I understand you can look at a baby and feel all sorts of feelings. Tenderness. Responsibility. Overwheming awe.
But a sexual response? I just don't get that. At all. Disgusting. How on earth do you sexually assault a 7-month old? What type of person is that? Other than a monster, which I understand, what type of person, what happened to that person, what is missing, I just don't get it.
This is where I maintain there is a special place in hell for people who hurt animals and children. I would love to send them there myself...
But a sexual response? I just don't get that. At all. Disgusting. How on earth do you sexually assault a 7-month old? What type of person is that? Other than a monster, which I understand, what type of person, what happened to that person, what is missing, I just don't get it.
This is where I maintain there is a special place in hell for people who hurt animals and children. I would love to send them there myself...
posted by -Me @ 2/24/2005 09:59:00 AM
1 Comments:
At 1:16 PM,
Ontario Emperor said…
I have always pooh-poohed the assertions that rape is not a crime of sex, but a crime of violence. However, it appears that the assertions are correct - this was a crime of violence, not of sex. The parents completely assaulted the kid, trying to sever the tongue and everything else; it's just that they also assaulted the sexual organs while they were doing it.
I don't know what type of law you practice, but perhaps you could explain a distinction to me. When a criminal does something completely outrageous, the common thinking is that the criminal is a "monster" or (note the term) a "madman." Yet, when the case gets to trial, we need to judge whether this so-called "madman" is sane or insane. Granted that we're probably talking about two different things, but how do you distinguish between a sane madman and an insane madman?
Post a Comment
<< Home