Fuck your bridge Timmay.
QuoteFlorida teen rejects plea deal in controversial same-sex case
(CNN) -- Eighteen-year-old Kaitlyn Hunt, charged with a crime for having sex with a 14-year-old girl, rejected a deal Friday that would have required her to plead guilty to child abuse, according to Hunt's attorney.
Hunt was charged with two felony counts of lewd and lascivious battery after the parents of the 14-year-old went to authorities. Hunt's family says their relationship was consensual, but in Florida a person under the age of 16 is not legally able to give consent to sex.
If Hunt is convicted, she could go to prison for 15 years -- a reality that touched off a maelstrom of controversy across the country this past week. The case became widely known when Hunt's family began an online campaign in defense of their daughter.
The plea deal from the Indian River County prosecutor's office would have required Hunt to plead no contest to child abuse, spend two years "on community control," which usually involves strict supervision, followed by one year of probation.
Teen: 'I'm scared of losing my life'
Teen charged for sex with girl, 14 According to the plea deal document, during her probation, Hunt would have had to agree to stay away from the 14-year-old, and to provide her probation officer with immediate access to her Internet and telephone communication.
Read the report, offer
In a statement saying that Hunt was rejecting the plea deal, her attorney, Julia Graves, wrote:
"This is a situation of two teenagers who happen to be of the same sex involved in a relationship. If this case involved a boy and girl, there would be no media attention to this case.
"Our client is a model citizen. She has been placed in an environment of school with her classmates where they go to school together, have lunch together, and play on the same team and are allowed to have communication and contact without barriers. Then when something develops between the two as a result of this environment created by the state, it leads to criminal prosecution."
"If this incident occurred 108 days earlier when she was 17, we wouldn't even be here," the attorney wrote.
The parents of the young girl Friday evening said they are prepared to go forward with the case.
His daughter's innocence was taken away, Jim Smith told CNN affiliate WPEC. "There deserves some type of punishment for that."
The office of State Attorney Bruce Colton said it tendered an "extremely lenient plea offer in this case which would have ensured that the defendant avoided any term of incarceration and the stigma of being labeled a sex offender.
"In fact, in all probability the defendant would have avoided being a convicted felon," the statement continued. Colton will prepare for a mid-July trial.
Earlier this week, Hunt cried in front of news crews.
"I'm scared of losing my life, the rest of my life," she said, "not being able to go to college or be around kids, be around my sisters and my family."
In response, Charles Sullivan Jr., the attorney for the 14-year-old girl's family, said they had been hoping the case would be resolved by now.
Now the 14-year-old girl may have to take the witness stand if the case goes to court, Sullivan said.
"No parent wants their child to have to testify in court, but unfortunately the reality of our system is we have a system where a defendant has the right to have all the witnesses present. It's just the aspect of our law," Sullivan said. "It's a difficult process but it's a necessary process in our system of justice."
A case catches fire on Facebook
The case has been a lightning rod for controversy after Hunt's family went public on Facebook, describing their daughter's case and essentially accusing the victim's family of going after their daughter because she is gay.
The victim's family said that isn't true; they are only trying to protect their 14-year-old.
The American Civil Liberties Union has spoken out in defense of Hunt and an online petition by Change.org had attracted some 279,000 signatures by Friday evening. They say the punishment does not equal the crime.
Despite the online furor, a case like this isn't all that unusual, said David LaBahn, president of the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, a national professional group.
"Prosecutors get these kinds of cases all the time, and it's almost always parents who come to them saying that something like this has happened," said LaBahn, who worked as a trial attorney in California for 10 years and focused on prosecuting sex crimes for four years.
The amount of difference between the alleged perpetrator's age and the victim's age weighs heavily in whether a prosecutor moves forward on a case, he said.
"If you had an 18- and 17-year-old, there may be some investigation," he said.
"If the 17-year-old says it was consensual, that would probably be the end of it and you wouldn't have charges."
But in this case, 18 and 14 is a wide gap, he said. "According to law in Florida, this is a crime."
It doesn't matter -- and shouldn't matter -- what people in an online community who don't have the investigative details of a case believe, he said.
He drew a comparison to the Jodi Arias case currently under way in Arizona. Many people -- even those on the jury -- said they couldn't conceive how a petite woman who claimed she'd been the victim of domestic violence could repeatedly stab her boyfriend, as she admits doing.
"As a prosecutor you cannot be influenced by anything other than the facts," he said.
While some have suggested this case is being handled differently because it involves two females, Indian River County Sheriff Deryl Loar said that has nothing to do with it.
"If this was an 18-year-old male and that was a 14-year-old girl, it would have been prosecuted the same way," he said.
Parents of girl, 14, say they are protecting her
At trial, the prosecutor is likely to try to put on witnesses who can show that the 14-year-old was damaged psychologically by engaging in sex at such a young age, and that she wouldn't have normally done such a thing.
In an earlier interview with CNN affiliate WPEC, Jim and Laurie Smith insisted that the girls' gender has nothing to do with the case. They are concerned about ages.
"Our daughter was 14, and this girl was 18," said Jim Smith.
According to the Smiths, they twice warned Hunt to stop.
"I had another adult, who is a mother, she came to me and said, 'Ms. Smith, you need to know this.' She said, 'We told Ms. Hunt to leave your daughter alone but they are in a relationship. And, she's 18.'"
Laurie Smith said she was shocked. Her daughter was just too young, she thought.
The 14-year-old began to act out, the Smiths told WPEC.
Then one weekend morning the Smiths went to their daughter's bedroom and discovered she was missing.
They panicked, thinking someone took their daughter or that she was hurt. "Her running away was the furthest thing from our mind," said Jim Smith. "We thought ... you hear about kids getting abducted from their homes."
But they later learned that Hunt had picked their daughter up, they told WPEC.
"We had no other alternative but to turn to the law, use it basically as a last resort," Jim Smith said.
Bloggers have called Laurie Smith a gay basher and accused her of being abusive to her daughter. Numerous news reports have asked whether the Smiths went after the teen because of her sexual orientation.
But Smith says her goal is to protect her 14-year-old, and she will not relent.
