Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    09 Oct '17 17:141 edit
    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/10/7/1705108/-Michigan-Rapist-Gets-Joint-Custody-of-Child

    A child rapist gets custody of his 12 year old child?

    Only in America.................................................and Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and Turkey, and the Sudan, and Egypt, and Yemen, and Palastine, and Pakistan, and Jordon, and......................................................
  2. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    09 Oct '17 18:16
    Where are Palastine and Jordon? Somewhere near Nambia?
  3. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    09 Oct '17 18:582 edits
    Originally posted by @whodey
    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/10/7/1705108/-Michigan-Rapist-Gets-Joint-Custody-of-Child

    A child rapist gets custody of his 12 year old child?

    Only in America.................................................and Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and Turkey, and the Sudan, and Egypt, and Yemen, and Palastine, and Pakistan, and Jordon, and......................................................
    To clarify, a child of 12 was raped under dreadful conditions, resulting in a pregnancy. Nine years later, the rapist (who has also been convicted of another child rape, yet is long out of custody in a nation that incarcerates stupid numbers of Black Americans) has been granted joint custody of his child.

    The details are foul and unpleasant even to read in this link. So what motivates this foul decision?

    "The matter arose as the state was auditing its food stamp program. I’ll let the victim explain.

    “They (officials) never explained anything to me. I was receiving about $260 a month in food stamps for me and my son and health insurance for him. I guess they were trying to see how to get some of the money back.”

    While this is the first instance of this in the US, evangelicals have been lobbying for parental rights for rapists for a while. Wait till they hear you can save money too. The ‘Christianity’ will be overwhelming."


    So it seems that a combination of Christian evangelicals with an obsession for paternal rights and disgusting officials hoping to save money on child support account for this. In either case, there is zero respect for the woman in this situation, whose role is presumably to be a receptacle for male sperm and the incubation of its product.

    I'm just not clear which of those values whodey disagrees with. These seem to be his people at work.

    Quite why the sickness of the USA is being used as evidence of something wrong with Islamic countries escapes me, though I do see the point being made with this comparison and it is pleasing to find that whodey finally gets the point that nothing is wrong in Islam that is not wrong in much the same way with America's brand of evangelical Christianity. Not for nothing do we refer to the American Taliban.
  4. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    09 Oct '17 20:15
    Originally posted by @finnegan
    To clarify, a child of 12 was raped under dreadful conditions, resulting in a pregnancy. Nine years later, the rapist (who has also been convicted of another child rape, yet is long out of custody in a nation that incarcerates stupid numbers of Black Americans) has been granted joint custody of his child.

    The details are foul and unpleasant even to r ...[text shortened]... erica's brand of evangelical Christianity. Not for nothing do we refer to the American Taliban.
    What are arse. I do value parental rights but to suggest that fighting for parental rights involves allowed pedophiles to obtain those rights is detestable.

    Gent bent.
  5. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56327
    10 Oct '17 06:57
    Originally posted by @whodey
    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/10/7/1705108/-Michigan-Rapist-Gets-Joint-Custody-of-Child

    A child rapist gets custody of his 12 year old child?

    Only in America.................................................and Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and Turkey, and the Sudan, and Egypt, and Yemen, and Palastine, and Pakistan, and Jordon, and......................................................
    So... the US and the middle-east basically... a fine batch of friends to be amongst on the emancipation of women level.
  6. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    10 Oct '17 07:48
    Originally posted by @whodey
    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/10/7/1705108/-Michigan-Rapist-Gets-Joint-Custody-of-Child

    A child rapist gets custody of his 12 year old child?

    Only in America.................................................and Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and Turkey, and the Sudan, and Egypt, and Yemen, and Palastine, and Pakistan, and Jordon, and......................................................
    So your point is
    a) USA is as bad as those other countries.
    or
    b) ....


    btw: Can you give similar examples for all those other countries?
    Or you just guessing?
  7. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52855
    10 Oct '17 17:382 edits
    Originally posted by @wolfgang59
    So your point is
    a) USA is as bad as those other countries.
    or
    b) ....


    btw: Can you give similar examples for all those other countries?
    Or you just guessing?
    At least in the US. There is a chart on that link showing only 9 out of 50 states making it illegal for the rapist to get visitation rights. Disgusting.

    We are going through that here, one of my son's has a gf who was kidnapped and raped at 12 and had the baby, the dude got like 10 years and just got out and is making noises about joint custody. That won't happen, I can guarantee that. He might just fall upstairs.
  8. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    10 Oct '17 19:451 edit
    Originally posted by @whodey
    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/10/7/1705108/-Michigan-Rapist-Gets-Joint-Custody-of-Child

    A child rapist gets custody of his 12 year old child?

    Only in America.................................................and Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and Turkey, and the Sudan, and Egypt, and Yemen, and Palastine, and Pakistan, and Jordon, and......................................................
    The troll Whodey exploits this story in order to vent more of his tireless Islamophobia.
    Would Whodey feel better *if* the young rape victim had an abortion and there was no child at iissue?
  9. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    10 Oct '17 19:46
    Originally posted by @Finnegan to Whodey
    To clarify, a child of 12 was raped under dreadful conditions, resulting in a pregnancy. Nine years later, the rapist (who has also been convicted of another child rape, yet is long out of custody in a nation that incarcerates stupid numbers of Black Americans) has been granted joint custody of his child.

