Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

"Even if they believed that Rehtaeh Parsons had been raped"

She was under the age of consent, legally there is zero doubt it was rape. Edit: Apparently under Canadian law it may not have been statutory rape.

Edit: Also, apparently she was vomiting whilst being assaulted[1]. I'd like to meet the lawyer who could convince a jury that consent was given.

[1] "One of the boys snapped a picture on his mobile phone of Rehtaeh vomiting while allegedly being assaulted." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-search-for-...



No she wasn't. Do you even understand Canadian law? The age of consent is 14, if the other partner is within 5 years of age. Her classmates at the party would have been, presumably, within 5 years of age.

Source: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/clp/faq.html "The Criminal Code provides "close in age" or "peer group" exceptions.

For example, a 14 or 15 year old can consent to sexual activity with a partner as long as the partner is less than five years older and there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or any other exploitation of the young person."

Edit to address your Edit: Because after having a lot of drinks at a party ('drunk'), and then having what could be considered strenuous physical activity (i.e. sex) would not induce vomiting if it wasn't rape, right? Look, I'm not at all condoning what the 4 male youth have done, but let's still use logic in our discussions.

Further Edit: Also I just want to add, unlike other Commonwealth Nations (e.g. Britain), the Canadian legal system does NOT allow extra charges to be tacked on while the legal proceedings are in motion. So before the RCMP and Crown Prosecutors initiate prosecutorial charges, they need to be relatively certain that they have enough evidence to win as they stand currently. They can't just say "Hey, I charge you with X with evidence Y, Z. Let's go to court." Then 5 days later say "and also A with evidence B, C."


Not to be unnecessarily argumentative but do you think a jury would be convinced by that 'she was throwing up due to strenuous exercise' excuse?


I don't know. Honestly, I don't. I think it seriously would come down to what context that issue was brought up, how good the prosecution is vs. the defense attorneys (both supplied by the Crown, presumably. Unless one or more of the accused male youths are wealthy enough to obtain his own legal counsel), and how the issue is presented to the judge and jury.

But I can certainly seeing it played to the accused favour by the counsel saying something along the lines of: "She was drunk enough that during consensual intercourse, she threw up."

Thereby sidelining that issue for pretty much the rest of the trial. Even if it's ever brought up again, in the Jury's minds, it wouldn't necessarily have the negative connotation that you're envisioning.


Maybe it's different in Canada but in the UK being that drunk would be very strong evidence that you were in no state to give consent. If you have sex with someone who's so drunk they don't know what they're doing that's rape.


In Canada, there is certainly a point where intoxication makes people unable to legally consent. Presumably the police and/or prosecutors felt there was not sufficient evidence of that level of intoxication.


She was vomiting in the photo, that's pretty good evidence of that level of intoxication. The accused was also clearly recognisable[1] in the photo so it beggars belief that they could think there wasn't sufficient evidence.

[1] “because he is easily recognizable in a photograph showing him raping the victim while she is visibly ill… why the RCMP decided these photographs aren’t evidence of rape is beyond us.” http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/anonymous_on_rehtaeh_parsons...


Vomiting certainly does increase the Bayesian likelihood that she was intoxicated; whether it is enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was intoxicated to the point of being unable to consent is a different question. I have not, of course, seen the photo in question, nor do I know what witness statements may have indicated.

I'm not saying that Rehtaeh Parsons was not raped; only that when the police and prosecutors say that they do not think they could secure a conviction, I'm inclined to trust their expertise and knowledge of the case.


Well, what if both were drunk? Then who raped whom? Keeping aside the widely accepted stereotype that only men can rape women.

PS. A generic question. Not related to the crime mentioned in OP.


In USA everything can be rape, even consensual sex between two 17 y/o teenagers. So please don't talk like this was or had to be universal or something. Nobody is a child until 18, and then magically become an adult when law makers say so. I'm proud to say that 15-17 years old girls can be hot, and I can feel attracted to them.


What an upstanding member of society you must be.


Makes me wonder whether HN could use a function to auto hell ban certain usernames (could be tough to find out which, but 'throwaway*' seems like a good start - I have yet to see one contribute value to a discussion).


At first read of your comment, I thought you were referring to analog as the user to hellban, not throwawayG9 (who, by the way, is a 60 day old account). In my opinion, throwawayG9 did contribute something very valuable to this discussion, which is pointing out the irrationality of how we view sex in the first place. The ad hominon attackk against this position that refuses to acknoledge the possibility that we might view sex irrationally, and says that anyone who thinks so must be a bad member of society seems far less productive to a conversation.


Yes, I particularly find that part interesting where he/she goes on to say that we become adults right when the mid-night clock ticks after 17 years, 364 days and 23:59 hours[^] of our lives.

