[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/news/ - Current News


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 44 posters in this thread.

10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
05/08/16Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks. Make sure to check your spam box!
[Hide] [Show All]



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/all-male-committee-ensure-rapists-rights-victims-children-maryland-general-assembly-rape-survivor-a7690861.html

>A group of all male politicians have rejected a law that would prevent rapists from having parental rights to their victims' children.

>Campaigners were left "angry and disappointed" after Maryland’s General Assembly voted against enacting the Rape Survivor Family Protection Act.
>>
>No women sat on the five-strong committee which voted against the bill, which means that rape victims who choose to bear the child will still have to negotiate with their attackers over custody rights or whether they put the child up for adoption.

>It is the ninth time that politicians in the US state have voted against a proposed changes. So it remains one of just seven out of the 50 US states not have a similar law in place.

>The latest version of a bill launched 10-years ago by Kathleen Dumais had the support of a wide spectrum of groups, from Planned Parenthood organisations to the Maryland Catholic Conference.

>After it was voted down, her colleague Senator Cheryl Kagan told the Baltimore Sun: "Although I have great respect for my colleagues, not having women on the committee was tone-deaf."
>>
>Ms Kagan said looked over the men on the committee because "I wanted to watch as the conscience for women and rape survivors".

>The decision was strongly criticised by women’s rights advocates.

>"I think we're both angered and disappointed," Lisae Jordan, director of the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, told Broadly.

>Ms Jordan added there weren’t a large number of cases of rape victims going on to have a child conceived in the assault. But she said that her group did come across women who were involved in legal disputes with their rapists because of inadequate legal support.

>She continued: "It's traumatic for someone to have to parent with their rapist. It’s frightening.
>>
>“It's something that raises concerns about the effect not only on the rape survivor but also on the child."

>However, Ms Jordan welcomed a new law introduced in Maryland this week, which stopped victims of sexual assault from having to prove they used physical force to resist a rape.

>"Sexual assault survivors will no longer be forced to choose between keeping safe or having access to justice," Ms Jordan told Buzzfeed News.
>>
>>133713
>men have rights to their children

The horror
>>
In america , many of these rapes were consensual
>>
Also what the fuck kind of woman keeps a rapists baby?
That is your first red flag that its not really a raep
>>
>>133722
It's america, you are not allowed to get an abortion in all stats,you know land of the free.
>>
>Woman is raped
>No witnesses
>Rapist gets off scot free
>Woman is not allowed to have abortion
>Nine months later
>Woman has rapist's baby
>Then has to give it to rapist if he decides he wants it
>All this is legal in burgerland
Why do tranny's even want to be women jesus christ this is some Islamic state shit
>>
>A group of all male politicians
The reporter is clearly implying that women can't be rapists. What a sexist piece of shit.
>>
Why is the independent a thing all of the sudden?
>>
>>133713
>>A group of all male politicians have rejected a law that would prevent rapists from having parental rights to their victims' children.
It's not just a low blow to women, though. Do those guy actually know that many male victims of rape are still forced to pay alimony money to their rapist?

I mean, Who the fuck think Rapist having custody is a good idea?
>>
Islamic states of America
>>
>>133736
>woman has consensual sex
>decides later it is rape because she wants the kid to herself (or to get rid of the fucker to spite him)
>"rapist" can never see his child

Restricting rights based on unproven crimes is wrong, you commie filth.
>>
>>133726
In Maryland you can have an abortion up to 14 weeks in
>>
>>133760
>uses single state as reference to contradict an anon who used an entire country as reference

good job
>>
Arranged marriage is best marriage.

It's also the best way to catch a rapist and force him to marry the victim.
>>
>>133741
Men don't get pregnant if a woman rapes them.
>>
this will definitely work in everyone's favor.
>>
>a group of male

This is where I stopped reading this sexiest b.s. that was written by feminist or a bitch ass cuck
>>
>>133848
mra detected
>>
>>133791
This specific motion was in the state of Maryland you witless faggot. It doesn't matter what was going on in other states.

