Comments on: A reason to not let your daughter wear that tube top . . .

By: Cara

Cara — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 02:26:52 +0000

Did you have a petition already set up, Samantha? That link just takes you to the main page!

By: Samantha

Samantha — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 01:51:28 +0000

Firstly, thank you for bringing this to the publics attention and then to all those who commented above and whose comments I completely agree with. I for one cannot believe that ‘Judge’ Hall even passed a bar exam and as far as I’m concerned, deserves to be in a prison cell with the rapist where I hope their fellow inmates teach them what rape really feels like and in ideal world, they should be re-sentenced. I truly cannot believe that this was dated 2007 and had to continuously check the date thinking my eyes were misleading me. I cannot think of any words suitable for public viewing that would fittingly describe this Judge other than to say that he is the stupidest, most despicable, lowest form of a ‘human’ scum and what makes it real scary is that he is actually in a position to make life or death decisions!!!!! What the heck is he still doing there????? Please people go to http://www.care2.com/petitions and sign a petition to get this man removed!

By: Lamargo Petersen

Lamargo Petersen — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 08:02:05 +0000

I’m going to put in my 2 cents here. I was a 16 year old virgin farm girl in Alberta Can. in 1955. I was GANG RAPED by 16 young punks[ called zoot-zooters] at the time. I still start to shake uncontrollably when ever I see even just a “truckers wallet” chain hanging on some one. There is a %age of males out there that are no better than a “horny” dog, and it is them who cause the most problems and they are the ones their peers should put down before they get a chance to hurt anyone, let alone a child. The age issue should be irrelivant! RAPE IS RAPE PERIOD.

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 07:37:35 +0000

The girl’s apparent age is irrelevant: if ‘I thought she was old enough’ isn’t a legally acceptable excuse for giving a physically precocious child alcohol, then it certainly isn’t one for engaging in public sex with her. The onus– legal and moral– was on those guys to ensure she was actually of the age of consent.

By: Lara Chase

Lara Chase — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 04:32:07 +0000

I am outraged that this judge is even sitting on the bench. He needs to be removed, the rapist should be sent to prison for life.
When are these idiots going to realize rape is not about sex? It is a violent act, and act of power and control! It has nothing to do with how a girl or woman dresses, it is about a sick and twisted violent individual that needs to be locked away from society!

It’s 2007 you wouldn’t think there would still be so much ignorance!!!

By: Kris

Kris — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 02:25:29 +0000

He raped her. Pure and simple. It does not matter if she walked through the streets nude. She is TEN. She is barely at the age she can pick out her own clothes!

A grown man (chronologically and physically speaking ONLY) against a little ten year old girl. Yeah, right.

Castrate the jackass. Then let him alone in a room full of parents.

By: James

James — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 13:01:53 +0000

Why on earth are the rape apologists here arguing that it’s somehow okay because he thought she was sixteen? Did I miss the memo saying that girls at sixteen are capable of mature decisions?

By: Lya Kahlo

Lya Kahlo — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:03:43 +0000

Something else that struck me as beyond disgusting about this is that the judge slaps the rapist(s) on the wrist because she was “dressed provocatively” – meaning she was wearing a frilly bra and a thong.

HOW DID THE RAPIST KNOW THAT? Clearly, he had to start his attack on her to know what she was wearing beneath her clothes.

What she was wearing is irrelevant. This judge needs to be removed from the bench. Immediately.

By: wellie

wellie — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:16:32 +0000

i’m so upset after reading this i’m unsure of what to even say. having grown up in my teen years aside my strong, intelligent grandfather that fought for victims of child abuse, watching him defend and aid victims, this takes me right back there. i’ve seen scores of foster children abused, exploited, neglected, and ignored by the social work system, and you hope against hope that these children succeed. they get tossed around from home to home, abused in and out of foster homes by biological, temporary, adoptive parents, family members, strangers. they trust no one, have no true sense of home and place. these children learn the only way to get attention and affection is through acting out, usually sexually. and people like this 24 year old asshole take advantage (not to mention the 34 year old ‘accomplice’ that assaulted her later and was sentenced to only 9 months in jail?!?)

and then she’s yet again a product of the system and the court victimizes her again. to this judge, she’s just another faceless foster child, unworthy of rights.

my god, she’s 10.

think about what you did when you were 10 years old, out playing in parks. were you equipped with the mentality to know about sex?

and the fact that she may or may not look 16 is still ridiculous. 16 is still a child to me, even if it is uk age of consent. and she was at a park. do a large number of non-pedophiles go cruising with an accomplice to a park to find teens for sex? this guy knew what he was doing… and i hope that ignorant judge hall loses his job.

By: Cara

Cara — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:41:09 +0000

Evilpotato, even if you’re right, it doesn’t matter. These men are still guilty of statutory rape. And the girl’s dress still has NOTHING to do with anything. No rape victim’s clothing has anything to do with whether or not she was raped.

And actually, her age IS pertinent here, because the judge gave the lenient sentence because she “looked older” and because she was “dressed provocatively.” It’s also pertinent because the men are not be tried for “regular” rape– they are being tried for STATUTORY rape. You cannot have a discussion about statutory rape without discussing age. Period.