[^]PS. No maths please.


"I'm proud to say that 15-17 years old girls can be hot, and I can feel attracted to them."

throwawayG9 is stating that they are proud to be a paedophile. Personally I'd feel a little wrong about dating an 18 year old girl, but a 15 year old girl is most definitely a child.


Wow, how convenient that your sexual insticts matche the law of the very country you happen to live in. That way you won't feel a slave of the system, that commands you what to do, what to think, and how to feel.

Though I wonder if you would be able to tell whether you like a girl before knowing her age. That would be an interesting experiment, and you would probably learn something about yourself.


Okay, please don't crucify me for this, but when I was in college (3rd year ~22 yrs old) I'd met a girl at a mall and I was attracted towards her. She was a friend's sister's(a bit younger than us) friend who used to hang around with us and she looked nothing less than 19(or well, 20 I'd have said). We went coffee twice(first) and and a film in the next week.

Then one day we were walking along a park(like the one in societies - the tiny ones with few trees/plants and little fountain - not as in "park" park) and she tried to hug me and tried reach a bit higher - at 5'11" I was a bit higher for her and as it was a bit too fast I just pecked her on cheek and we sat down.

There was sth amiss abut her, she didn't seem what she was. Looked she was hiding sth. As at times she would be like so mature and at times she would be excited at things only an early teen would be but I took the sign as "full of life". We said good bye that day.

The other day I met that friend's sister so I asked her "hey that friend of yours..from your college(she has just joined college - 1st yr)".. she replied.."no, she isn't..we know each other 'cause we play volleyball at our local team together"... and then I said(a little blushing) "ok..well... because we know we are sort of dating..not dating but sort of".. there was another friend sitting there.. and then came the bomb.. She laughed and punched me playfully and said.."hey..weirdoo.. she a fg kid.. she is class 11...she is bloody 15-16..stay away from her..you paedo.....:-)".. And I was like - wtf!! Of course a bit ashamed and scared too!

Anyway, that ended there. She never called me and I never did either. Maybe friend's sister talked to her. But where was my fault? I mean I genuinely felt attracted to her and trust me there was no way I could have known! And no, after knowing it never came to my mind that I should pursue it further but I never actually felt that I wronged* her. Because I didn't!

That "me" was a friend of mine and that another friend was actually me. We still tease that friend and call him "paedo". I guess he avoids looking at (relatively) younger females when we are around :-)

.. >>throwawayG9 is stating that they are proud to be a paedophile.

He is not a paedophile just for this! It' a very normal reaction and the line paedophilia comes where to stop or where's that line! I mean I've talked to many people and they feel it too! But we don't approach them and don't look at then sleazily. I've come across instance where those, I dare say quite attractive school kids usually from rich families have approached me/us at bars and pubs (for a dance/chat/whatever) and many times at liquor shops to help them buy it(they often want whiskey and vodka..damn).. we usually tease them a little..like "how old are you".. how much you get score in maths/any-sub..blah..."are you a good student".. and then usually tell them to get the fk out of there or offer them let the nearby copper know whether she could buy a bottle herself!

>>Personally I'd feel a little wrong about dating an 18 year old girl, but a 15 year old girl is most definitely a child.

That is where the drawing a line comes into picture. BTW, how old are you? I would not mind dating a 18 yr old girl when when I am even 22-23. But I would sure not do it with a 15 yr old even when I am 19-20, even though the age differences are same!


"refuses to acknoledge the possibility that we might view sex irrationally"

Yes, I think it's wrong to have sex with children. And to be 'proud' of wanting to.


Just to clarify - I wasn't addressing you with the hellban call (I know you know, but, you know, other people).

And to further agree - I think "well, what can I do, they're hot!" (or its buddy "hey, what do you know - they might like it!") or any sort of that nonsense is the absolute maximum height of the shittiest relativistic thinking that humans are capable of.

Yes, laws can be complicated and yes any particular cutoff age is inherently bullshit. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have it. Know why? Because it saves a whole lot of human beings from having their life ruined beyond repair, forever, by a guy who can't keep his dick in his pants. It's worth the bullshit. If you don't see that, you're simply an inconsiderate asshole.

And if you hide behind a throwaway (others pointed out it's 60 days old, so what, its probably your bogstandard reddit user branching over to HN, liking his new platform to spew idiocy), this site should hell ban the shit out of you.

Sorry about the rant. Relativistic bullshit pisses me off to no end. Especially if it's by frigging neckbeards who apparently think anything in the world should revolve around their ability to fuck whatever they think is "hot". Get a life.

(again, not really directed at you, analog)




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: