crime

Rally planned against Taiwan judges over alleged rape of Japanese student

64 Comments

Organizers of a Taiwan movement pressing for the removal of what they say are incompetent judges pledged to hit the streets over the alleged rape of a Japanese student, local media reported Monday.

The July 31 rally comes after a judge last week released on a Taiwan $50,000 ($1,730) bail a taxi driver suspected of raping the student who was studying at a Taiwan college, sparking fury from justice campaigners.

Suspect Hsieh Tung-hsien then lost contact with authorities for two days, leading to fears he might have fled, before he was re-arrested and ordered back into custody on Sunday by the same judge.

"How long it is going to take for the government to seriously look at the issue?" the White Rose Movement's spokeswoman, identified only as Eva, told the United Evening News.

It said 150,000 people has endorsed a call asking the judge to step down over the case.

Waving white roses, thousands of people took to the Taipei streets in September last year in a show of anger at what they called "dinosaur judges" who needed to go after defendants were cleared or given only light sentences in three cases.

In one instance involving a three-year-old girl, the Supreme Court rejected prosecutors' appeal against an acquittal, saying they had failed to prove that the child was opposed to sexual activity.

Last year's rally marked one of the biggest in Taiwan since 1997, when 100,000 took to the streets of Taipei over the kidnapping, torture and murder of singer Pai Ping-ping's 17-year-old daughter.

© Agence France-Presse

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

64 Comments
Login to comment

I thought the headline was misleading. It seems as though the judges might be guilty of rape. I feel sorry for the Japanese student.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Wow, surprising and inspiring. If only every country in the world had such a demand for justice in a crime committed against a person from another country.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

All crimes mentioned were against women. Are Taiwanese judges sexist with their rulings or equally lenient on male suspects/criminals?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have hope in the Taiwanese people... I wonder if the Japanese would rally behind a Taiwanese student in similar circumstances here??

In one instance involving a three-year-old girl, the Supreme Court rejected prosecutors’ appeal against an acquittal, saying they had failed to prove that the child was opposed to sexual activity.

I guess I've been living with my head in the sand, because this is the first I have heard of this. This is absolutely crazy... The Taiwanese judges ruled that sexual activity with a 3yr old was consensual??!! And I thought Japan was bad!!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

In one instance involving a three-year-old girl, the Supreme Court rejected prosecutors’ appeal against an acquittal, saying they had failed to prove that the child was opposed to sexual activity.

OMFG!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Take a breath. Calm down. There are so many details missing from the case of the three year old, you don't know what happened. For exampe, the so called perpetrator may have been 5 years old and the sexual activity "I show you mine you show me yours". Also, there is an areas between being opposed and consenting. There are times it needs to be acknowledged, but maybe not in that specific case. Pretending its black and while is a fools bargain.

Its hard to make out exactly what the problem is with the Japanese student. Looks like the courts are as slow as Moses swimming in molasses?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

In what universe and under what bizarre circumstances is it ok for a 3yo to "have sex" her attacker was 5? I really doubt that! Too long in Japan too much Munga me thinks. Get help before we read a story about you.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Take a breath. Calm down. There are so many details missing from the case of the three year old, you don't know what happened. For exampe, the so called perpetrator may have been 5 years old and the sexual activity "I show you mine you show me yours". Also, there is an areas between being opposed and consenting. There are times it needs to be acknowledged, but maybe not in that specific case. Pretending its black and while is a fools bargain.

And YOU need to do some research before you post such CRAP!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

what an idiot. doesn't he know that only japanese men are allowed to rape japanese women?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

It takes details to do research bookowls. Not enough details here. I tried. You don't have to take my possibilites as being the only ones. There is so little detail that there could be all manner of spin on that little bit we have been told. But if you fly into a fit at the mention of "3 year old" and "sexual activity" you will never get the truth.

For example, an uncle who merely helped his niece in the toilet might get termed "sexual activity". And don't say it doesn't happen. It does. Why? Well look how you and others flew into a fit with no details. Get a grip. Please.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@chewitup

Agree with you entirely. But you're on the wrong site if you're looking for carefully considered, calmly delivered opinion.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@chewitup

According to the China Post, the accused "raped" the girl. I don't know what the definition of rape is in Taiwan, but I presume it means more than helping her sit on the potty.