Also, roe vs wade makes abortion legal across the usa anyway, so you're a double faggot, and the poster i was responding to likely has too many chromosomes.
>>
>>133713
This is shitty. It's also shitty that male rape victims have to pay child support, but you'll never hear feminist talk about that one. And that's every state
>>
>>133741
>The reporter is clearly implying that women can't be rapists.
Nope, she is implying that those politicians don't consider male as potential rape victim.
>>
>>133858
>It's also shitty that male rape victims have to pay child support
Why is this shitty again?
>>
>>133858
>but you'll never hear feminist talk about that one.
This article is Directly about that.
>>
>>133862
Source? I didn't see anything in the article about male rape victims paying child support to their female rapists
>>
>>133865
>Source?
The article itself.
>>
>>133865
>I didn't see anything in the article about male rape victims paying child support to their female rapists
Read again
> politicians have rejected a law that would prevent rapists from having parental rights to their victims' children.
Right there. This is precisely what it is about.
>>
>>133736
That is tard level satire mate.

Get better at baiting.
>>
>>133713
>be law maker in Femistan.
>Make law denying custody to rapists (who can only be men).
>Rates of rape accusations sky rocket.

Because that is was the west needs: yet another incentive for women to make accusations of rape.
>>
>>133872
>(who can only be men).
The legislation wasn't gender discriminating, many male rape victims would have benefited from it.
>Rates of rape accusations sky rocket
You'll have to explain the relation between rapists not having parent custody and the increase of rape accusation.
>>
>>133713
>>133714
>>133715
>>133716

#FakeNews

This isn’t about some stranger raping a random woman and then demanding parental rights for himself, this is about MARRIED men and FATHERS who are falsely accused of rape by their cunt wives in a divorce, specifically to prevent them from having any connection with their kids (who the men will STILL have to pay child support for).
>>
>>133882
>#FakeNews
The events related are real.

>this is about MARRIED men and FATHERS who are falsely accused of rape by their cunt wives in a divorce, specifically to prevent them from having any connection with their kids (who the men will STILL have to pay child support for).
You know raped men have to literally give money to their rapists because they have custody of their rape baby, right?

Also, you know that in case of rape accusation, presumption of innocence apply, right? you have to actually prove you have been raped. Simple accusations won't be enough to be condemned.
>>
>>133873
>>133873
>many male rape victims would benefit.
I need some of what you're smoking. Its the good stuff.

>How would rapists not having custody would increase rape accusations?
You dense motherfucker: Nice assumption of guilt. Never be on a jury. You would suck at it. If a woman wants sole custody, and she knows that one of the roads to sole custody is getting the man hit with a rape charge, then what is she going to do? Make the fucking accusation of course.

I know your baiting: no one is this fucking stupid: but it was quality bait so I took it.
>>
>>133885
>
> marry some chick
> hava couple of kids
> she turns into a bitch
> her divorced girlfriends tell her to cash out
> she divorces the guy and puts him thru the wringer
> accuses him of "rape" and the kids of being "rape babies"
> guy never sees his kids again
> still has to pay child support

This has nothing to do with strangers raping random women, this about attacking married fathers in a divorce and preventing them from seeing their children.
>>
>>133873
>many male rape victims

lol
>>
>>133888
>I need some of what you're smoking. Its the good stuff.
-Law forbid rapist to have child custody
-male rape victim don't have to pay custody for the rape baby the rapist made out of the rape
It's called basic logic. Make use of it.
>You dense motherfucker: Nice assumption of guilt.
There has been zero assumption of guilt, there. Have better reading comprehension, please.
>If a woman wants sole custody, and she knows that one of the roads to sole custody is getting the man hit with a rape charge, then what is she going to do? Make the fucking accusation of course.
See>>133885
Presumption of innocence apply even for accusation of rape. A woman accusing her husband of rape won't be enough to make him lose custody. Rape HAS TO be proven.

>I know your baiting: no one is this fucking stupid: but it was quality bait so I took it.
Not baiting. And there is nothing stupid in using straightforward logic.
>>
>>133889
>> accuses him of "rape" and the kids of being "rape babies"
>> guy never sees his kids again
>> still has to pay child support
What part of RAPE HAS TO BE PROVED do you not understand? unproven accusation won't make you lose custody.
>>
>>133890
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/
>>
>>133890
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-12-22/features/9612220045_1_pay-child-support-child-support-behalf
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/he-says-he-said-no-to-sex-now-says-no-to-child-support/1183449
>>
>>133893
>What part of RAPE HAS TO BE PROVED do you not understand?

How are you going to "prove" a rape that happened X years back?

Clearly you've never served on a jury, because it all comes down to a roll of the dice whether the jury believes the man or the woman.