"I will be an advocate of what she needs," the mother told WPEC. "The stories that people are saying ... I love my daughter. ... I'm willing to do whatever to protect her."
"This whole story about you blaming Kate for making your daughter gay ... where did that come from?" a reporter asked the parents.
"I don't know. It didn't come from us. That's not how we feel," Jim Smith answered.
Still, Hunt's supporters say she is being prosecuted because she was in a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex. A Facebook support page the Hunt family set up called "Free Kate" has gathered more than 47,000 names.
Not everyone who is posting online might have the facts of the case. A glance at postings on Facebook and Twitter show that some people are getting the ages of the girls wrong. Others have posted erroneously that Hunt is being prosecuted for numerous other charges.
Regardless, everyone seems upset about the effect a felony child abuse conviction would have on Hunt, if she agreed to the plea deal.
LaBahn told CNN that a felony child abuse conviction would mean that Hunt would have to disclose her felony conviction on employment applications and she could never serve on a jury. She would be prohibited from voting for a period of time, though each state has different time frames for that rule, the attorney said. She may not be able to secure student loans either, he said, and she might not be allowed to adopt or obtain a childcare license.
Graves, Hunt's attorney, had earlier asked that the charges be reduced to a misdemeanor.
"This is a life sentence for behavior that is all too common, whether male, female, gay, straight," Graves said at a Wednesday news conference.
"High school relationships may be fleeting," she said, "but felony convictions are forever."
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/24/justice/florida-teen-sex-case/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Happens to young men every day in this country, I see no reason why young women should be exempt from sex offense convictions, regardless of how hot it is.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2013, 07:46:09 PM
Happens to young men every day in this country, I see no reason why young women should be exempt from sex offense convictions, regardless of how hot it is.
Surely, but we'll see. She should have took the deal.
Or have taken the deal, either way.
taked
TOOKED GOD DAMN IT
Giggity!
Quote"This is a life sentence for behavior that is all too common, whether male, female, gay, straight," Graves said at a Wednesday news conference.
"High school relationships may be fleeting," she said, "but felony convictions are forever.
Wow that is like a totally new and different opinion on these sorts of laws. I wish her better luck than everybody before her has had.
Maybe what will finally stop this nonsense is to alert the attention of the gay mafia.
She's a fucking idiot for not taking the plea.
I strongly suspect a man would not have gotten the same deal. In fact, I bet they haven't.
Another pedophile off the streets. Good.
She shouldn't get in trouble, it shouldn't be illegal, but it is so why make an exception because they're gay?
Because to a patriarchal society a guy who does this to a girl is a predator, a guy who does this to a guy is gross and a girl who does it to a guy or a girl is hot.
That being said, I'm for age difference exception in minor sex laws, but not sure if 4 years isn't too much.
Seems stupid to not take the deal. The law is fucked up, but it's a fucked up law that's still enforced in a typically uncivilized American legal fashion. No jail sentence and no sex offender label is pretty much as good as it can get without having the charges dismissed.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2013, 07:46:09 PM
Happens to young men every day in this country, I see no reason why young women should be exempt from sex offense convictions, regardless of how hot it is.
Yep. Either statutory rape laws are enforced, or they're not. Gender shouldn't matter.
Quote from: Caliga on May 26, 2013, 07:02:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2013, 07:46:09 PM
Happens to young men every day in this country, I see no reason why young women should be exempt from sex offense convictions, regardless of how hot it is.
Yep. Either statutory rape laws are enforced, or they're not. Gender shouldn't matter.
Of course the small wrinkle is whether or not this got taken to the police was because of gender. And I think that's what is causing this to be a news story.
Quote from: garbon on May 26, 2013, 10:49:58 AM
Of course the small wrinkle is whether or not this got taken to the police was because of gender. And I think that's what is causing this to be a news story.
I don't know; I think if her parents found out about her boning an 18 year old guy, they probably would've done the same thing.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2013, 11:03:26 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 26, 2013, 10:49:58 AM
Of course the small wrinkle is whether or not this got taken to the police was because of gender. And I think that's what is causing this to be a news story.
I don't know; I think if her parents found out about her boning an 18 year old guy, they probably would've done the same thing.
Some parents would whether the 18 year old was a guy or not, some wouldn't either way, for some it would make a difference, and for some it would just come down to whether or not they liked the 18 year old on an individual basis. From a legal POV, though, I don't think their motives for going to the authorities should be relavent.
Is there any age limit on who a 17 year old can fuck?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 26, 2013, 09:51:52 PM
Is there any age limit on who a 17 year old can fuck?
Depends on the state. In a fair number of places (including, inter alia, the state of Georgia), the answer would be yes, say, "nothing below 16."
that was rape and pedophilia.
Death penalty!!111
This would really piss me off if I was gay, and active in trying to promote gay rights and fight against homophobia.
Not that this girl is being prosecuted, but that her supporters are trying to make this about her sexual preference, rather than her actions, which were clearly a crime.
The idiotic claim of the dumbfuck right is always that gay people want EXTRA rights. Which is just stupid of course....except now here is a perfect example where in fact the gay community is demanding that this case be treated differently because the alleged perpetrator is gay. The facts are very clear here - people are prosecuted all the time for rape in cases like this where the accused is straight. NOT prosecturing this girl in the same fashion would clearly be making an exception for her based on her sexual preference.
This is *exactly* what the dumbass right claims gays want - extra rights for being gay. The difference between this and 99.99% of the other times it is claimed, is that they are actually right this time.
My standard on these laws is basically, "could the two people have attended the same high school at the same time?" (assuming a standard grade 9-12 high school and normal age persons in those grades). If so, then I think it probably shouldn't be illegal for them to have sex. But this kind of is right on the limit it would seem, as you typically turn 18 during senior year or right after and typically turn 15 some time in your 9th grade year. In terms of age difference laws it's a mild example of the "American justice system" even pedophile-states like Canada have age of consent at 14, so this would be close to illegal there. But obviously these are simple statutes, and the girl is clearly in violation of the statute and it has nothing to do with her being a homosexual. Not sure why she believes she'll get better than all the other people prosecuted under these laws.