Another case made it to the Taiwan Supreme Court, yet the judge was unable to find perpetrator Lai guilty of raping a three-year-old girl due to the prosecutors' inability to prove that the act was against the girl's wishes. The case was returned to the Taiwan High Court for retrial.

From the same article:

In the most disturbing case, the alleged child molester was found not guilty for raping a two-year-old girl due to the fact that there was a slight discrepancy between the time of rape as recalled by the toddler and that determined by a physician.

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2010/09/04/271334/Govt-to.htm

2 ( +2 / -0 )

But you're on the wrong site if you're looking for carefully considered, calmly delivered opinion.

Where do we go for that, I wonder? : )

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Where do we go for that, I wonder? : )

If you ever find out, papasmurf, let me know, eh? ;)

2 ( +2 / -0 )

chewitup, I had thought of those possibilities but I think we have to assume it wasn't those examples otherwise it's a pointless comment. If it was activity with a 5 year old I agree it's not a crime but that should be so black and white that it shouldn't make it to court or be mentioned in the way it was here. Equally if an uncle had taken her to the loo, which I agree can be made out to be sexual by some twisted people, that's simply not sexual activity. I think we have to take it that it was actual sexual activity with an adult otherwise it's pointless referring to and misleading to the reader.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think we have to take it that it was actual sexual activity with an adult otherwise it's pointless referring to and misleading to the reader.

My examples were possibilites. THE POINT was that we had no detail to go on. And now we do.

Papasmurf now tells us that the actual problem was that there was a discrepency in the time of the "sexual activity" and that it was deemed consenual.

So I stand vindicated for expressing the point that this was spun and in the light of so few details, everyone needs to calm down.

And lest anyone fly off the handle on another tangent, lesson having not been learned, I do not approve of the decision and nothing I have said is to be taken as approval.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Sorry, NOT that it was deemed consensual. The two articles conflict GREATLY and that should give people pause. But fools do trod where angels fear to tread and that goes double in sex related cases. Never hard to find a fool then.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Oops. Sorry. The two articles do not conflict. I should have read the new article before posting. Those are two separate cases. Regardless, the judges were going with the law at the time and the law has since been changed. Storm in a teacup.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

This short article relates a number of cases with little detail-is it the purpose of this site to offer such snippets to provoke I wonder?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@chewitup

There is NO consensual sexual activity for a 2 or 5 years-old. It shouldn't even have to be explained: under the pedophily laws of most countries (apparently not in Taiwan), any sexual activity with children before puberty (for example, in France, 13 years-old) is considered a rape even with consent of the child (because it is considered that they are not mature enough to make this kind of decision). Above 13 years-old, the law depends on the country (in France, sexual activity is permissible from 13 years-old with parents consent, then sexual majority at 16 years-old). Anyway, it is preposterous to even have to justify the possible consent of the 2 years-old child or to ask such a child to remember a time with precision!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@chewitup

FWIW I understand your point about jumping to conclusions - something that many, if not most of us are guilty of doing here from time to time.

I'm still not entirely sure about the grey area between "forced" and "consensual" that you mention though... If it is not forced, and not consensual, what is it? I'm not attacking you, it's a serious question. Is there a legal definition out there somewhere?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The grey area between forced and consented is the area where you just say "whatever" and just let it happen, just like we do with a lot of things, and sex is really no different. Basically that is what a child of that age would do, as with so many other things. YOUR mind might be screaming "NO!", but hers was not. And I do find that significant. Not to say its okay, but it is signifcant.

But, while we debate over the severity of "sexual activity" with a 3 year old, where it would seem the child was not injured or attacked, amazing that the brutal murder of Pai Hsiao-yen, mentioned in the article, gets somewhat overlooked. That girl was 17, kidnapped, had part of her finger sent to her parents in a ransom attempt. She was tortured, and while I do not know how much while alive, by the time her dead naked body was found in a ditch it was mangled so badly it was described as "deformed".