This is just another divorce tactic cooked up by shyster lawyers (like the now common tactic of accusing the dad of molesting the kids) and promoted by bat-shit crazy feminist SJWs to screw over fathers.
>>
>>133898
>How are you going to "prove" a rape that happened X years back?
Exactly. Hence why that legislation wouldn't actually apply to the situation you are complaining about.
people being convicted of rape within a marriage almost never get convicted, it's one of the most difficult thing to prove. Hence why your fear of
>attacking married fathers in a divorce and preventing them from seeing their children.
Is basically unfounded.
>>
>>133898
>Clearly you've never served on a jury, because it all comes down to a roll of the dice whether the jury believes the man or the woman.
Clearly, YOU have never seen a jury, as a trial for rape need solid evidence to even open in the first place. Hesaid/she said isn't enough to open a case.
>>
>>133900
>Hesaid/she said isn't enough to open a case.

Cleary you've never gone thru a divorce, where he said / she said is ALL THAT'S NEEDED.
>>
>>133902
>where he said / she said is ALL THAT'S NEEDED.
Divorce court and criminal court (rape accusation is handled in criminal court) does not work the same.
For once, there is no Jury in a divorce court. So your "roll of dice argument" doesn't apply there.

Someone accusing their partner of rape during a divorce court will not make the other partner lose custody of the kid.

RAPE HAS TO BE PROVEN, NOT BY A DIVORCE COURT, BUT BY A COURT QUALIFIED FOR CRIME TRIAL, FOR THIS LEGISLATION TO COME IN EFFECT.

When it comes to judging a crime he said/she said is not enough.
>>
>>133893
I can't wait for you to see the judicial system in practice instead of in theory.

It will be a very eye opening experience for you. Your fixation on the ideal courtroom blinds you to the obvious. All a woman has to do is start crying on the stand, and the jury will find all the proof they need.
>>
>>133914
>All a woman has to do is start crying on the stand, and the jury will find all the proof they need.
Do you actually work in a court?

A case isn't even opened unless there are solid evidences to start. With. A woman can cry all she want, it serve nothing if the only one watching is a judge who decide there is no ground to even start a trial.
>>
>>133906
>rape has to be proven in a criminal court, not a divorce court.

Now you just being disingenuous. Which court determines custody of children? The divorce/family court does that. The Judge is supreme in his own courtroom. Just because some other court and jury found the man innocent of the crime of rape, does not bind the family judge to not take the charge of rape into account when handing down his decision. He doesn't even have to reference the charge in the decision's rationale, just say that the man appeared dangerous in the courtroom (and what man wouldn't be unhinged by barely surviving a rape charge?).
>>
>>133919
>Just because some other court and jury found the man innocent of the crime of rape, does not bind the family judge to not take the charge of rape into account when handing down his decision.
Actually, yes it does.

the piece of legislation only account for the partner being actually judged GUILTY of rape.

This is an objective element not let to the appreciation of the Judge.
>>
>>133920
It could have an influence, but the legislation in the OP doesn't change that state of thing. IT was already the case before.

On the other hand, what it does is provide a clear case if one of the partner is actually found Guilty of Rape.

This is then an element the judge can't ignore and there will be misstrial if he does.
>>
>>133922

Thanks for being so prolific with your idealistic bullshit. This thread would have been boring as hell without you.
>>
>>133922
Do you understand how the justice system in the US works?
There's a reason a judge never declares a defendant "innocent". Not guilty =\= innocent.
There are times when evidence is insufficient to establish someone had been raped, but enough that someone is still enough of a danger to others. You don't have to successfully commit a rape to make it on a sex offender registry, for example.
>>
>>133925
>Thanks for being so prolific with your idealistic bullshit.
There is nothing idealistic.

Here is the state of things: accusation of Rape within a marriage almost never succeed.
Therefore the main use of this piece of legislation use would not be to force people falsely accused of rape to cash out.

Seriously, what ius YOUR experience of court?
>>
>>133926
>There's a reason a judge never declares a defendant "innocent". Not guilty =\= innocent.
I actually do. And I have said it repeatedly: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION IS OF NO USE IV THE ONE ACCUSED OF RAPE ISN'T ACTUALLY CHARGED AS GUILTY.

Therefore, and this seems to be the part that does not penetrate your brain, even if one of the partner accuse the other of rape, THIS LEGISLATION WILL HAVE ZERO EFFECT ON THE CUSTODY UNLESS HE HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY.