Quote from: Berkut on May 27, 2013, 02:28:14 PM
This would really piss me off if I was gay, and active in trying to promote gay rights and fight against homophobia.
Not that this girl is being prosecuted, but that her supporters are trying to make this about her sexual preference, rather than her actions, which were clearly a crime.
The idiotic claim of the dumbfuck right is always that gay people want EXTRA rights. Which is just stupid of course....except now here is a perfect example where in fact the gay community is demanding that this case be treated differently because the alleged perpetrator is gay. The facts are very clear here - people are prosecuted all the time for rape in cases like this where the accused is straight. NOT prosecturing this girl in the same fashion would clearly be making an exception for her based on her sexual preference.
This is *exactly* what the dumbass right claims gays want - extra rights for being gay. The difference between this and 99.99% of the other times it is claimed, is that they are actually right this time.
To be honest, I don't think most people care about that. After all, there are always fringe cases that those on the far right can point to if they try enough.
That said, I do agree that it seems off that this is supposed to be viewed as an important gay issue. Her parents should work in PR.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 27, 2013, 02:41:37 PM
My standard on these laws is basically, "could the two people have attended the same high school at the same time?" (assuming a standard grade 9-12 high school and normal age persons in those grades). If so, then I think it probably shouldn't be illegal for them to have sex. But this kind of is right on the limit it would seem, as you typically turn 18 during senior year or right after and typically turn 15 some time in your 9th grade year. In terms of age difference laws it's a mild example of the "American justice system" even pedophile-states like Canada have age of consent at 14, so this would be close to illegal there. But obviously these are simple statutes, and the girl is clearly in violation of the statute and it has nothing to do with her being a homosexual. Not sure why she believes she'll get better than all the other people prosecuted under these laws.
thankfully we raised the age of consent to 16, and there is a 2 year 'close in age' exception. So the original story would still be a crime (albeit not one that would get you 15 years in jail).
Quote from: garbon on May 27, 2013, 03:02:22 PM
That said, I do agree that it seems off that this is supposed to be viewed as an important gay issue. Her parents should work in PR.
Probably certain media outlets are giving the effort an assist...If you desperately want to keep in the news cycle a high school lesbian sex story with a cute blonde at the center, the gay rights angle gives the story some cover to stay there for reasons other than titillation.
Quote from: Barrister on May 27, 2013, 03:04:27 PM
thankfully we raised the age of consent to 16, and there is a 2 year 'close in age' exception. So the original story would still be a crime (albeit not one that would get you 15 years in jail).
This is the reason these cases get me so furious. It is not that this probably should not be a crime of some sort but the penalties are just off the charts draconian.
Quote from: Valmy on May 28, 2013, 01:46:17 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 27, 2013, 03:04:27 PM
thankfully we raised the age of consent to 16, and there is a 2 year 'close in age' exception. So the original story would still be a crime (albeit not one that would get you 15 years in jail).
This is the reason these cases get me so furious. It is not that this probably should not be a crime of some sort but the penalties are just off the charts draconian.
You can say that about prison sentence for almost every crime. It's hard for Americans to appreciate just how utterly out of line prison sentences are for most crimes here, because that's all they've known. It also doesn't help that once you get a prison record, you're pretty much barred from employment in a lot of fields, especially if you're a "convicted sex offender".
Quote from: dps on May 26, 2013, 09:49:59 PM
Some parents would whether the 18 year old was a guy or not, some wouldn't either way, for some it would make a difference, and for some it would just come down to whether or not they liked the 18 year old on an individual basis. From a legal POV, though, I don't think their motives for going to the authorities should be relavent.
Ditto.
I've actually in the past, amongst family of mine that the criminal justice system should have some sort of uniform code that all states follow. The States can control implementation and actual exercising of local police power, but I don't see what compelling societal interest there is for me raping and murdering someone in West Virginia and being sent to prison for 25 years and doing the same in Virginia and being sentenced to death. Some States have shockingly lax punishments for serious, serious crimes. I bring up West Virginia because it borders Virginia and I've heard of several cases that boggle the mind where the defendant gets a light sentence for a horrific crime.
The whole sentencing regime is just screwed up, at the Federal and State level. Federal law punishes drug possession far too harshly and with no judicial discretion allowed, many States do the same.
Generally I'm opposed to the European model you seem in some places where you can't get a life sentence. I think for a category of crimes the basic sentence should always be life (murder, rape, serious assaults that cause life long, debilitating injuries) and then I think the rest of your crimes should require mild sentences in lower security prisons for "mild" violent crimes and non-violent crimes should carry no prison term except when they involve people who are serially committing such crimes and have spurned multiple chances to correct their behavior.
Life sentence for rape? That's another area where US criminal code hasn't quite caught up to civilized world. Yes, rape is bad, and it's traumatic to the victim, but at the end of the day the victim can move on with their life, unlike the murder victims. If the legal system equates rape to murder, then what's the incentive to keep the rape victim alive?
Quote from: DGuller on May 28, 2013, 03:57:08 PM
Life sentence for rape? That's another area where US criminal code hasn't quite caught up to civilized world. Yes, rape is bad, and it's traumatic to the victim, but at the end of the day the victim can move on with their life, unlike the murder victims. If the legal system equates rape to murder, then what's the incentive to keep the rape victim alive?
You can get a life sentence for a wide range of crimes, not just murder.
Quote from: Barrister on May 28, 2013, 03:59:55 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 28, 2013, 03:57:08 PM
Life sentence for rape? That's another area where US criminal code hasn't quite caught up to civilized world. Yes, rape is bad, and it's traumatic to the victim, but at the end of the day the victim can move on with their life, unlike the murder victims. If the legal system equates rape to murder, then what's the incentive to keep the rape victim alive?
You can get a life sentence for a wide range of crimes, not just murder.
I know you can. I'm just saying that's idiotic.
Quote from: DGuller on May 28, 2013, 04:02:19 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 28, 2013, 03:59:55 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 28, 2013, 03:57:08 PM
Life sentence for rape? That's another area where US criminal code hasn't quite caught up to civilized world. Yes, rape is bad, and it's traumatic to the victim, but at the end of the day the victim can move on with their life, unlike the murder victims. If the legal system equates rape to murder, then what's the incentive to keep the rape victim alive?