    The details are foul and unpleasant ...[text shortened]... erica's brand of evangelical Christianity. Not for nothing do we refer to the American Taliban.
    For whatever it's worth, here's a reader's comment from Whodey's linked article:

    "shanikka  Belle1701
    Did you even bother to read either (a) the article or (b) my comment on what almost certainly happened?
    The grant of parental rights (custody and visitation) was *automatic* when he was designated a parent
    *at the request of the state so that it could collect child support from him (the mother is
    getting public benefits for the child.). There is no appeal of an automatic process.
    You cannot, without someone making an issue of it, designate someone a parent against
    their will without all the constitutional rights of parenthood accruing to them *unless there
    are further court proceedings establishing that the parent is unfit.*, And the young woman
    here has, indeed, initiated the process to have his parental rights stripped from him on
    the grounds of his rape. It will be granted. Probably by the same judge.
    Most folks writing with their hair on fire about the judge have not a clue what happened
    legally, why it happened legally, and why it will soon be a non-issue."
  10. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    10 Oct '17 20:222 edits
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    At least in the US. There is a chart on that link showing only 9 out of 50 states making it illegal for the rapist to get visitation rights. Disgusting.

    We are going through that here, one of my son's has a gf who was kidnapped and raped at 12 and had the baby, the dude got like 10 years and just got out and is making noises about joint custody. That won't happen, I can guarantee that. He might just fall upstairs.
    " only 9 out of 50 states making it illegal for the rapist to get visitation rights."

    For a state to make this illegal would require the legislators to accept the likelihood - more than just a remote possibility - that a judge would rule in favour of the rapist in a case such as the one under discussion. Either you cannot trust an American judge to think about the interests of a child and its mother, as against the property rights of a biological father, or in fact you know damn well that unless there is a specific law to prevent this, an American judge is very capable of prioritising the property rights of a father and willingly accepting the resulting prospect of harm to both a child and its mother. Put simply, some American judges hate women and children and think fathers can do what the hell they want to do until a law stops it.

    This judgement only makes sense if a father has property rights over his biological child that are not conditional.

    English law dictates that, in a case concerning access to a child and rights over a child, the primary concern in such matters is not the rights of either parent but the best interests of the child. The child would be represented in any hearing. The judge would not be just administering a set of rules, but doing what it says on the tin - making a judgement.

    When making this judgement, I am trying to work out a line of reasoning that suggests it is in the interests of a child to be placed in intimate contact - possibly under the control of - a convicted child rapist, and I have to be honest, I am struggling to find a way to see this being so. I just cannot imagine the possibility.

    So I have to assume that the American court was not thinking this through from the perspective of the rights of the child. This judge must have been so determined to uphold paternal (father's) rights as to utterly put out of their mind concern for with the mother or the child.

    In a very different case, the recent uproar over the rights of parents in the case of Charlie Gard, I had to respond to American demands that the right of the parents should be final and absolute, as though a child was no more than property, and childrens rights were a sub-set of property rights in which the state must never interfere, because property (not children, property) is sacred. I disagreed and argued- in line with English law - that this is wrong in principle and the rights of the child are paramount. No need to repeat that debate as such - we can all read over the historical threads on the topic.

    But we do see here where pushing parental rights can take you if it over-rides those of the child. And where pushing the unconditional rights of a biological father takes you - to hell in a handcart. There is no other way to describe this - the US has a system based on hatred of women and children.

    Reducing humans to property rights - that is American capitalism in a nutshell.
  11. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    10 Oct '17 23:02
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    For whatever it's worth, here's a reader's comment from Whodey's linked article:

    "shanikka  Belle1701
    Did you even bother to read either (a) the article or (b) my comment on what almost certainly happened?
    The grant of parental rights (custody and visitation) was *automatic* when he was designated a parent
    *at the request of the state so that it ...[text shortened]... t a clue what happened
    legally, why it happened legally, and why it will soon be a non-issue."
    This is just not a reasonable explanation of the actions of the court nor of the other officials in this case.

    Describing this as an "automatic process" excuses all the agents involved of any moral responsibilities whatsoever, as though they are indeed automotons. That defense was considered and rejected in the Nuremberg trials and we can take it as said that it is not going to be accepted today in any decent country.

    There was not an automatic process - there was a legal process initiated by adults with a moral responsibility for their actions and approved by a judge, who made orders regarding access and disclosed personal information:

    "A Sanilac County Circuit judge has granted parenting time and joint legal custody of an 8-year-old boy to a convicted sex offender [Christoper Mirasolo, 27] who allegedly raped the child’s mother nine years ago."

    Even if you argue that the father had a constitutional right of access, or it was an eleventh commandment brought down from God by Moses, it cannot be right that an order for parenting time and custody is made without any consideration of the implications for the child and mother. In other words - there are ways of doing things and ways not to do things and if it is ok for an American court to arrange such matters without investigating the needs of the child then things are even worse than I imagined.

    "[Judge Gregory S.] Ross disclosed the rape victim’s address to Mirasolo and ordered Mirasolo’s name to be added to the child’s birth certificate — all without the victim’s consent or a hearing, according to Kiessling [the victim’s lawyer]."

    This again is not the actions of a reasonable adult, no matter what the law may say. Obviously, the mother has rights to be protected and it takes precisely zero imagination to work out that, before enabling this rapist to exercise his God given constitutional rights, it is appropriate to ask about the impact (again) on the mother and child.

    No - there is no such thing as an automatic right to harm others. There is no such thing as some fkg bureaucrat being devoid of humanity and imagination and allowed to trample over other peoples' lives in this atrocious way.

    These are not accidents. These are voluntary acts of intentional harm towards the victim in this case. Treating them any other way defies all reason. The people responsible should be held accountable.
Back to Top