Is this a contributory negligence argument, like in some states, where if you get in an accident and a jury decides that your bad driving contributed even the slightest to the accident, you can't recover any money from the other, more negligent side?
No, it's an argument like I faced in Florida when I was the less-contributory party to an accident and was still required to pay the full bill for the other drunk driver's injured passenger because I was insured and he was not. Specifically, it means that being sure the person in question is treated differently as a child than they would be as an adult is the responsibility of the parent.
Are you saying that the state should not be allowed to prosecute a child rapist if there was some "contributorily negligent" bad parenting involved?
No. i'm saying that a rapist is a rapist. The "child" part is irrelevant to me other than as an indictment of criminal parenting on the part of the mother.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2009-09-30 07:32 pm (UTC)No, it's an argument like I faced in Florida when I was the less-contributory party to an accident and was still required to pay the full bill for the other drunk driver's injured passenger because I was insured and he was not. Specifically, it means that being sure the person in question is treated differently as a child than they would be as an adult is the responsibility of the parent.
No. i'm saying that a rapist is a rapist. The "child" part is irrelevant to me other than as an indictment of criminal parenting on the part of the mother.