Church demands the victim apologize to pastor's wife since the pastor did the rape.

[Chad32]

If she did something like send naked pics to the guy, the proper response is not go have sex with her. Two wrongs don't make a right, assuming she even did anything wrong in the first place. What we've been presented with is a guy doing something illegal, and being absolved of it by the church because he's supposedly a holy man.

If she did anything illegal, he should have gone to her parents, or the police. If what she did was legal, like wearing revealing clothing, or doing something that could be interpreted as flirting, then it's still the man's fault for giving in and breaking the law.

If that's all she did, then that just means she's a teenager. That her body is functioning in the way it should. We should not get angry when babies cry, and we should not get angry when teenagers explore their sexuality. These are normal behaviors. Not immoral.

I agree with everything you said except the last line.

I don't want to live in a world where it is normal for a 16 year old to try to seduce a married man by sending naked pictures (if again this is what happened) to Him and only holding the man accountable.

Again read the article they were texting for some time and it stopped for a while when the wife found out but picked back up after sometime...

The article does not mention pictures, but I can't imagine texting that leads to sex that does not include some 'previews.'

Well that's too bad, because teenagers are horny, and being married does not make someone unattractive. Not much you can do about it. There are legal action you can take against something like that, but doing the dirty deed is not one of them.

[Huggy Bear]

If little miss can't be wrong did shake her little behind in front of someone then she should not be suprized when/if someone drives a truck through it.

I have to admit, I lol'd at that.

[rexbeccarox]

If she did something like send naked pics to the guy, the proper response is not go have sex with her. Two wrongs don't make a right, assuming she even did anything wrong in the first place. What we've been presented with is a guy doing something illegal, and being absolved of it by the church because he's supposedly a holy man.

If she did anything illegal, he should have gone to her parents, or the police. If what she did was legal, like wearing revealing clothing, or doing something that could be interpreted as flirting, then it's still the man's fault for giving in and breaking the law.

If that's all she did, then that just means she's a teenager. That her body is functioning in the way it should. We should not get angry when babies cry, and we should not get angry when teenagers explore their sexuality. These are normal behaviors. Not immoral.

I agree with everything you said except the last line.

I don't want to live in a world where it is normal for a 16 year old to try to seduce a married man by sending naked pictures (if again this is what happened) to Him and only holding the man accountable.

Again read the article they were texting for some time and it stopped for a while when the wife found out but picked back up after sometime...

The article does not mention pictures, but I can't imagine texting that leads to sex that does not include some 'previews.'

"Leads to sex"?? You have to be kidding. The pastor was tried, convicted, and sentenced to ten years for RAPE.

I just... talk about not wanting to live in a world with something. I don't want to live in a world with you in it, Drich. You are disgusting.

[Huggy Bear]

Coercion comes in many forms, Huggy. "You'll be quiet about this or we'll out you as a slut." "Who's going to believe a 16-year-old against a pastor?!"

Or it could be that she refused him sex four times and he still forced himself upon her, and she simply had to find the courage to tell someone. Just because you've had sex with someone previously doesn't mean they cannot turn you down.

A guilty plea is a sign of overwhelming evidence pointing to guilt.

Seeing how the church caught the pastors texts before it had turned sexual, there would have been plenty of reasons to belive her over the pastor.

Furthermore, pleading guilty doesn't imply that the prosecution has overwhelming evidence at all, on the contrary. You don't need any evidence to convict anyone of rape, just the accusation of the victim.

No matter how consensual the sex was, if a woman decides it was rape, just go ahead and bend over and accept the raping the judicial system is about to lay on you.

Rape is just one of those instances that requires one to prove thier innocence, any lawyer will advise you to take a plea deal.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Seeing how the church caught the pastors texts before it had turned sexual, there would have been plenty of reasons to belive her over the pastor.

Except that the church did nothing when they caught those texts coming from the youth pastor. What does that tell you about their commitment to him? Surely at that point they should not have needed a complaint from her at all; we have here a man abusing a position of authority within his church for sexual gain, and all the church did was tell him "stop it."

Furthermore, pleading guilty doesn't imply that the prosecution has overwhelming evidence at all, on the contrary. You don't need any evidence to convict anyone of rape,  just the accusation of the victim.

No matter how consensual the sex was, if a woman decides it was rape, just go ahead and bend over and accept the raping the judicial system is about to lay on you.

Rape is just one of those instances that requires one to prove thier innocence, any lawyer will advise you to take a plea deal.

Here's what a legal advice website says. Who should I believe, them or you?