You can get a life sentence for a wide range of crimes, not just murder.
I know you can. I'm just saying that's idiotic.
By the way to answer your question (what is the incentive to keep your victim alive):
Life imprisonment is one a range of sentences for many offences. For murder, it is the only sentence. There is still ample incentive to not kill people while committing a crime.
Quote from: DGuller on May 28, 2013, 03:57:08 PM
Life sentence for rape? That's another area where US criminal code hasn't quite caught up to civilized world. Yes, rape is bad, and it's traumatic to the victim, but at the end of the day the victim can move on with their life, unlike the murder victims. If the legal system equates rape to murder, then what's the incentive to keep the rape victim alive?
Rape is already a life sentence crime here in Virginia, there are a
lot more people sentenced for rape than for murder, so obviously there is some incentive. Mostly it's because rapists do not want to kill their victims, because they are closely related to them or are in some form of relationship with them and don't want them gone (nor do they expect to be reported), and also because not everyone who is willing to commit a stranger rape is willing to murder someone. You act like killing someone is nothing and criminals would just decide it logically, most people, even rapists, are not cold blooded killers.
You seem to think we have to "catch up" to foreign countries, and I don't buy that. I think we should get rid of the death penalty for a laundry list of practical reasons, and I think incarceration for most drug crimes and white collar crimes is typically inappropriate. (For habitual offenders, scam artists etc I can see incarceration for white collar crimes, and for the extremely egregious ones like Bernie Madoff.) I consider it pretty terrible that in some States here in the United States you can attack some woman on the street, beat her up, rape and rob her and be out on parole in three years.
I think it's easy to only bitch about harsh sentences for drug laws, and I absolutely agree with those being inappropriate. I think it's easy to bitch about mandatory minimums for basically
every Federal crime and many State crimes, and to bitch about three strikes laws which give judges and juries no discretion on complex situations. But it's also easy, like you're doing, to act like even seriously violent people should be given "rehabilitation." My philosophy on criminal justice basically thinks of three broad categories of criminal:
1. Con-artists of various stripe who are parasites on society and cause financial harm to others. They should be punished, but there is not an immediate need to incarcerate them. Their punishment should mostly consist of community service and some level of fine (payable over time.) Serial offenders might need incarcerated.
2. Moderately violent criminals who are a danger to society. These are people who beat their wives, rob banks, and commit crimes of that nature. Their offenses are grave enough that they need to be incarcerated for some period of time, but they should be given robust access to rehabilitation services. Further, to some degree they should "hold the key to their jail cell" in that if they can advance through rehabilitation programs at superior levels they should be released much earlier.
3. Extremely violent criminals. Murderers, kidnappers, rapists, and people who commit violent assaults that leave permanent significant disability fall into this category for me. Firstly, to me rehabilitation is for society, not for the criminal. It's because justice demands not every criminal be in prison for life and we want them to be members of society when they get out (the U.S. does very, very poorly at this.) But if justice demands a life sentence, as I feel it should for these crimes, then rehabilitation is irrelevant. These people should be locked up and given moderate access to entertainment (TV if they pay for it, free reading materials, activities etc) but no real money should ever be spent on rehabilitating them and they should never be released.
Note that drug offenders really don't fit into any of these categories, because mostly I view them as a medical or mental health problem and they should be dealt with in that way. Drug dealers fall anywhere on the spectrum from social parasites to moderately violent criminals and should be subjected to a range of punishments as deemed appropriate by a jury or a judge, depending on their particulars. People like racketeers and organized criminal leaders tend to fall into the category of extremely violent criminal, because the only credible way for them to be in business is to have used enough serious violence that people fear them, so even if they can't be proven to have done any particular violence I'm fine with RICO laws which send these guys away for extremely long periods of time.
Since non-violent drug offenses result in over half of our incarcerations even though I'd be specifying harsher penalties for some crimes (aggravated violent assaults causing serious injury, for example) the sheer reduction in offenses resulting in incarceration would represent a dramatic reduction in our prison population.
Incentives aside, the punishment of life sentence just doesn't fit the crime of rape. Rape is a bad, bad crime, but it's not life sentence bad.
Quote from: DGuller on May 28, 2013, 04:51:24 PM
Incentives aside, the punishment of life sentence just doesn't fit the crime of rape. Rape is a bad, bad crime, but it's not life sentence bad.
The motivations of a rapist are bad enough that there is really no compelling reason for them to ever be released. It requires a significant perversion of acceptable moral reasoning.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 28, 2013, 04:56:08 PM
The motivations of a rapist are bad enough that there is really no compelling reason for them to ever be released. It requires a significant perversion of acceptable moral reasoning.
What if they were drunk and raped a sleeping person? I don't know sometimes people make horrible mistakes when they are young but it does not necessarily mean they are too perverse to ever be released.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 28, 2013, 04:56:08 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 28, 2013, 04:51:24 PM
Incentives aside, the punishment of life sentence just doesn't fit the crime of rape. Rape is a bad, bad crime, but it's not life sentence bad.
The motivations of a rapist are bad enough that there is really no compelling reason for them to ever be released. It requires a significant perversion of acceptable moral reasoning.
Criminal justice should be about proportional punishment; it shouldn't be about keeping undesirables locked away from society.
Quote from: DGuller on May 28, 2013, 04:58:52 PM
Criminal justice should be about proportional punishment; it shouldn't be about keeping undesirables locked away from society.
That's where you're wrong, Eurotype Weenieperson. Rapists and other sexual predators aren't like thieves, drug dealers or investment bankers; there is no rehabilitation for sexual offenders.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 28, 2013, 05:19:35 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 28, 2013, 04:58:52 PM
Criminal justice should be about proportional punishment; it shouldn't be about keeping undesirables locked away from society.
That's where you're wrong, Eurotype Weenieperson. Rapists and other sexual predators aren't like thieves, drug dealers or investment bankers; there is no rehabilitation for sexual offenders.
