My two cents: I'm not for the death penalty of a child murderer, but that child is going to be messed up the rest of his/her life. It might be better for the child to have his/her life ended, (life-long harm with a poor rate of remedy among murderers)but what it'd do to us, as a society is harmful as well. It is my preference and vote to hope against hope, against the death penalty toward rehabilitation and life change (the more important discussion to me)..

Which is more important (if they can be parsed apart) - the fear of the Lord or the love of God?


"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever."

and

"The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate."


compared to:

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."
 

Lon

Well-known member
Is the above correct, where you are?
Yes.
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.

Other cases involved convicts who took part in crimes where a victim died, and so become murderers by association.
Both required a conscious decision. Both involved pointing a loaded gun at a victim. Did you show an exception? :nono:
 

Lon

Well-known member
Which is more important (if they can be parsed apart) - the fear of the Lord or the love of God?


"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever."

and

"The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate."


compared to:

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."

Isaiah 38:17 Surely, for my welfare I had such great anguish; but Your love has delivered me from the pit of oblivion, for You have cast all my sins behind Your back. 18 For Sheol cannot thank You; death cannot praise You. Those who go down to the Pit cannot hope for Your faithfulness. 19 The living, only the living, can thank You, as I do today; fathers will tell their children about Your faithfulness

The O.T. provided for a community where everything, including law, were common, and death was the penalty to remove sin from among people.

In the U.S. at one time, we may have had a similarity and thus remove sin from among us as well.

I support the right and even the reasoning for the death penalty but I believe in Grace and the power of God's Holy Spirit. It has changed people, however few, in prison. So my personal vote/preference is not the death penalty but I very much support democracy on this one. -Lon
 

Lon

Well-known member
If he never intended to fire the weapon why was it loaded?

I sometimes wonder if we and Eider have anything in common (not a slam, just a valuation on whether our conversations can ever go anywhere and be productive because there is never a meeting of minds). This 'seems' to be a place where our minds would surely 'have to meet' but we'll see....
 

ok doser

Well-known member
... he had taken a relative's handgun and threatened an elderly man with it ...


And what was the nature of that threat?

Did he threaten to hit him with the gun?

Did he threaten to stab him with the gun?

Did he threaten to magically transform the gun into a feather duster and tickle the elderly man unmercifully?

Or did he threaten to shoot the gun at the elderly man?


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

He was lying.
 

ok doser

Well-known member
The O.T. provided for a community where everything, including law, were common, and death was the penalty to remove sin from among people.

In the U.S. at one time, we may have had a similarity and thus remove sin from among us as well.


In the US at the moment it seems like everything is up for grabs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

eider

Well-known member
Yes.
Both required a conscious decision. Both involved pointing a loaded gun at a victim. Did you show an exception? :nono:

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.
 

ok doser

Well-known member
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.


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.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Some problems with the correlation that won't work. Its apples and oranges at this point and the main point is lost in the details in a thread "Not about statutory rape."

While a child has no puberty steering rape, thus not even a willing participant, murder requires a conscious act of pulling the trigger. The metaphor simply breaks down for any kind of meaningful discussion too quickly.

The merits of trying a child for murder are better argued on merits of the discussion without the confusing metaphor (statutory) that distracts and isn't good for the comparison.

My two cents: I'm not for the death penalty of a child murderer, but that child is going to be messed up the rest of his/her life. It might be better for the child to have his/her life ended, (life-long harm with a poor rate of remedy among murderers)but what it'd do to us, as a society is harmful as well. It is my preference and vote to hope against hope, against the death penalty toward rehabilitation and life change (the more important discussion to me)..

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.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
The child-convict execution part of the proposed Christian Theonomy-type government is just the tip of a very very strange and weird world, imo.

Plucking crimes at random from the laws of Moses, quoting apostles (rather than Jesus) to support same, etc, would just produce a country of terrifying suppression, domination and above all.... corruption. Can you imagine what the police, military and judicial heads would be like not long after the formation? And nobody could vote it in to extinction........ only a very bloody and horrifying war might, just might, achieve that.

The world must be careful what it wishes for.

As for the idea of convicting and sentencing a child for a capital crime after being raped by an adult, that's just a disgusting 'tell' of what could happen. One wonders what would happen to raped women if the rapist declared that she wanted to take part.............. the sentences for fornication, adultery etc could also be quite terrifying.

And who would be the Judges? Shocking thought....

Thankfully, it won't come to fruition.
 

ok doser

Well-known member
I sometimes wonder if we and Eider have anything in common (not a slam, just a valuation on whether our conversations can ever go anywhere and be productive because there is never a meeting of minds). This 'seems' to be a place where our minds would surely 'have to meet' but we'll see....

Do you remember trad?

Trad's response here is appropriately applied to eider and artie:
In effect: "BOOOO!"

Since your posting isn't based on reason, then you must forgive me if I don't consider it worthy of any serious response. :idunno:
 

eider

Well-known member
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.

'Morning, Arthur....

You mention about those crankies who believe that homosexuality and transexuality is chained to paedophilia ........... what they can't have noticed is the number of heterosexuals who have been convicted of paedophilia and sexual offences involving children, from child rape to the provision of children for sexual acts and/or keeping child pornography.

All in their hearts and minds?
 
Top