So, no, and I repeat, even if during the Divorce trial, one of the partner say they have been raped, the legislation mentioned in the OP will be of no effect unless they have actually been charged as guilty.
>>
>>133867
>be male rape victim
>woman who raped you loses parental rights over your child
>now have to raise child
t-thanks
>>
>>133930
>>now have to raise child
>t-thanks
Or you can put it through adoption.
>>
>>133936
>Men bad women good!
That's not what it is about.
>>
>>133935
Kekers.

What part of my post gave me away for a dirty communist?
>>
>>133917
> A case isn't even opened unless there are solid evidences to start.

My buddy who is currently going thru a divorce, just concluded his “domestic violence” case last month, (all charges dropped) for which there was no evidence beyond his cunt-of-a-wife’s word and a broken door knob.

He was arrested in front of his kids, got dragged off to jail for three days, got kicked out of his own home, can’t return or take any of his stuff (outside of some clothes) and spent 6+ months wearing an electronic tether (that he was paying $400 per month on). He was literally banned from driving down the highway to and from work, as it went past his wife's place of employment....

You’re in for a rude awakening, son.
>>
>>133941
>You’re in for a rude awakening, son.
You do realize that none of what you said contradict what I stated, right?
>>
>>133942

You do realize that ALL of that will be brought up in court during the divorce trial and will play a part in the settlement, despite all charges being dropped against him?
>>
>>133943
>You do realize that ALL of that will be brought up in court during the divorce trial and will play a part in the settlement, despite all charges being dropped against him?
I actually realize this way better than you do.

And that's my point: if one is accused of rape within a marriage, this will be brought up in the divorce court. This is something that already currently happens. WHETHER OR NOT THE OP'S LEGISLATION IS ACTUALLY PASSED. that legislation CHANGE NOTHING to that.

this is precisely why the whole "partner could abuse this new legislation in their divorce" is irrelevant.

This is an legislation about people having actually been convicted of rape already.
>>
Doesn't this mean a raped woman could quite easily get child support from her rapist?
>>
>>133937
That's what your "argument" is about.

Or do you just worship the state?

>>133938
The bullshit

>>133967
Of course.

Women can get child support even when THEY rape men.

http://m.newser.com/story/193431/man-raped-at-14-has-to-pay-child-support.html

>inb4 some marxist retard defends this
>>
>>133941
This is such a mess

No more government marraige. I will not get married until there is another option.
>>
>>133900
>Hesaid/she said isn't enough to open a case.

It can be and has been enough to bring a conviction in the USA. The standard of proof can be based on nothing more than the Jury and judge believing the prosecution.
>>
>>133969
>That's what your "argument" is about.
I wasn't talking to you before. In what you said, this is all I was about.
>>
>>133998
>It can be and has been enough to bring a conviction in the USA.
Not for High level crime. Substantial proofs need to be brought, or it will fall in the reasonable doubt.
>>
>>134088
at least in cases of alleged child abuse, the court absolutely does favor believing the child accuser is telling the truth and the adult defendant is lying. All it takes is a counselor to testify that they believe the child is telling the truth and for you to not have an alibi. That's literally it.

If it wasn't so, vast majority of molestation would be simply impossible to convict.
>>
>>134090
>the child accuser is telling the truth and the adult defendant is lying.
To be fair, children are not as good liars as adult, usually.
>>
>>134092
When I mean child abuse, I mean any legal minor, not just very little kids. Also, for very little kids it doesn't really matter if they are lying or not, they obviously aren't going to actually drag them into court in order to give their testimony, that's what the councilor is for. and the councilor doesn't really have any compelling reason to ever assume the kid is lying, and a few compelling reasons to assume they are telling the truth no matter how unlikely.

the thing you have to understand is that kids are unreliable either way. they're bad liars, but they're also bad at telling the truth too, they can be lead on way too easily by either side. because of that the system is set up to place as little scrutiny on the kid as possible. they make the initial accusation to a forensic counselor and that is basically all the input they have.

unfortunately this can lead to really awful mud flinging in court, where the defense team focuses on defaming the accusing child's character, because attacking the accusation itself is likely a crapshoot.
>>
>>133849
Cuck detected
>>
>>133924
>>133929
>>133942
>>133944
Actually you're wrong, this would use a private family court to deny parental rights to those ACCUSED of rape.