Compared to that age of consent violations don't move me much. And having them called straight out rape irks the heck out of me, because it downplays what I would call real rape, which is brutal, either physically or psychologically.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@ chewitup

OK thanks for your clarification. I don't agree with it, and find it quite disturbing actually, but I don't have the energy right now to start a whole new debate on this. All I can say is my point of view is children do not fully understand right and wrong, therefore "forced" or "consensual" makes no difference. Any sexual conduct, whether the child enjoys it or not is ALL wrong. Why the Taiwanese court even debated this is mind-boggling.

If you are talking about a child past puberty, then I can understand the grey area a little better - but depending on where you live you'll still be charged with statutory rape.

But, while we debate over the severity of "sexual activity" with a 3 year old, where it would seem the child was not injured or attacked, amazing that the brutal murder of Pai Hsiao-yen, mentioned in the article, gets somewhat overlooked.

I don't think anyone here considers this a lesser crime than the others - it is spine-chillingly awful. I suppose the infant rape case stands out because the of the controversy sparked by the phrase " they had failed to prove that the child was opposed to sexual activity"... when the victim is a 3yr old, this just doesn't compute for most people, which is why we commented on it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

chewitup, my point was I just think it's obvious from the sentence as it is that we had to assume it was NOT like one of the examples being referred to and that it was a crime with no extenuating circumstances. Even just from the sparse details in the article, If the perpetrator wasn't an adult it shouldn't have been in court, and if it was a misunderstood non-sexual action then it wasn't "sexual activity". If a 3 year-old is involved in "sexual activity" with a mentally competent adult there is no possibility they can or can not be "opposed" to sexual activity, it is simply illegal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Any sexual conduct, whether the child enjoys it or not is ALL wrong.

Okay. Now I know. So many episodes of my childhood were wrong, and some of my former playmates need to be arrested, and so do I.

Why the Taiwanese court even debated this is mind-boggling.

Its debatable. In fact, it was not really that big a deal until suddenly recently, its a big deal...somehow.

when the victim is a 3yr old, this just doesn't compute for most people, which is why we commented on it.

When the victim is mutilated for cash, then tortured to death and left dead and mangled in a ditch, it does not compute for me. Non brutal non damaging sexual relations or any sexual relations with a 3 year old is certainly not my cup of tea, but it certainly computes easier. Maybe its just because I don't think sex is such a frightful deal?

it is simply illegal.

oikawa, at the time, apparently not. Medieval? In a sense. Age of consent was invented by medieval scholars in Europe. And they set it at seven years old.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

When I worked at a kindergarten in Taiwan I was told men were not allowed to touch female children, even just to lift them up. So Taiwan may have a different perspective of what sexual behavior is regarding children.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think it was illegal before though, they just tightened the definitions up to prevent lenient sentences being handed down. And I wouldn't put too much stead in what medieval scholars invented, there were a number of barbaric and cruel traditions carried out at that time, mainly because the general populace was ignorant of the events and/or completely powerless to stop them, neither of which imply any approval.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When the victim is mutilated for cash, then tortured to death and left dead and mangled in a ditch, it does not compute for me. Non brutal non damaging sexual relations or any sexual relations with a 3 year old is certainly not my cup of tea, but it certainly computes easier. Maybe its just because I don't think sex is such a frightful deal?

Does it have to be a comparative thing? Aren't both acts abhorrent and worthy of censure? In the link Papa Smurf procided, the age of the molester is not given, but assuming he was an adult, pedophilia is a very different thing from two toddlers saying "I'll show you mine if you show me yours." Isn't an adult manipulating a toddler for sexual gratification a frightful deal?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

oikawa, if you can find me an age of peace, reason, and no barbarity or cruely I would love to study it. No doubt this age will be looked back on as the time of war, rape and the murder of kidnapping victims. You are welcome to go all the way back to first recorded history, and you will surely find a scholar or two who were good and reasonable. I should think the scholar who came up with the age of consent would meet with your approval, considering all the others who did not come up with it and apparently thought it unnecessary.