:yeahright:
The recidivism rates for sexual predators speak for themselves.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 28, 2013, 05:31:21 PM
The recidivism rates for sexual predators speak for themselves.
:yeahright:
DG, to maintain your Americanism, you need to call for their heads to be cut off.
Euroweenieism WILL be noted. Don't make me get out my red pen.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 28, 2013, 05:31:21 PM
The recidivism rates for sexual predators speak for themselves.
Yes, they do.
QuoteAccording to the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) of the United States Department of Justice,[4] in New York State the recidivism rate for sex offenders has been shown to be lower than any other crime except murder.
Not sure you can easily measure recidivism of rapists. A lot of things would muddle most conceptions:
1. Many rapists are people who rape children they are guardians of or have access to, these types of rapists will rape hundreds of times without getting caught. Sort of muting any claims that they have a low recidivism rate, especially since they will likely be denied access to children by any sane persons once they are released.
2. Date rapists likewise typically never get caught in the first place, so they are most likely perpetrators of many rapes who are unlikely to get caught once released.
3. The rarer strange rapists are also almost never caught the first time they rape, and are unlikely to get caught when released.
Rape and sexual abuse are not easily tracked, and instead should be considered based on expert interactions with incarcerated and known rapists. Typically these people have strong compulsions to do what they do that are not easily trained away, although some techniques appear to work the fact that it's a constantly struggle for them to not go around raping people is strong evidence against releasing them, regardless of whatever minimally useful statistics might show. But back to the root of it, the malicious mindset to even commit a rape is so contrary to the public order that there is no compelling reason to not punish it with a life term.
Quote from: ulmont on May 28, 2013, 05:48:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 28, 2013, 05:31:21 PM
The recidivism rates for sexual predators speak for themselves.
Yes, they do.
QuoteAccording to the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) of the United States Department of Justice,[4] in New York State the recidivism rate for sex offenders has been shown to be lower than any other crime except murder.
Law and Order, and its SVU spin-off, have to be one of the most pernicious crime dramas ever. I bet they're a pretty big factor behind the myth that impressionable scared people buy into that sex offenders are just out-of-control maniacs that will keep menacing the society until they're put down.
Quote from: ulmont on May 28, 2013, 05:48:40 PM
QuoteAccording to the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) of the United States Department of Justice,[4] in New York State the recidivism rate for sex offenders has been shown to be lower than any other crime except murder.
Thank God for Detective Benson.
Quote from: DGuller on May 28, 2013, 05:58:41 PM
Quote from: ulmont on May 28, 2013, 05:48:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 28, 2013, 05:31:21 PM
The recidivism rates for sexual predators speak for themselves.
Yes, they do.
QuoteAccording to the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) of the United States Department of Justice,[4] in New York State the recidivism rate for sex offenders has been shown to be lower than any other crime except murder.
Law and Order, and its SVU spin-off, have to be one of the most pernicious crime dramas ever. I bet they're a pretty big factor behind the myth that impressionable scared people buy into that sex offenders are just out-of-control maniacs that will keep menacing the society until they're put down.
Certainly. :lol:
http://www.newser.com/story/168589/alaska-accused-killer-got-out-of-jail-same-day.html
Quote(Newser) – The suspect in a horrific double murder in Alaska walked out of jail less than 12 hours before he allegedly murdered an elderly couple and sexually assaulted their 2-year-old great-granddaughter, the Anchorage Daily News reports. Jerry Active, 24, had been serving time for a probation violation, the latest in a series of violations that caused him to be in prison for all but 18 days since his first release on probation in October 2011. He was released at 8:09am Saturday and arrested that night following an attack that Alaska police are calling the worst they've ever seen.
A registered sex offender, Active has been in and out of jail since 2007, a spokeswoman for Alaska's Department of Corrections says. He was arrested in 2009 for a crime with disturbing similarities to the one that has shocked Alaska: He broke into a home, attempted to sexually assault an 11-year-old girl, and then attacked three family members. "He messed up quickly and repeatedly" every time he got out of jail and was often re-arrested on the same day, the corrections spokeswoman says.
I don't see the attraction of lesbianism. :bowler:
Quote from: 11B4V on May 28, 2013, 06:08:12 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 28, 2013, 05:58:41 PM
Quote from: ulmont on May 28, 2013, 05:48:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 28, 2013, 05:31:21 PM
The recidivism rates for sexual predators speak for themselves.
Yes, they do.
QuoteAccording to the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) of the United States Department of Justice,[4] in New York State the recidivism rate for sex offenders has been shown to be lower than any other crime except murder.
Law and Order, and its SVU spin-off, have to be one of the most pernicious crime dramas ever. I bet they're a pretty big factor behind the myth that impressionable scared people buy into that sex offenders are just out-of-control maniacs that will keep menacing the society until they're put down.
Certainly. :lol:
http://www.newser.com/story/168589/alaska-accused-killer-got-out-of-jail-same-day.html
Quote(Newser) – The suspect in a horrific double murder in Alaska walked out of jail less than 12 hours before he allegedly murdered an elderly couple and sexually assaulted their 2-year-old great-granddaughter, the Anchorage Daily News reports. Jerry Active, 24, had been serving time for a probation violation, the latest in a series of violations that caused him to be in prison for all but 18 days since his first release on probation in October 2011. He was released at 8:09am Saturday and arrested that night following an attack that Alaska police are calling the worst they've ever seen.
A registered sex offender, Active has been in and out of jail since 2007, a spokeswoman for Alaska's Department of Corrections says. He was arrested in 2009 for a crime with disturbing similarities to the one that has shocked Alaska: He broke into a home, attempted to sexually assault an 11-year-old girl, and then attacked three family members. "He messed up quickly and repeatedly" every time he got out of jail and was often re-arrested on the same day, the corrections spokeswoman says.
Ooh, anecdotal evidence. :o I stand corrected.
Quote from: DGuller on May 28, 2013, 06:57:11 PM
Ooh, anecdotal evidence. :o I stand corrected.
I have substantially more anecdotal evidence than you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 28, 2013, 07:03:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 28, 2013, 06:57:11 PM
Ooh, anecdotal evidence. :o I stand corrected.
I have substantially more anecdotal evidence than you.
It's still anecdotal, though, and incredibly biased. After all, cops don't typically deal with convicted sex offenders that don't re-offend.
Any serious study has to admit the low percentage of persons committing sex crimes who are ever caught or reported, which affects both sexual assault statistics as well as recidivism rate statistics. The concept that we can meaningfully know for any purpose the recidivism rate of sex offenders is laughable.
Quote from: DGuller on May 28, 2013, 07:20:23 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 28, 2013, 07:03:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 28, 2013, 06:57:11 PM
Ooh, anecdotal evidence. :o I stand corrected.
I have substantially more anecdotal evidence than you.
It's still anecdotal, though, and incredibly biased. After all, cops don't typically deal with convicted sex offenders that don't re-offend.
I bailed out a hell of a lot more than I arrested. Over and over and over again. Weenie wavers and fondlers count as sexual predators, you know.
The only problem with the death penalty is that we don't apply it neither often nor swiftly enough.
And while some murders can occur from moments of rage, rape almost always requires much more of a leap of effort and will in the criminal mind. I'd definitely make it more of a capital crime.
But otherwise, I agree with OvB, a lot of non-violent crimes can do without incarceration (chain gangs, road crews, forest fire fighters). Non-trafficking drug crimes should mostly go as well.
And graffiti artist should get the Goldfinger treatment. :mad:
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 28, 2013, 08:55:57 PM
And graffiti artist should get the Goldfinger treatment. :mad:
Have Oddjob slice their head off with a flying hat?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 28, 2013, 07:32:54 PM
Any serious study has to admit the low percentage of persons committing sex crimes who are ever caught or reported, which affects both sexual assault statistics as well as recidivism rate statistics. The concept that we can meaningfully know for any purpose the recidivism rate of sex offenders is laughable.
That may be true, but in that case, the recidivism rate wouldn't speak for itself, would it?
Quote from: DGuller on May 28, 2013, 10:16:45 PMThat may be true, but in that case, the recidivism rate wouldn't speak for itself, would it?
No, and I wouldn't argue that it would (that was Cdm); but nor would I pull up statistical analysis of the recidivism rate since I think those statistics are inherently unreliable in this matter.
DGuller just joined the Axis of Pedo Defenders with Martinus.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 28, 2013, 05:56:12 PM
Typically these people have strong compulsions to do what they do that are not easily trained away, although some techniques appear to work the fact that it's a constantly struggle for them to not go around raping people is strong evidence against releasing them, regardless of whatever minimally useful statistics might show. But back to the root of it, the malicious mindset to even commit a rape is so contrary to the public order that there is no compelling reason to not punish it with a life term.
Well if you are correct and only a tiny percentage of rapes in the US are ever reported then instead of around 100,000 rapes a year we have millions of rapes a year and a huge percentage of our population are serial criminals who need to locked away for life. I find that hard to buy.
Now I am not saying serial rapists should not be locked up for life, I just think there needs to be something like evidence to suggest this is so. I mean statistics show most reported rapes occur with drugs or alcohol involved where people's judgement is impaired. Besides recall we are discussing a statutory rape case here, which is considered rape even though both parties are close in age and it is consensual.
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2013, 08:21:01 AM
Well if you are correct and only a tiny percentage of rapes in the US are ever reported then instead of around 100,000 rapes a year we have millions of rapes a year and a huge percentage of our population are serial criminals who need to locked away for life. I find that hard to buy.
I don't. Sex offenses collectively--from child sexual abuse to acquaintance rape--are the most unreported offenses in this nation, save perhaps misdemeanor theft.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 29, 2013, 07:47:55 AM
DGuller just joined the Axis of Pedo Defenders with Martinus.
Martinus joined because he thought it had to do with feet.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 29, 2013, 08:22:49 AM
I don't. Sex offenses collectively--from child sexual abuse to acquaintance rape--are the most unreported offenses in this nation, save perhaps misdemeanor theft.
Sure maybe in absolute numbers but we are talking a tiny percentage? Like orders of magnitude are not reported? We already have one of the higher rates of rape and sexual assault in the world for Godsake.
I think the bigger issue is the term "rape". It's used for an entire spectrum of crimes, all of which are bad, but some are far worse than others. Unlike murder, where dead is dead, with rape, there are a lot of mitigating factors that come into play that should, imo, be addressed rather than having a blanket sentence.
It should matter if it's statutory rape between teens. It should matter if it's two drunk people, one of which goes too far. It should matter if it's someone who brutalizes the person when he/she rapes them. Those are factors that should matter in sentencing.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 29, 2013, 07:47:55 AM
DGuller just joined the Axis of Pedo Defenders with Martinus.
Please show me where in this thread I am defending pedophiles.
Quote from: Martinus on May 29, 2013, 08:53:46 AM
Please show me where in this thread I am defending pedophiles.
As this thread doesn't have any European film directors drugging and assraping little kids, I'll have to show you some other threads.
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2013, 08:31:06 AM
Sure maybe in absolute numbers but we are talking a tiny percentage?
Does that make it any more acceptable?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 29, 2013, 07:47:55 AM
DGuller just joined the Axis of Pedo Defenders with Martinus.
Somebody has to keep a perspective, or else we'll backslide into every crime getting a life sentence. I really don't want panhandlers to be out in society, you know? They're kinda annoying.
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2013, 08:21:01 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 28, 2013, 05:56:12 PM
Typically these people have strong compulsions to do what they do that are not easily trained away, although some techniques appear to work the fact that it's a constantly struggle for them to not go around raping people is strong evidence against releasing them, regardless of whatever minimally useful statistics might show. But back to the root of it, the malicious mindset to even commit a rape is so contrary to the public order that there is no compelling reason to not punish it with a life term.
Well if you are correct and only a tiny percentage of rapes in the US are ever reported then instead of around 100,000 rapes a year we have millions of rapes a year and a huge percentage of our population are serial criminals who need to locked away for life. I find that hard to buy.