https://nytimes.com/2017/04/19/us/politics/Maryland-rape-bill.html

>Senator Zirkin, a democrat said
“This would be the first time I’d be aware of where we’d be proving a crime in a civil procedure,” he said. “That should be walked into carefully.”
>>
>>134105
Yes of course, everyone who disagrees with you is a cuckold. It makes perfect sense.
>>
>>134088
What parts of it can and has happened did you not understand?
>>
>>134142
could you at least link to a case where one was convicted for rape based solely on testimony AND the rapist didn't confess?
>>
>>133806
But the woman still can. Are you saying a female rapist has more right to her children then the rape victim father just because he's not the one who bore the child?
>>
>>134143
Ten seconds of searching the net

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/man-wrongly-accused-of-rape-finally-released-from-prison/article/2568687

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/wrongfully-convicted-brian-banks-disgusted-brock-turner-ruling-article-1.2663595

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/nyregion/wrongfully-convicted-of-rape-a-new-jersey-man-finds-more-punishment-after-prison.html?_r=0
>>
>>133759
Don't forget that he can still be successfully sued for child support despite that.
>>
>>133937
>>Men bad women good!
>That's not what it is about.
Is your head so far up your bum that you can't understand why else this might be seriously concerning to people?
In any case, let mothers be equally culpable if they're at risk of committing abuse. This doesn't only apply to men.
>>
>>133806
MEN CAN TOTALLY GET PREGNANT YOU IGNORANT CIS-NORMATIVE SCUM!
>>
>>134289
>>134293
Go troll irrelevant bullshit somewhere else. This outrage-mongering is by far the most intellectually lazy approach to framing any issue.
>>
>>134298
Because she was offended by the other side????
>>
>>134112
>Actually you're wrong, this would use a private family court to deny parental rights to those ACCUSED of rape.
>https://nytimes.com/2017/04/19/us/politics/Maryland-rape-bill.html

Thank you.

Just as I said from the start; this was never about strangers raping random women, it's about fucking over divorced fathers and denying them access to their own children.
>>
>>134282
>Is your head so far up your bum that you can't understand why else this might be seriously concerning to people?
No. But this legislation is not Gender-discriminating.
>a law that would prevent rapists from having parental rights to their victims' children
It would also protect Male victims of rape to pay alimony to their rapists.
That "Men bad women good!" comment is simply out of place and isn't what this legislation is about.
>>
>>134293
>body
>choice
That beside the point.
A rapist simply shouldn't have custody of their rape kid.
She want to give birth to it, fine, that's her choice. But she can't keep the baby once he is born. If she is a convicted rapist she shouldn't be near any kid.
>>
>>134319
>Just as I said from the start; this was never about strangers raping random women,
Yes, it is about that too.
One doesn't exclude the other, you know?

And that bill could have as well be used by men, by the way. Nothing could have stopped the husband from accusing his wife of rape. It works both way.
>>
>>134112
>https://nytimes.com/2017/04/19/us/politics/Maryland-rape-bill.html
Sorry, link is dead.
You'll have to provide an other source.
>>
>>134319
>it's about fucking over divorced fathers and denying them access to their own children.
The legislation isn't gender discriminating. What's to stop the husband from accusing his wife of rape?
>>
>>133713
>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/all-male-committee-ensure-rapists-rights-victims-children-maryland-general-assembly-rape-survivor-a7690861.html
>Maryland remains one of only seven out of 50 US states not to have a similar law in place
So, there are similar legislation in other state and yet not used in their divorce courts.
>>
>>134387
http://us.pressfrom.com/news/us/-42158-another-long-delay-for-rape-custody-bill-in-maryland/
>>
>>134383
>>134386
>>134389
> Male victims of rape

Please, these incidents are so vanishingly rare that they’re irrelevant.

And strangers raping random women and getting them pregnant is also vanishingly rare, as all rape kits nowadays contain “Day After” birth control pills.

And a stranger raping a random woman and getting her pregnant AND demanding parental rights for the rape baby, is flat-out fantasy straight out of a Jane Austen novel.

Which only leaves cunt wives fucking over divorced fathers and preventing them from seeing their own children.

