[Doofy]

Like, really? WTF.

Teenage girl 'sold her 7-year-old stepsister for sex' | Mail Online

A 15-year-old girl has been arrested after allegedly selling her seven-year-old stepsister to a group of men for sex.
The teenager, who was at a party in a crime-ridden block of flats in Trenton, New Jersey, watched on as the little girl was gang-raped by as many as seven men.
She was then paid by the men responsible.

[andi*pandi]

jesus christ.

[Phileas]

The county prosecutor plans to ask the court to try her as an adult

So they're going to keep a 15 year old responsible? Rather than, wait for it, the parents who brought her up - if you can call it that - without any values of any kind?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

"What wrong" because it happened in America I assume?

This happens on a daily basis throughout the rest of the world.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

"What wrong" because it happened in America I assume?

Yes. That's why I wrote "planet" in the title.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

So they're going to keep a 15 year old responsible? Rather than, wait for it, the parents who brought her up - if you can call it that - without any values of any kind?

The parents weren't the ones directly responsible. They probably have indirect responsibility of some sort, although how that's proven in a court of law is difficult to figure out. Perhaps they should have known the 15 year-old was an unfit guardian. Maybe they were on drugs or otherwise out to lunch at the time. Either way, the 15 year-old is directly responsible if the allegation that she willingly sold her sister can be proven. Adults who would rape a 7 year old would probably rape a 15 year-old as well, so perhaps it happened against the 15 year-old's will and there's more to the story than we know.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

So they're going to keep a 15 year old responsible? Rather than, wait for it, the parents who brought her up - if you can call it that - without any values of any kind?

You reckon parents bring up their kids these days? I thought MTV and the like took over that responsibility a long time ago.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Like, really? WTF.

Teenage girl 'sold her 7-year-old stepsister for sex' | Mail Online

FFS. I didn't read the link btw - hope that they can find the blokes as well.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The parents weren't the ones directly responsible. They probably have indirect responsibility of some sort, although how that's proven in a court of law is difficult to figure out. Perhaps they should have known the 15 year-old was an unfit guardian. Maybe they were on drugs or otherwise out to lunch at the time. Either way, the 15 year-old is directly responsible if the allegation that she willingly sold her sister can be proven. Adults who would rape a 7 year old would probably rape a 15 year-old as well, so perhaps it happened against the 15 year-old's will and there's more to the story than we know.

Personally, I think that parents should be held legally accountable for their children until those children reach the age of majority. There's a reason that we don't allow children the full suite of rights that adults have: because they simply can't handle it neurologically or hormonally. The whole point of having an age of majority is recognizing that children cannot be expected to make responsible decisions all the time. The only, in my opinion, logical way to recognize that legally is to hold the parents responsible for not only the welfare, but the behavior, or their offspring.

[mattyb]

Same sh1t, different country.

[imitchellg5]

The answer is right in the article: New Jersey.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yes. That's why I wrote "planet" in the title.

...which is exactly what I was pointing out.

Suddenly there's something "wrong with this planet" – because this happened in America. Or Britain. Or somewhere else where, you know, we can read about it and see the picture of the building and be shocked.

Meanwhile, this happens daily, regularly, in many areas of the world, and has for thousands or millions of years.



So my response is: nothing. There's nothing wrong with this planet. It's just like it always was.*

greg

*with the exception of AGW lolol1olz

[ShortcutToMoncton]

(On another note: when I first opened the article my first read-through was in the context of an April Fool's joke. Obviously I was disabused of that notion, but come to think of it, would this not be the sickest "fake news" joke of the day? Huh.)

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Same sh1t, different country.

23 kids can't be punished for rape because they're too young? Sounds like the victim wouldn't be able to be punished for penis-ectomies for the same reason...

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Meanwhile, this happens daily, regularly, in many areas of the world, and has for thousands or millions of years.
So my response is: nothing. There's nothing wrong with this planet. It's just like it always was.

So. It's right, just like it always was?

Good show.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So. It's right, just like it always was?

Good show.

logic fail

[Railroader]

Sin.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

That's one of several possible explanations

[boy8cookie]

how else would the teen support her drug addiction? sell herself? unlikely.

[dedalus]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Adults who would rape a 7 year old would probably rape a 15 year-old as well, so perhaps it happened against the 15 year-old's will and there's more to the story than we know.

Not likely, in my opinion. There is a clear distinction between pædophiles and ebophiles.

[Doofy]

Edit: Irrelevant. No matter.

[design219]

Geez, of course the teenager is messed up. Of course the parents have responsibility here. But my God, the real Evil is the men who raped this seven year old. They are the criminals that should be punished before all others.

[Railroader]

Pretty much everyone but the 7 year old has a liability here.

In order of evil (IMO)
1. Men who raped 7 year old
b. Parents of girls
3. 15 year old girl
4. unicorns
5. Easter bunnies

[ghporter]

You forgot television and video games, Railroader...