I think it was illegal before though, they just tightened the definitions up to prevent lenient sentences being handed down.

You are correct! The man in question got 3 years and two months, which sounds quite reasonable to me. Now he would get seven years minimum, probably more. With sentences like that I think the number of children who will be allowed to live long enough to talk will plummet. Certainly not my idea of solving the problem. Get all Draoconian and there will be a backlash.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Oh snap!! That article has so many cases rammed together! No, the guy with the three year old was let off because the girl was not opposed, so apparently it was not against the law at the time IF there was no resistance.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Okay. Now I know. So many episodes of my childhood were wrong, and some of my former playmates need to be arrested, and so do I.

I was referring to sexual conduct between an adult and child. I thought that was obvious but apparently it wasn't.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I thought that was obvious but apparently it wasn't.

It wasn't. And all you have done is made it more convoluted. So you are saying if a 17 year old enjoys it with an 17 year old, its okay. But if a 17 year old enjoys it with an 18 year old, its wrong, and I guess rape? Call me a stickler, but I prefer to call rape rape and my definition of wrong so often hinges on damage, you know, not imagined damage, but real damage, whether physical or psychological.

Way back when, if an unmarried woman (usually a teen) had sex it was declared the man's fault no matter what and they called it rape even though it was more an affront to the family honor. And the man was punished. I am sure you think that has been fixed and today's way is much much better. But I see basically the same thing with a similar net effect. Young women are forbidden, even if they enjoy it. New reasons, at least the stated ones are, but same thing. Its less about the females and more about what other people think. Even if they enjoy it?? I am afraid that just does not withstand any test of reason.

This main case they are marching about really has nothing to do with age. It seems that girl was raped, as I define rape, ie, she did not enjoy it and she was brutalized. That makes me angry and that is where I place my ire. But if she was not complaining, neither would I.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

And all you have done is made it more convoluted.

No, you are making it convoluted... where here have I been talking about teenagers?? I have been discussing the topic of an adult having sexual relations with a 3yr old (and another one with a 2yr old in a separate incident). You keep distorting the topic by lumping teenagers and toddlers together. Just to clarify, do you think it is okay to have sexual relations with a toddler because they don't say no and you believe they won't be physically or psychologically damaged? Is that the point you are trying to make here??

1 ( +1 / -0 )

When you are threatened with rape, or actually raped, if you are scared for your life, or just scared full stop, survival instinct kicks in and you will do whatever the person in control of you says with as little resistance as possible to get out of the ordeal and get away. If you are drugged it is even harder to fight back.

This does not and should never imply that somehow because of a lack of resistance that you wanted it or enjoyed it.

Is sex with a child not against the law in Taiwan if the child wants it too??

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

This does not and should never imply that somehow because of a lack of resistance that you wanted it or enjoyed it.

Of course. Enjoying it is enjoying it. Why would anyone think the circumstances you described are enjoying it? Why does coercion, force and drugging always come up when I mention a person enjoying it?

Is sex with a child not against the law in Taiwan if the child wants it too??

Apparently not unless the child is below 7. And while I agree with that, I think a minimum seven years if overkill if the child was not forced, injured, drugged or brutalized. I hope you picked up on the not in there, because when those are not there, sexual relations are actually enjoyable you know. Not that that makes it okay with a child that is around seven or less. I don't approve, but I doubt my reasons will be understood here.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

No, you are making it convoluted... where here have I been talking about teenagers??

For some, teens are children. I thought it would be same for you. Regardless, it makes no sense to say, all things being equal, child with child is okay, teen with teen is okay, adult with adult is okay, but adult with child is not okay. Its convoluted, UNLESS you have some clear reason to draw a line. I have not seen one for what you describe. Even my reason to draw it at seven is not crystal clear, but its the best I know. In fact, seven was known as the "age of reason" during the Age of Reason, so don't just go thinking its a medieval thing.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

To reiterate Papa Smurf's question:

"Just to clarify, do you think it is okay to have sexual relations with a toddler because they don't say no and you believe they won't be physically or psychologically damaged? "

I'd be interested to hear your answer to that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why would anyone think the circumstances you described are enjoying it?