Which was the entire and only reason for this legislation all along.
>>
>>134469
>Please, these incidents are so vanishingly rare that they’re irrelevant.
Ass.
>And strangers raping random women and getting them pregnant is also vanishingly rare
Actually, it's quite high, as Rapist oftne don't use protection and tend to rape younger women.
>as all rape kits nowadays contain “Day After” birth control pills.
There are many women who don't want to have abortions, you know.
>And a stranger raping a random woman and getting her pregnant AND demanding parental rights for the rape baby, is flat-out fantasy straight out of a Jane Austen novel.
More often than not rape rapist are not "random strangers", they are people they know they have rejected their advance but have ended up raping out of frustration anyway. Those rapist want control over their victims and a very calssic way is precisely to ask for the rape-child custody.

>Which only leaves cunt wives fucking over divorced fathers and preventing them from seeing their own children.
Not it doe snot "only " leave that out. As I said, many rapist will want to keep control over their victims by trying to get custody.
>Which was the entire and only reason for this legislation all along.
Wrong, it's to prevent rapists to have custody over their kids.
>>
>>133726
You know how fucking wrong you are?
It is literally legal in all 50 states.
>>
>>133713
>feminists are mad that men do things
More news at 11!

also from what I read this bill didn't specify that the rapist had to be convicted. So it was more like "all-male committee ensures that ACCUSED rapists still POTENTIALLY have the right to see their ALLEGED victim's children who are also their own children"
And seeing as how non-rapist fathers still have a hard time seeing thier kids, it's not like this is likely to happen very often.
>>
>>134469
Ignore the other comment, he's a faggot who has spent this entire thread trolling with shitty comments.

You on the other hand know your stuff.
>>
>>133941
Take ol' Randys words of wisdom on the prospects of female companionship

1. Always pay up front
2. Never give em your real name
>>
>>133744
The same people who preach two family house hold is good for the child.

This law is in keeping with anti abortion, father having no say in financial manners, and other related laws. After all, the main goal of these laws is to put the kid first above the parents needs.

So if the father/mother is so toxic to the child's well being that they shouldn't even have visitation rights, then use some other law to block them. Don't just flat out fuck every rapist over.
>>
>>134770
>Don't just flat out fuck every rapist over.
You'll have trouble selling this argument to anyone except rapists.
>>
>>134771
Balance in the legal system is hard to sell period. Its why America places little emphasis on reform and the death penalty is still popular despite the fact its kills innocents as well.

But going more back to reality, make the bill a rider of some other bill, change the wording a bit, and bam passed.
>>
>>133718
That you raped to get... seems black and white my dude
>>
>>133722
Religion, money, not knowing your pregnant. Making the best out of a shit situation. It's a complicated issue for sure but it happens
>>
>>133721
this is what i assume
>>
>>135263
Abortion is cheap and there are charities that will pay.
If you get raped you damn well better do a pregnancy test
Religion is for idiots and deserve the shit sandwich then end up with.

There is literally no excuse for bearing a rapists baby
>>
>>135262
*allegedly raped
That's the issue, the bill didn't require a conviction
>>
>>135287
https://legiscan.com/MD/bill/HB646/2016
I think it works more as a one-two, where if the person is convicted of rape, the victim could then press further so as to get a sort of restraining order against the convicted rapist.
>>
>>133861
>have something forced onto you against your will
>lose your agency
>literally raped
>then have to pay the rapist for the next 18 years
>>
>>134385
Tender years doctrine disagrees with you and every court in the land will also disagree with you.

Women-rapists will always keep their babies.
>>
>>134094
> Also, for very little kids it doesn't really matter if they are lying or not, they obviously aren't going to actually drag them into court in order to give their testimony

Don’t know what you consider “little” but I served on a jury back in the late 1980s on a molestation case (uncle and niece) and incident happened when the girl was 6 years old and she testified in court at 8 year of age.

We convicted the guy, in large part on her testimony and found out afterward, that this was his third time in court on molestation charges but the other two times, the little girls froze up on the witness stand and charges were dropped.
>>
>>134094
>the defense team focuses on defaming the accusing child's character

Do you enjoy talking out your ass? A defender that tries that runs a 95% chance of turning everyone in the court permanently against him and his client, banking on the slim chance that whatever mud they can sling will be sufficiently distracting and not merely look like the futile flailing limbs of desperation. It's covered in Trail Law 101, lecture 3: Things from TV One Should Never Do.

But as >>135383 notes, if the victim can't testify and there's no witness the prosecutor might have to drop charges until the situation changes, rather than risk a possible active threat being "Not Guilty" and immune from further prosecution on the matter.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.