There's also this stuff:

http://wthitv.com/2016/08/18/rape-charge...haute-men/
http://www.mybasin.com/2016/09/09/rape-charges-dropped/
https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=33177
http://www.news4jax.com/news/local/jacks...ts-dropped

So yeah, would you plead guilty to a false charge of rape, knowing that a dismissal is possible?

I wouldn't. When I die, the only thing I'll leave behind is my good name -- and I'll defend that, especially against false charges. Your mileage seems to vary.

[Huggy Bear]

Seeing how the church caught the pastors texts before it had turned sexual, there would have been plenty of reasons to belive her over the pastor.

Except that the church did nothing when they caught those texts coming from the youth pastor. What does that tell you about their commitment to him? Surely at that point they should not have needed a complaint from her at all; we have here a man abusing a position of authority within his church for sexual gain, and all the church did was tell him "stop it."

Furthermore, pleading guilty doesn't imply that the prosecution has overwhelming evidence at all, on the contrary. You don't need any evidence to convict anyone of rape,  just the accusation of the victim.

No matter how consensual the sex was, if a woman decides it was rape, just go ahead and bend over and accept the raping the judicial system is about to lay on you.

Rape is just one of those instances that requires one to prove thier innocence, any lawyer will advise you to take a plea deal.

Here's what a legal advice website says. Who should I believe, them or you?

There's also this stuff:

http://wthitv.com/2016/08/18/rape-charge...haute-men/
http://www.mybasin.com/2016/09/09/rape-charges-dropped/
https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=33177
http://www.news4jax.com/news/local/jacks...ts-dropped

So yeah, would you plead guilty to a false charge of rape, knowing that a dismissal is possible?

I wouldn't. When I die, the only thing I'll leave behind is my good name -- and I'll defend that, especially against false charges. Your mileage seems to vary.

Look you don't have to believe me. Maybe you should look at actual case where people have plead guilty even though they were innocent.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Ba..._football)

In the summer of 2002, Banks was arrested and charged after classmate Wanetta Gibson falsely accused him of dragging her into a stairway at Polytechnic High School (Poly) and raping her. Faced with a possible 41 years to life sentence, he accepted a plea deal that included five years in prison, five years of probation, and registering as a sex offender. Wanetta Gibson and her mother Wanda Rhodes sued the Long Beach Unified School District, claiming the Poly campus was not a safe environment, and won a $1.5 million settlement.[18][19] In March 2011, Gibson contacted Banks on Facebook, met with him, and admitted that she had fabricated the story. Banks secretly recorded Gibson's confession, but she refused to tell prosecutors that she had lied so she wouldn't have to return the money she and her family had won in court. Nevertheless, with Gibson's taped admission and help from California Innocence Project attorneys, Los Angeles County prosecutors overturned Banks' conviction on May 24, 2012.[19]

Do you require more examples?

I know you think you wouldn't plead guilty but given a choice between 5 years or life in prison. I believe you take the deal also.

*edit*
After reviewing your links it appears the in two of the cases the "victim" recanted, no reason given why the charges were dropped in another even though the investigation is ongoing, and the fourth is about a judge who isn't your average joe.

What exactly do those examples prove?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I didn't say that plea deals never happen. Enjoy beating that straw man around, though.

As for what my links demonstrate, they show that charges can and do get dropped in these sorts of cases. I had thought that much would be obvious.

[Huggy Bear]

I didn't say that plea deals never happen. Enjoy beating that straw man around, though.

What you said was.

A guilty plea is a sign of overwhelming evidence pointing to guilt.

This is clearly false.

Furthermore your statement of:

So yeah, would you plead guilty to a false charge of rape, knowing that a dismissal is possible?

I wouldn't. When I die, the only thing I'll leave behind is my good name -- and I'll defend that, especially against false charges. Your mileage seems to vary.

Implies that people pleading guilty to crimes they didn't commit is some sort of anomaly. People plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit quite frequently.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/when-the...ad-guilty/

The 31 individuals listed below pled guilty to crimes they didn’t commit— usually seeking to avoid the potential for a long sentence (or a death sentence). They served a combined total of more than 150 years in prison before they were exonerated:

As for what my links demonstrate, they show that charges can and do get dropped in these sorts of cases. I had thought that much would be obvious.

No, the only thing obvious from your links was that the cases are dropped if the "victim" decides to recant... What if they don't?

The links you need to post are ones that show someone actually to have been tried for rape and found innocent.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Do you think these accusers recant out of the goodness of their hearts?

[Huggy Bear]

I don't really know the point you're trying to make.

If they had a good heart, they probably wouldn't of leveled false accusations in the first place.