Good question, but if you look at many rape cases in any country (the movie The Accused made a good example out of it) there seems to be this perception that if the victim doesn`t fight back that she somehow "wanted" it.

Apparently not unless the child is below 7

Ah, ok. Then in that case, I don`t understand why the guy was acquitted in the case of the 3 year old. Whether it was consensual or not, it was against the law, right? OR was he convicted of a lesser charge of "sex wth a minor" as opposed to rape?

I think like many others I am trying hard to see your point of view but - correct me if I am wrong - you seem to be saying that sexual relations with a child under 7 is OK if the child wants it too and is agreeing to it, and is not "harmed" in any way? Is that right? I say "harmed" because I think that, while physically they may not be, surely, surely psychologically damage is inevitable, and very young children are not in a position to understand what is going on, and the feelings involved, which is where an adult can easily take advantage of them.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

do you think it is okay to have sexual relations with a toddler because they don't say no and you believe they won't be physically or psychologically damaged?

Its not a question, but rather two questions.

No, I don't think its okay.

But it does not hinge on not saying no or not being physically or psychologically damaged. Its possible have all the above and no ill effects. However...

The problem is that at that age, they cannot put forth a judgement at all, as to who they like, what they want and don't want, and worse, cannot communicate enough to give us an indication of what they truly want or tell us who did what, when what happened exactly, etc. I knew a great deal of what I wanted at 8. And its a reason I spent as much time with girls as boys at that age. Other boys might not have been drawn to girls or even women as much as I was, but hey, that was their business. I don't think anyone should be held to a standard of the majority if they are different. And I was and I know plenty that are too. If I did not want something, you knew it. I think most 8 year olds can tell you what they like and don't.

And when they don't want to kiss great-grandma, but you make them? I think that is abuse. But if they like something and are not being harmed? That is not abuse even if its sexual. That is how I feel.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Oh, since they cannot communicate we cannot be sure of what is going on. If we cannot detect abuse, THAT is a problem. Just assuming abuse though, that is wrong-headed.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I think I see what you mean. For example, there were some terrible cases in the UK years ago, where children were removed from their parents without question and placed in foster care because doctors/social workers suspected abuse even though there was no evidence and none had actually taken place. That was as devastating to the children and families as if abuse had taken place, and many families were torn apart.

Wronfully accusing someone of abuse is as bad as being guilty in itself. There have been cases where women have claimed rape after the event and had the double impact of destroying peoples lives and making genuine rape victims less believable.

But this case seems slightly different to the above, in that it seems toe perpetrator is not denying that sexual relations took place, but that it was consensual. So I guess the question remains, can it be considered consensual when the alleged victim is a minor. As a female, and a Mother I would say absolutely not, and if this was my daughter the guy had better go into hiding forever - but that is my emotional response. I dont know how the law would define it. Its worrying. The whole point of the law is to protect the most vulnerable members of society - doesn`t seem like it is in this case.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So I guess the question remains, can it be considered consensual when the alleged victim is a minor.

Can it be consensual? Yes.

Can it be considered consensual? Key word is considered. That is were the true difficulty lies. I would say seven and below or thereabouts, its not worth considering. And 9 times out of ten, when a person is jailed for an age of consent violation, I bet there are reasons I would approve of that person being jailed. But the 1 time out of ten that someone is jailed for no more than that and everyone was happy, that is just unforgiveable, and THAT is what really devastates a child, taking their prior life away and just declaring everything wrong. Its a good question to put to Villi Fualau. If anything disturbed him, I bet it was having Mary Kay LeTourneau torn from him. Now they are married. And yet, Doug Hutchison just got married with a 16 year old, and look at the outcry! People have no qualms about inserting their own projections into any relationship, and that is what is so messed up about this whole issue.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

" Can it be consensual? Yes.

Can it be considered consensual? Key word is considered. That is were the true difficulty lies. I would say seven and below or thereabouts, its not worth considering. "

So what you are saying is: An adult engaging in sexual activity with a child aged eight, nine, ten or older could be considered consensual.