Now I am not saying serial rapists should not be locked up for life, I just think there needs to be something like evidence to suggest this is so. I mean statistics show most reported rapes occur with drugs or alcohol involved where people's judgement is impaired. Besides recall we are discussing a statutory rape case here, which is considered rape even though both parties are close in age and it is consensual.
I don't think sex offenders should be locked away for life, but I have no problem with the argument that you have millions of sex offences per year going on in the US. :mellow:
Quote from: Barrister on May 29, 2013, 09:09:07 AM
I don't think sex offenders should be locked away for life, but I have no problem with the argument that you have millions of sex offences per year going on in the US. :mellow:
That's more of a statement than an argument. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 29, 2013, 08:57:16 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2013, 08:31:06 AM
Sure maybe in absolute numbers but we are talking a tiny percentage?
Does that make it any more acceptable?
I do not think this is about acceptability. The debate here is if every person convicted of rape can be assumed to be a serial offender incapable of behaving in regular society and that all official statistics are false to the point of being ignorable.
Quote from: Barrister on May 29, 2013, 09:09:07 AM
I don't think sex offenders should be locked away for life, but I have no problem with the argument that you have millions of sex offences per year going on in the US. :mellow:
Maybe but that would be pretty mind blowing to me and I spent years working with sexual abuse victims.
That would mean that reported rates of rape/sexual assault/abuse are being under-reported (not arrested or convicted or anything just reported) by at least a factor of 5. Am I to accept that instead of 1 in 6 women being raped or sexually assaulted during her lifetime the actual number is well over 70%? Or that, for some reason, these women are reporting they are being raped or sexually assaulted but under-reporting the number of occurances? That a significant percentage of American men are committing rape on at least an annual basis?
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2013, 08:31:06 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 29, 2013, 08:22:49 AM
I don't. Sex offenses collectively--from child sexual abuse to acquaintance rape--are the most unreported offenses in this nation, save perhaps misdemeanor theft.
Sure maybe in absolute numbers but we are talking a tiny percentage? Like orders of magnitude are not reported? We already have one of the higher rates of rape and sexual assault in the world for Godsake.
I guess it depends on definition. There were members on here with a questionable definition of sexual assault.
Quote from: merithyn on May 29, 2013, 08:53:13 AM
I think the bigger issue is the term "rape". It's used for an entire spectrum of crimes, all of which are bad, but some are far worse than others. Unlike murder, where dead is dead, with rape, there are a lot of mitigating factors that come into play that should, imo, be addressed rather than having a blanket sentence.
It should matter if it's statutory rape between teens. It should matter if it's two drunk people, one of which goes too far. It should matter if it's someone who brutalizes the person when he/she rapes them. Those are factors that should matter in sentencing.
Absolutely.
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2013, 09:52:18 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 29, 2013, 09:09:07 AM
I don't think sex offenders should be locked away for life, but I have no problem with the argument that you have millions of sex offences per year going on in the US. :mellow:
Maybe but that would be pretty mind blowing to me and I spent years working with sexual abuse victims.
That would mean that reported rates of rape/sexual assault/abuse are being under-reported (not arrested or convicted or anything just reported) by at least a factor of 5. Am I to accept that instead of 1 in 6 women being raped or sexually assaulted during her lifetime the actual number is well over 70%? Or that, for some reason, these women are reporting they are being raped or sexually assaulted but under-reporting the number of occurances? That a significant percentage of American men are committing rape on at least an annual basis?
Sounds about right to me.
Quote from: Barrister on May 29, 2013, 09:57:46 AM
Sounds about right to me.
Well maybe I should take my family and GTFO since it appears we all have a almost assured chance of being raped if we remain. America: Land of the Rapists.
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2013, 09:52:18 AM
Maybe but that would be pretty mind blowing to me and I spent years working with sexual abuse victims.
Then you more than anybody else knows that where there is one victim, there are more from the same offender. DOJ says 1 in 6 US women are the victim of a sex offense or attempted sex offense in their lifetime.
QuoteThat would mean that reported rates of rape/sexual assault/abuse are being under-reported (not arrested or convicted or anything just reported) by at least a factor of 5. Am I to accept that instead of 1 in 6 women being raped or sexually assaulted during her lifetime the actual number is well over 70%? Or that, for some reason, these women are reporting they are being raped or sexually assaulted but under-reporting the number of occurances? That a significant percentage of American men are committing rape on at least an annual basis?
There was the big stink here in Baltimore a couple years ago--which I posted about--regarding the BPD's under-reporting of rape cases. And they aren't the only ones.
QuoteLast July, a lengthy investigation by The Baltimore Sun revealed that police in that city were ignoring rape claims and refusing to pass them on to investigators.
Before the newspaper's exhaustive investigation in June, reported rape cases in Baltimore were down by 15 percent for the year. But a headline in this morning's Baltimore Sun reads that reports of rapes in the city are actually up by 20 percent this year, a sharp increase since new police procedures were sparked by the Baltimore Sun investigation.
A similar investigation by the Philadelphia Inquirer in 2000 revealed that the police department in that city "downgraded" rapes for nearly two decades, and secretly dumped thousands of cases of rape with hardly any investigation.
Tracy told Senators today that police departments in several big cities, including St. Louis, New Orleans, Milwaukee, Cleveland and New York are employing similar tactics "to sweep reports of rape under the rug."
And don't forget the half million rape kits that have been collected were never tested across the country.
QuoteNon-governmental organisations (NGOs) and media investigative reports have found rape kits in many jurisdictions nationwide, including:
1,100 in Albuquerque
2,100 in Birmingham
1,200 in Cincinnati
5,600 in Detroit
3,800 in Houston
4,000 across the state of Illinois
12,500 in Los Angeles
16,000 in New York City (c. 2003; now eliminated)
4,100 in Phoenix
1,050 across the state of Rhode Island
11,100 in San Antonio
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 29, 2013, 08:56:21 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 29, 2013, 08:53:46 AM
Please show me where in this thread I am defending pedophiles.
As this thread doesn't have any European film directors drugging and assraping little kids, I'll have to show you some other threads.
Forget it, Jay. It's Warsaw.
