The argument most often conjured in a rapist's defense are that the victim of the rape wanted it. The "proof" most often offered in support of that contention is the rape victim's history of sexual promiscuity.

So let's be real clear about this:

Just because you're generous with your money doesn't mean you want to be robbed. That's why the victim's sexual history is not admissible as evidence in a rape case. The law recognizes that it has no bearing on anything relevant to a rape.

And never forget rape isn't about sex. It's about the sustained, purposeful execution of violence. It's about the purely evil need to control and humiliate a weaker being. A rapist isn't getting off on sex. He's getting off on making his victim beg, cry, and scream from pain.

Finally---and this of course is particularly germane to the Polanski case---a mother has absolutely no legal right to facilitate a crime being perpetrated against her daughter. You're not allowed to sell your child into slavery; you're not allowed to use your child to make pornography; you're not allowed to help your child get raped. "Mother" doesn't mean inured from the laws of man, nature, or God. (And, for the record, we have no idea whether or not Samantha Geimer's mother in any way facilitated her daughter being raped by the cretin Polanski. We hope not, of course.)

******************************************************************************************************************************

Share your thoughts.

Email: johnshore@sbcglobal.net
Follow: http://twitter.com/johnshore
Friend: http://www.facebook.com/john.shore1
Fan: http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Shore/89494795412?ref=s