Is this a correct interpretation of your statement?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

FYI the age of consent in Taiwan is 16yrs old, not 8yrs old.

The new law does not say that it's bad to have sexual relations with a 7yr old, but possibly legal with an 8yr old. Quoting from the article I posted earlier, it is a "new amendment that categorizes all sexual activity with minors under the age of seven as a serious rape charge, punishable by a minimum of seven years of imprisonment". This statement doesn't mean that sexual activity with an 8yr old is okay - it just implies that you won't automatically get at least a 7 year sentence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is this a correct interpretation of your statement?

Correct. But I do have caveats. Don't assume I just give it a thumbs up. There are good people who can handle it and bad people who can't, and they must be weeded out. I am not good with just saying no in all cases when there are ways to separate abusers from decent people. I suggest looking up the case of Steve Skavinsky. There was a lot of talk about taking his house, but I never heard one word that he abused the 11 year old girl he was seeing. She visited him at his house, many times. I think the reason so little was reported was because it all would have only proved that they had a mutual relationship.and no one was getting abused. Of course, people will try to hem and haw and claim grooming and some other nonsense, but the press did not even try to go there? Nah. They left the details out because it would go against the popular presumption of the day that such a relationship is always abusive. I think the details would have caused an uproar of denial.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Thanks for the clarification. However, caveats or no, I don't see how adults who engage in sexual activity with an 8-year old can be "good people who can handle it" or "decent people". I can see that they might justify it to themselves, though.

To put it bluntly, an adult rubbing between the legs (say) of another adult for sexual gratification is very different from an adult rubbing between the legs of an 8-year-old for sexual gratification.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

chewitup, you missed the point that your attempt to appeal to the age of consent being set at 7 in the middle ages to support your argument fails. I'm not interested in temporal justice, but logical justice.

But if they like something and are not being harmed? That is not abuse even if its sexual. That is how I feel.

What do you think "harm" is? It's impossible to know at the age of 8 if they like it or not because they haven't done it yet, that's why they experiment with other children, and will not be able to decide themselves until later in life when they kill themselves because they realise what was done to them and how they were used. Of course unless it is a forced rape there will probably be no physical damage, but sexual abuse doesn't revolve around physical damage, it revolves around mental damage. If it was natural for adults and children to have sexual relations we'd have children coming on to adults, not only vice versa. You can cite one case where an 11 year old girl possibly was very mature sexually and had experimented with her body and knew what she was doing, but she is the exception that proves the rule.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's impossible to know at the age of 8 if they like it or not because they haven't done it yet,

That condition could continue to old age and death!

that's why they experiment with other children

But not adults right? You keep telling yourself that! I was hot for teach and hot for the babysitter and I was not alone. I am obviously talking to someone who has never read up on child sexual psychology unless it came out of APA, which a crappy org for studying the subject because they kneel to Congress.

but sexual abuse doesn't revolve around physical damage

I am not condoning sexual abuse. Just get that straight please.

If it was natural for adults and children to have sexual relations we'd have children coming on to adults, not only vice versa.

If it was natural to drive cars, they would grow on trees! I don't remember making the "nature" argument, but as a child I came on to adults, so give us a break. And I have had young girls come on to me. I don't know exactly what they wanted, thought they wanted, or would have enjoyed. It never got that far. But it was obvious they wanted more than someone to toss a ball with. And study bonobos, some of our closest cousins. You can deny that all you want. Not really expecting otherwise.

but she is the exception that proves the rule.

Fine. You can run with that. But if the law does not make exceptions where warranted, then the law is wrong. As far as I know, the law does not make exceptions in such cases. The law is wrong.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

To put it bluntly, an adult rubbing between the legs (say) of another adult for sexual gratification is very different from an adult rubbing between the legs of an 8-year-old for sexual gratification.

Why? Because you say it is? Because you want it to be so? Because your society sets it up that way by keeping children as much in the dark as possible? Those are really all you got. They don't count for anything except the status quo in certain places.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

All readers back on topic please. From here on, posts that do not refer to what is in the story will be removed.