Assuming ~50 year period during a woman's lifespan when rape is most likely, you'd need 500,000 unique women raped per year in order to meet the 1 in 6 level. In order for 70% of women to be raped in their lifetime that goes up to 2.1 million. That's not incidences of rape, that's the number of women each year that were raped for the first time. The actual number of rapes would probably have to be 2-3 times higher than that. That's ridiculously high, and would probably require either many dedicated men trying to get to those numbers or a whole different culture in the US than actually exists.
Does sexual assault include grabbing a girl's ass?
Quote from: derspiess on May 29, 2013, 11:49:13 AM
Does sexual assault include grabbing a girl's ass?
I think grabbing somebody is technically assault, so I think so. But this is one of those gray areas.
Quote from: derspiess on May 29, 2013, 11:49:13 AM
Does sexual assault include grabbing a girl's ass?
You see where Beyonce got her ass slapped in Denmark? I'd make that ass go numb.
Quote from: derspiess on May 29, 2013, 11:49:13 AM
Does sexual assault include grabbing a girl's ass?
It most certainly does! :mad:
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2013, 10:02:18 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 29, 2013, 09:57:46 AM
Sounds about right to me.
Well maybe I should take my family and GTFO since it appears we all have a almost assured chance of being raped if we remain. America: Land of the Rapists.
Hide your kids. Hide your wife.
Quote from: fahdiz on May 29, 2013, 12:31:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2013, 10:02:18 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 29, 2013, 09:57:46 AM
Sounds about right to me.
Well maybe I should take my family and GTFO since it appears we all have a almost assured chance of being raped if we remain. America: Land of the Rapists.
Hide your kids. Hide your wife.
I'm no longer gay. :)
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2013, 09:52:18 AM
Maybe but that would be pretty mind blowing to me and I spent years working with sexual abuse victims.
That would mean that reported rates of rape/sexual assault/abuse are being under-reported (not arrested or convicted or anything just reported) by at least a factor of 5. Am I to accept that instead of 1 in 6 women being raped or sexually assaulted during her lifetime the actual number is well over 70%? Or that, for some reason, these women are reporting they are being raped or sexually assaulted but under-reporting the number of occurances? That a significant percentage of American men are committing rape on at least an annual basis?
Not 70%, but not 16%, either. More like 30-35%.
Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/health/nearly-1-in-5-women-in-us-survey-report-sexual-assault.html?_r=0)
QuoteSexual violence affects women disproportionately, the researchers found. One-third of women said they had been victims of a rape, beating or stalking, or a combination of assaults.
The researchers defined rape as completed forced penetration, forced penetration facilitated by drugs or alcohol, or attempted forced penetration.
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2013, 11:51:38 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 29, 2013, 11:49:13 AM
Does sexual assault include grabbing a girl's ass?
I think grabbing somebody is technically assault, so I think so. But this is one of those gray areas.
:huh:
How is that a "gray area"?
Quote from: merithyn on May 29, 2013, 01:26:16 PM
Not 70%, but not 16%, either. More like 30-35%.
I was discussing a hypothetical there.
QuoteNot 70%, but not 16%, either. More like 30-35%.
The article says it is 1 in 5, or 20%. The 1/3rd counts a few other things.
The sorta scary part is is that those numbers are actually down from the past.
Quote from: merithyn on May 29, 2013, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2013, 11:51:38 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 29, 2013, 11:49:13 AM
Does sexual assault include grabbing a girl's ass?
I think grabbing somebody is technically assault, so I think so. But this is one of those gray areas.
:huh:
How is that a "gray area"?
Because generally when people talk about locking people up for life for being a perverse monster, they generally think of a more serious offense than a groping. Not that groping shouldn't be a crime mind you.
Quote from: merithyn on May 29, 2013, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2013, 11:51:38 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 29, 2013, 11:49:13 AM
Does sexual assault include grabbing a girl's ass?
I think grabbing somebody is technically assault, so I think so. But this is one of those gray areas.
:huh:
How is that a "gray area"?
Because it could inflate the statistics and make them sound a lot worse than they are.
Quote from: derspiess on May 29, 2013, 01:56:48 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 29, 2013, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2013, 11:51:38 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 29, 2013, 11:49:13 AM
Does sexual assault include grabbing a girl's ass?
I think grabbing somebody is technically assault, so I think so. But this is one of those gray areas.
:huh:
How is that a "gray area"?
Because it could inflate the statistics and make them sound a lot worse than they are.
Depends on whether they liked it.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Foriginal%2F000%2F143%2F581%2F8474739.jpg%3F1309732852&hash=04a4ed9930338e0d2b38c36dc2ec04b838075fe3)
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2013, 09:52:18 AMMaybe but that would be pretty mind blowing to me and I spent years working with sexual abuse victims.
That would mean that reported rates of rape/sexual assault/abuse are being under-reported (not arrested or convicted or anything just reported) by at least a factor of 5. Am I to accept that instead of 1 in 6 women being raped or sexually assaulted during her lifetime the actual number is well over 70%? Or that, for some reason, these women are reporting they are being raped or sexually assaulted but under-reporting the number of occurances? That a significant percentage of American men are committing rape on at least an annual basis?
Well, the number Meri threw out in the 30%-35% range is what I've heard from survey based examinations of the issue, if the official percentage is 1 in 6 that shows a substantial underreporting.
Plus, a lot of the under reported rapes will by their nature be part of a long series. How many close male relatives that rape children do it once? I'd wager very few, most groom the kid and rape them for years and years and years, that's hundreds and hundreds of unreported rapes, but also barely moves the needle if you're talking "percentage of people raped" since it is one victim being raped continuously and not multiple victims being raped.
Our rape occurrence isn't particularly super high, it's higher than some Western countries but lower than others. Only about 35 countries have even
remotely reliable rape statistics. Countries like Sudan and South Africa there aren't really any solid statistics like there are here but the incidence is presumed to be "very, very high." This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics) gives an idea, yes of the reported countries the U.S. is in the top 10, but a lot of countries have very low incidence where we can pretty much assume that is false (basically any African hell hole country), and then some countries have no statistics at all, note Venezuela which regularly leads the world in murder rate isn't represented on those tables but most likely would land high on the chart.