Right now I'm really really hating people - seriously

[Aerdan]

I do know how a woman can sexually abuse a little boy. I just want to know what lead the investigators to call it that [aside from injuries sustained by the poor kid's anus, that is; with a male perp, you'd [probably] have semen in there].

[wocket]

I just spent the majority of my day with my two-year-old neice.
And then...I read this. Jesus, I hope he gets what he deserves.

[StruckingFuggle]

[quote="Tigger";p="663962"]Aaron just got done serving 6 months of Grand Jury duty. He heard 5-6 cases like this every other week.[/quote]

...seriously?

[Tigger]

Seriously. There is some horrid shit done to kids by their parents, friends, family members. It's just...awful. He always had horrible dreams afterwards. I am SO glad he's done. It's one thing to know it's out there and happening...it's something else to know all the intimate details.

[Blaze]

[quote="wocket";p="664177"]I just spent the majority of my day with my two-year-old neice.
And then...I read this. Jesus, I hope he gets what he deserves.[/quote]

She. The foster MOTHER did it.

[Makh]

I am speechless. How can she live with that? What she thinks would happen? Temporary insanity?

[Martin Blank]

[quote="Aerdan";p="664144"]I do know how a woman can sexually abuse a little boy. I just want to know what lead the investigators to call it that[/quote]
Forcible insertion of any body part or object is defined under the law as sexual assault. The injuries would probably have been clearly visible at least to the hospital staff/coroner.

This qualifies as special circumstances in most states, meaning automatic life in prison without parole, if not a shot at the death penalty.

[Aerdan]

Ah. I was not aware of this.

[coyote blue]

Any kind of abuse to children is intolerable to me. I don't see how someone can hurt a child in any way. It sickens me and angers me to no extent when I hear of brutal assults and neglegence to a child. Sometimes I wish for the old days of hangings and beheadings. My daughters are 6 and 2, and I just can't imagine the whys and hows of hurting one so young..

[Deacon]

[quote="coyote blue";p="666199"]I don't see how someone can hurt a child in any way.[/quote]
I think that may need some clarification. It may hurt her when you tell her that Santa Claus doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to tell her. And it may hurt her to give her a spanking, but that doesn't mean it's wrong, either, and that by a small, temporary hurt you can potentially help prevent big, permanent hurts later on.

[StruckingFuggle]

[quote="coyote blue";p="666199"]My daughters are 6 and 2, and I just can't imagine the whys and hows of hurting one so young..[/quote]

*sigh*

I guess it's inescapable.

.... Why? Is it fine to imagine hurting someone older? At what age does it suddenly become more palatable or understandable to hurt people?

[Sophira]

I don't think she meant it was okay to hurt older human beings, but that it was especially horrible because they are so young. At least the older you are, the more venues of defense you have access to. :/

[dmpotter]

What age are you, StruckingFuggle?...

I know better than to try and explain it, so I'll just say that below a certain age there's a certain innocence in children, and that wrecking that is more horrible than doing the same to an older person. It's "more wrong" to be evil to an innocent child than an adult.

And now you'll pick that to pieces and ignore the point, so I'll just sit back and let someone else explain.

[StruckingFuggle]

Well, the more venues of defense you might have access to. I don't see how it's any worse if you're older, just because you maybe have better defenses. You're still vulnurable. Is it also somehow notably worse to prey on people in the hospital or in assisted living homes? They're all (usually) innocent people, and even if you're older you can still sometimes easily be taken while your defenses are down and you, too, are vulnurable.

(if anything it seems worse, to get more defended people, becuase they've got the belief that they should have been safer to also traumatize them...)

But they're all people. They're all innocent people. And it's not just kids who're more likely to be hurt or killed by people closer to them than strangers, by people who should care for them instead of care to maim them.

So they're kids. So what? Everyone else is people, too.


(and ever SEEN kids? they're just as likely, if not more likely, to be little shits, as anyone else...)

Edit: dmp: Not ignore your point at all. I acknowledge your point, and proceed to uniformly disagree. But at least we realize it - fuck it. I don't care. Productive discourse is impossible, and I'm sorry. This isn't the place. I won't reply here anymore. (but I might make a SAP thread).

[Sophira]

An older person, even if it's just an older kid--or someone incapacitated in a hospital--is going to (under normal circumstances) know most rights from most wrongs. Anybody would be affected psychologically by such an event, but the effect is multiplied on smaller children because they don't always know that what's being done to them is wrong. Don't you think that'll affect their growth in a very large way?

It's not all just logical, either. It's human nature to care more about the protection of small children and pregnant women than others.