Well, it still has not been answered why exactly they are going to march. Incompetent judges, as in the first sentence? How? The other cases only prove the judges were competent!

Again, I suspect the problem is that the courts are taking too long, but how to know? Don't protestors clarify their reasons before marching?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Well, it still has not been answered why exactly they are going to march. Incompetent judges, as in the first sentence? How? The other cases only prove the judges were competent!

It has been answered in the original article, you just either failed to read it or decided to ignore it to support your own views.

Waving white roses, thousands of people took to the Taipei streets in September last year in a show of anger at what they called “dinosaur judges” who needed to go after defendants were cleared or given only light sentences in three cases.

They went to the streets because they were angry at judges who gave light sentences for crimes that the public think warrant much stricter sentences. To suggest the judges were competent in their decisions is ludicrous.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

you just either failed to read it or decided to ignore it to support your own views.

Okay. Let me get this straight. You think they are going to march in September last year?

If time machines are available in stores, please let me know. I really really want one!

To suggest the judges were competent in their decisions is ludicrous.

The cases I saw suggest they were competent, considering the law. Judges have leeway, but not THAT much leeway that they can make laws up as they go along. The protestors obviously marched on the basis of emotion, not fact or sense. And THAT is ludicrous and so is changing the law on the basis of THAT.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Okay. Let me get this straight. You think they are going to march in September last year?

You don't need a time machine, just comprehension skills. I'm sorry if I seem blunt to the point of deragotory, but it sounds like you haven't even read the article we are talking about. They ALREADY marched in September last year, with a purpose that I quoted. They are planning ANOTHER march for July 31st, for the same purpose.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

chewitup, You are making many denials of everything but not any points yourself. What exactly is your point? I think you are very confused within yourself and I don't think you understand what sexual abuse is at all. In the original article it stated a 3 year old was considered capable of consenting or not to sexual activity. If you can't understand how people find that ridiculous then you should, in all seriousness, consider whether you need to see a psychiatrist or not.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

In the original article it stated a 3 year old was considered capable of consenting or not to sexual activity.

If that was the way the law was, then that is the way the law was. I don't agree with it, but a judge can only do so much about it. If he makes a decision that gets overturned in appeals and the appelate court finds the judge misapplied the law, then what? Not very good for his career is it?

How is that for a point? Just because they marched and whined about the judges does not mean the judges were wrong, does it? And look what happened! I did not read anything about judges getting thrown out! They changed the law! So what was the problem? Its still looking like it was the law!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

They are planning ANOTHER march for July 31st, for the same purpose.

Or so you assume. Am I expected to read your mind for assumptions now, and assume they are correct?

The very first sentence ties the planned march to the rape of the Japanese student. Second paragraph mentions the fact that the perp got out on bail, and that that sparked fury. Getting out on bail is not a light sentence, and that was why you said they marched for before. Bail is not a sentence.

So are they marching against the bail system? Against allowing suspected rapists to get bail? Against the monetary amount of typical bail? Against the amount of bail on this particular man. Against the decision to bail this particular man? Why? What makes him different?

My question was why EXACTLY are they marching, and I was not hiding the word "exactly". Its right there. Its a simple and relevant question. If you not have a clear answer for the question and that annoys you, believe me, I feel similarly annoyed, so don't take it out on me.

I suppose I could rephrase the question if it helps: What exactly do they hope to accomplish by marching? They already got the minor consent law changed. So what now?

Without that clarity it sounds more like they are planning to march for the sake of marching, and the judges are just a convenient target.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Your reading comprehension really is quite poor today. It wasn't "the way the law was", it was the judges' personal opinion about the case, their reason for not allowing an appeal. And that is nothing at all like your original statements concerning the situation. You're backtracking because you think you're being seen as a pervert. I don't think you are necessarily, but I would like to know what your position is. You have alluded to the age of consent being a factor in adult/child relationships and if you think the age of consent can be an asinine way of determining "guilt" then in some cases I would agree with you, but in the case of a 3 year old, no.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

it was the judges' personal opinion about the case

Possible, but unlikely.

the judge was unable to find perpetrator Lai guilty of raping a three-year-old girl due to the prosecutors' inability to prove that the act was against the girl's wishes.

