Mother raped own daughter for 'sex education'

Eeeeww thats horrible

 

i think she should get more than 4 years most def like 10-15

 

I think we have some P.I.D lurking the fourms these days....
P.I.D ---> Perves In Disguise

 

Insane how crazy some people are, i read an article of a lady that tried making meth inside the walmart because she couldn't afford the materials.

 

this is really odd :/

 

kinda fucked up

 

I'm one of the guests (registered specifically to comment on this thread) who viewed the post -- to see if there were any additional details to the case, or to see if the copypasta OP cited any original sources. There are those who will believe anything read or posted on the presumption that someone wouldn't lie about it -- but there are far fewer of us who will nitpick about details to ensure the original, correct message was re-transmitted and that people are getting upset over the true story and not the corrupted, copied version of the story. A lot of people just want something to fume over and re-enforce their flawed understandings of the world, while others question their feelings and ask questions to ensure the story they heard is actually what happened and justify their feelings on the elements that can actually be proven.

I'm trying to determine what definition of "rape" the judge uses. The earliest original story I can find is by the Sunshine Coast Daily.

What particularly throws me is that the judge isn't really at all certain whether the 11/yo will be harmed emotionally by her experience -- which to me indicates the supposed "rape" wasn't the beaten-and-screaming kind that immediately comes to mind when "rape" is used (where being harmed emotionally would have been overwhelmingly obvious to any judge), but instead might actually have been the inappropriate petting of a minor that was overgeneralized as a rape-category crime.

The mother may have simply touched her daughter inappropriately, such as to demonstrate where things go and what things do, without painful penetration or restraints or "no no no" kinds of situations. Two teenagers fooling around can result in an arbitrary rape charge for the boy in America, so it's not entirely implausible that a mother who was vague on appropriate legal boundaries for explaining sexual matters to her 11/yo daughter suddenly gets flaunted into the press as a rape.

The short sentence of 4 years, plus the fact that it was reduced for time-served pending trial and given 3 years probation instead -- would further indicate that the "crime" actually committed was far tamer than actual rape, and was instead possibly more along the lines of inappropriate petting and exposing a minor to live amateur pornography.

It may be a double standard in regard to women -- if I was an 11/yo boy and offered a first-hand demonstration from a parent, I think the only harm that would befall me were whether I could then trust so-called trustworthy people like police and counselors, who continually told me something I thought was pretty cool was actually instead Very Harmful to my well-being, since my own opinion of how bad something was that happened to me doesn't matter and that I must feel how everyone else feels about a vague subject that doesn't really apply to my specific situation.

 

How could you do that to your daughter like how...

 

I appreciate your thoughts on this, but the severity of "rape" is irrelevant. Think of this ; If you stole $5 worth of candy from a shop; it is stealing and If you stole $100; it is still stealing. Now apply this to our situation, assuming that the mother is guilty only of "inappropriate petting". Rape is still rape.

 

Wow that's so freakin screwed up, this world is so freaking weird.

 

That's honestly disgusting and sick. The side note about the mother sharing her sexual videos with her daughter is sick enough in my opinion.

 

The things you read just keep getting worse..

 

That's insane, I can't believe all she got was 4 years. Clearly someone is a bit messy in the head...

 

Wow... There are not really words to desribe this... It's very horrifying...
I don't really want to write down what should they do with these kind of people...

 

she should be sentenced to death

 

It's really not. It's more along the lines of stealing vs. copying music. Even though copying music illegally falls under the category of stealing, it's not even really on the same level of theft as would stealing a car -- unless you could leave the original car where it is and make your own duplicate of the car and drive away with that. It boils down to the word used to describe it, despite being completely different things. Inappropriate touching of minors isn't rape, especially if both parties consent, but is still classified as rape categorically. It's not really "forced sex" in the way that being held down and penetrated is. The details need to be explained in better detail to justify the use of the rape term.

 

According to legal-dictionary.com, "Rape is the commission of unlawful sexual intercourse or unlawful sexual intrusion"

Even if both parties consent, it is still rendered moot because the legal consent age is 16.

Not only is this rape, but is incest (which in australia is illegal).

And seeing as she also filmed it, she then has possesion of CP (also illegal)

This woman is lucky that she is only getting 4 years. When she is guilty of all such things.

 

Some people are so fucked in the head....

 

Legal-dictionary.com (henceforth L-D) is an advertising site, not a place to search for legal definitions. When you go there, you search for sponsors that offer information about those legal topics. L-D doesn't define anything except examples of advertisers that pay Legal-dictionary for hits that result from L-D search results. Perhaps you meant Legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com?

Neither sexual intercourse, nor sexual intrusion is described by the source material. Further, if minors are legally at a developmental stage to which they are incapable of offering consent to sex, what governs their capability to discern having sex from not having had it? Did intrusion actually occur? Was there actually resistance, by which an "intrusion" situation was present? Was there actual "intercourse" or merely moreso simply manual indication?

According to the conditions described out in in the article, an act took place that was ambiguous as to whether the minor would feel emotional issue with the act, but yet warranted the rape charge -- which does not run parallel with the intrusive act of rape.

The severance of the mother-daughter relationship is ambiguous in reference to the severance of emotional ties due to the act, or due to the legal penalty the act brought by separation of the mother-daughter (due to law enforcement). The severance of the mother-daughter relationship is not the real issue, however, because that relationship could be severed through the perception of the daughter through perfectly reasonable and legal means such as administering typical parental punishment for disobedience (grounding, obstructing allowances to material items, etc).

Yes, but legal consent to what is what needs to be described, and is the reason for the whole discussion. Touching is not sex except by intention and purpose -- your doctor can examine you, or your parent can assist you in personal hygiene (such as for a baby) in ways that involve manual manipulation of genitalia for purposes of instruction or inspection that are not sexual -- but whether the acts that took place were eligible to be considered "sexual" in nature, even in an effort to explain demonstratively what sex is about, is not described well enough to presume that "rape" took place.

As previously noted, for instance, wiping a child's bottom or genitalia to clean it from fecal matter as with a baby, is an acceptable situation in which parental touching is legal and permissible. In order to be properly characterized as rape or incest, an actual sexual act must have been performed in order to even qualify -- and no such acts were described.

There's no question as to whether the filmed incident was production of CP, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether the act was actually rape, or just a category under which the term rape might be rightfully applied.

The fact that she is only getting four years is indicative that the act that occurred was not genuinely rape, which would normally be rewarded with a much more serious penalty.

 

This is so fucking sad I wonder why only the 4 year sentence?