Seriously though, the parents are probably also victims. What was it about THEIR parents that allowed them to think they were raising their children appropriately? I did a study once on a very poor town in South Texas; I could directly link obesity in children to lack of parenting, which I could also link to the parents themselves lacking parenting. Not "poor parenting." LACK of parenting. Being a parent is something you MUST learn from experience as a child. You (intentionally or not) copy or avoid your own parents' behaviors, rules and standards. If there were no rules, what do you have to model or avoid? Children NEED boundaries and limits to grow socially and intellectually; challenging those boundaries and limits is how children test the security of their lives. No rules? That means no security. At all. Which means the kid grows up "on his or her own," without any sort of structure that they don't find for themselves. Where could they find structure to model? Maybe crappy television and movies?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

You forgot television and video games, Railroader...

That's where the parents come in.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

You forgot television and video games, Railroader...

Seriously though, the parents are probably also victims. What was it about THEIR parents that allowed them to think they were raising their children appropriately? I did a study once on a very poor town in South Texas; I could directly link obesity in children to lack of parenting, which I could also link to the parents themselves lacking parenting. Not "poor parenting." LACK of parenting. Being a parent is something you MUST learn from experience as a child. You (intentionally or not) copy or avoid your own parents' behaviors, rules and standards. If there were no rules, what do you have to model or avoid? Children NEED boundaries and limits to grow socially and intellectually; challenging those boundaries and limits is how children test the security of their lives. No rules? That means no security. At all. Which means the kid grows up "on his or her own," without any sort of structure that they don't find for themselves. Where could they find structure to model? Maybe crappy television and movies?

Explains much; excuses nothing.

The difference between blame and responsibility.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Explains much; excuses nothing.

The difference between blame and responsibility.

Don't judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes.

I am not excusing the evil that happened there. Just keep in mind that not everybody lives in an environment where it is possible to grow up to be the kind of adult who can make morally sound decisions.

I agree with Railroader. In order of responsibility, the rapists, the parents, then the 15 year old.

[Spheric Harlot]

Absolutely, agreed.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

That's where the parents come in.

Or more correctly "where the parents DON'T come in. Sadly...

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Explains much; excuses nothing.

The difference between blame and responsibility.

Absolutely right. But were are WE as society, if we encourage this sort of "un-parenting" by not doing something to correct it? That is my point.

[downinflames68]

That is ****ed up. If I knew anybody who participated I would end them, and dump their body in the lake bottom. In pieces.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by downinflames68 

That is ****ed up. If I knew anybody who participated I would end them, and dump their body in the lake bottom. In pieces.

Many years ago I had a similar thought...and stopped being a rape crisis counselor. I completely understand your feeling on this.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Same sh1t, different country.

There is a lot of blame put on the 'system' in that article as in the original article. ... some councilor didn't do this or the case tragically fell through some beaurocratic crack....

That's what's wrong. There isn't really a system to deal with horrible things like that anyway - but even if there were that doesn't mean all other people are absolved from responsibility. However to accept responsibility one has to have authority and ability to react.

Not vigilantism, but still the persons involved should be able to inflict a liberal amount of physical violence against the offending persons. Where the system fails, people have to act on their own. And the system must understand this.

[olePigeon]

I hear this is legal in Thailand.

[andi*pandi]

A 15 yr old has to take some responsibility for this. Old enough to know better.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Not vigilantism, but still the persons involved should be able to inflict a liberal amount of physical violence against the offending persons. Where the system fails, people have to act on their own. And the system must understand this.

Not just wrong, but also dangerous. Who decides if and when the "system" fails? You? Your friends? The mob? Welcome to lynch justice.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

Not just wrong, but also dangerous. Who decides if and when the "system" fails? You? Your friends? The mob? Welcome to lynch justice.

So, we must go to the lawbooks and see if it's wrong for a bunch of men to rape a seven-year-old. If we find it to be so and the system hasn't done anything about it, then it's hammer time.

We know when the system has failed: It's when the system no longer has the will or ability to maintain its own laws.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

Not just wrong, but also dangerous. Who decides if and when the "system" fails? You? Your friends? The mob? Welcome to lynch justice.

Your jury decides, after you do it (the vigilantism) and stand trial for it.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Your jury decides, after you do it (the vigilantism) and stand trial for it.

Sounds an awful lot like "History will vindicate me" to me.

Not exactly a solid basis for society.

[Uncle Skeleton]

It's the worst system there is, except for all the others.

I don't see what you're complaining about; it's the system we already have right now, and we don't have a scourge of inappropriate vigilante justice sweeping the land.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's the worst system there is, except for all the others.

I don't see what you're complaining about; it's the system we already have right now, and we don't have a scourge of inappropriate vigilante justice sweeping the land.

Ah. I took your post as condoning vigilanteism and didn't stop to think that you were just describing the status quo.

Condoning vigilantes is placing law and judgement into the hands of unregulated individuals who are probably no less crazy than the people they're supposedly punishing.

I certainly wouldn't sleep any quieter knowing that some guy in a fit of psychopathic rage will stand up for or avenge me if I'm wronged (or stand up for the other guy for that matter, should he happen to decide that he was right).

[Uncle Skeleton]

I do support vigilante justice, but only when it's so important that the vigilante is willing to face the legitimate legal punishment for his actions. If it's really that serious that it's worth it to do the time or even trade his own life, and he really has no other recourse (the system has failed), more power to him.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Condoning vigilantes is placing law and judgement into the hands of unregulated individuals who are probably no less crazy than the people they're supposedly punishing.

I certainly wouldn't sleep any quieter knowing that some guy in a fit of psychopathic rage will stand up for or avenge me if I'm wronged (or stand up for the other guy for that matter, should he happen to decide that he was right).

I really don't think we should be going down the path of "Germans trusting their elected authorities to do what's right while not wanting 'some guy' to stand up for those who're wronged", do we?

Meanwhile, your "regulated" individuals continue to break the law as and when they see fit. We're supposed to trust them, are we?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I do support vigilante justice, but only when it's so important that the vigilante is willing to face the legitimate legal punishment for his actions. If it's really that serious that it's worth it to do the time or even trade his own life, and he really has no other recourse (the system has failed), more power to him.

The problem is the lack of consensus on when the system has truly failed.

[imitchellg5]

If only the MacNN Lounge were the governing body of humanity.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

The problem is the lack of consensus on when the system has truly failed.

That's not a problem at all. If some guy thinks justice is so lacking that it's worth it to him to spend the rest of his life in prison (or be executed, depending on the state) in order to set it right, then the system has failed him, even if no one else agrees or cares. If he thinks that doing whatever it is he thinks needs doing is a fair trade in exchange for the rest of his life, then I say he should do it. Then afterwards he should do the time. Whether he can convince a jury he was right should be a secondary consideration, but if he can then bully for him. I can't think of any more reasonable individual oversight than a jury trial, can you?

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So, we must go to the lawbooks and see if it's wrong for a bunch of men to rape a seven-year-old. If we find it to be so and the system hasn't done anything about it, then it's hammer time.

We know when the system has failed: It's when the system no longer has the will or ability to maintain its own laws.

Way to twist what I've said into something completely different. Come on now.

And as far as I know the responsible parties are being prosecuted according to the law as we speak.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I really don't think we should be going down the path of "Germans trusting their elected authorities to do what's right while not wanting 'some guy' to stand up for those who're wronged", do we?

Meanwhile, your "regulated" individuals continue to break the law as and when they see fit. We're supposed to trust them, are we?

Wtf? Seriously dude, what does this have to do with Germany?

Or should we go back into history and examine British led holocaust in North America, South Africa and China, then make moral judgements about today's Britain based on those actions? Because we can, you know.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

Way to twist what I've said into something completely different. Come on now.

I know, I know. But thing is, right thinking individuals tend to know when the system is failing or has failed. And it's our job as responsible citizens to attempt to arrest that failure, whether this be by voting a new bunch of cretins into power or whining on Internet forums or by taking matters into our own hands.

Yes, it's dangerous. But it always has been, throughout history.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I do support vigilante justice, but only when it's so important that the vigilante is willing to face the legitimate legal punishment for his actions. If it's really that serious that it's worth it to do the time or even trade his own life, and he really has no other recourse (the system has failed), more power to him.

Yeah, we get a couple of those "honor murders" here every year. There really is no other recourse when the system fails to keep your sister from marrying somebody your family doesn't approve of.

I join you in your respect for his choice to do the time (life sentence) for stabbing her to death. More power to him.

Hyperbole? Not at all:

You approve of placing justice into the hands of the individual. That makes it as arbitrary as any individual's warped perception of reality and insufferable circumstances or injustices.

That's a slippery slope at best; utterly batshit, at worst.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

Wtf? Seriously dude, what does this have to do with Germany?

I'm pointing out that sometimes, just sometimes, our leaders are wrong. And to trust them to maintain "the system" and do what's right isn't always the best way of going about things.
Why Germany? Because along with your awesome engineering you guys have a reputation for not being overly antagonistic towards "the system", no matter what state of failure that system is in and whether that system is right or wrong.

Originally Posted by Phileas 

Or should we go back into history and examine British led holocaust in North America, South Africa and China, then make moral judgements about today's Britain based on those actions? Because we can, you know.

Feel free.
I think you'll find I was referring to Merkel selling stolen property on the open market though.

Our governments think it's OK to steal as long as the ends justify the means. Why should we trust them to do what's right with regard to anything else?