Sounds to me like the law demanded proof of negative consent.

You're backtracking because you think you're being seen as a pervert.

No. I am not backtracking and I am not afraid of your petty labelling. The moderator demanded we get back on subject, and that I have done. Its you trying to change the subject back because you failed to answer my simple question or at least humbly admit that you don't have the answer.

Believe me, it would be just as easy for me label you and for several things, including being that which you rail against so hard. No one hates criminals as much as some who become policemen. And those policemen turn out to be criminal minds in denial. Its common knowledge.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Children cannot consent to sex. 3 year olds are little more than babies. By children I mean those under the age of 16, and it is my belief that a decent man does not go near women who are in their post 16 teens, unless they are a teen themselves. It is too easy for an experienced man to take advantage.

Children do NOT tempt men. Men who have disturbed thinking may well see innocent behaviors in a child as tempting them, but it is ALL to do with the disturbed thinking of the man, and nothing to do with the child.

Though those in their middle to late teens may well experiment with other teens, if an adult takes advantage of a child during this time in their development, be it a male or female adult, they are a damage causing pervert who needs treatment and locking up.

NO CHILD LIKES SEX, Chew it up. Any child who displays sexual behavior at 2 or 3 has been abused. Any child who displays sexual behavior has learnt that from being abused themselves. That is how children learn sexual behaviors. No adult should be anywhere near a child sexually. No child wants it. You say you displayed sexual behavior as a child, Chewitup, you know that anyone who acted on that with you was damaging and not acting in a natural way.

You quoted a case of an 11 year old girl and an adult male. She was not 'taken away from him', she was saved from a manipulative paedophile. Children are NOT sexual beings, and not available for adults to use in this way. If you cant understand that, then trust the people on this site telling you that this is dangerous and abnormal thinking.

This judge is displaying disturbed thinking, that he cannot make that distinction between an adult woman saying she has been raped, and so invoking the need to establish consent, and a CHILD being interfered with sexually, who cannot comprehend consent, nor give consent to anyone. That destruction of innocence leaves lasting marks on children, and ruins lives forever.

Mia's mommy, you and I both know that emotional response is also a rational one. Anyone told me that a child of 3 came onto an adult, and you and I both know that is manipulative paedophiliac bull. No kids come onto adults, only in the fantasies of very sick and dangerous individuals. I read this, and how could I just leave it. It made me feel sick to see those comments just stand and barely go challenged. Ill go back to just reading again, but this really upset me reading this.

Im not advocating pitchforks here, but I am saying anyone who has these thoughts and urges should behave in a responsible way and seek treatment.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@ Gwragged

Thank you. You've just said what I and no doubt many others have wanted to say. I've just been too tired and too busy to sit down and do it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You are welcome, Papa Smurf. It needed to be said, I think. I hope the marches planned in Taiwan go well, and they raise the profile of this issue without driving further underground those people who need treatment for their inappropriate and damaging sexual attraction to children. The Japanese student who was the victim of (alleged I suppose) rape must surely be comforted by the support she has received in Taiwan. Good for these people for standing up to their government. More than we see here in Japan....

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I hope the marches planned in Taiwan go well,

Why? You don't know what they are marching for.

I hope the rape case gets back on track and the perpetrator gets justice.

without driving further underground those people who need treatment for their inappropriate and damaging sexual attraction to children.

There is no treatment. Most times, its not a pathology. Its common. Again, I expect you to get upset as your imagination takes over again and you start seeing abuse where there isn't any among other leap of faith assumptions.

http://www.mhamic.org/sources/halletal.htm

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

There is treatment, confide in someone if this is truely what you think, someone you trust. I beg you. Its not a rape case, the kid was 3, and could not give consent. It is child sexual abuse. As common as it maybe, and I dont disagree with you there, it is wrong, and damaging. This 3 year old's life was ruined by this.

They are marching because judges fail to see that consent is not an issue with a 3 year old child, and because rape is not taken seriously as a crime in their country. You dont seem to understand the difference between an adult and a child.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites