This is despicable and should constitute another crime.

So, you see judge, he just had the children get naked and give him a handy.

No rape there, why are even here?

Jebus.

Please follow me on Twitter @durrati

 

Help keep the site running, consider supporting.

1 COMMENT

    • I suspect a lot of them would like to limit the rights of females, because they should be the property of their fathers, their husbands, or their oldest sons. And children shouldn’t have any rights: they should belong to their father.

      • I lived that last sentence, P J. It’s amazing that all parties involved came out of the experience alive. “You do things to us, we grow up and do things to you.” –Andrew Vachss, Hard Candy

  1. If they’re underage, they can’t legally give consent, so it’s statutory rape, not prostitution. (And the pics support statutory rape charges as well as child pr0n charges.)

  2. New York law, FYI. Statutory rape is defined as consensual sexual activity with anyone under 17. If the minor is under 17 it’s a class e felony with a 3-4 year sentence. If the minor is under 15, class d with a 7 year sentence. Under 13, class b with a 10-25 year sentence. New York law defines this crime as strict liability, so mistake of age isn’t a defense.

    For the class e and d felonies, the statute of limitations is 5 years after the victim turns 18. For class b, there is no limitation. Given the timeframe of the crimes in the indictment, it seems likely the statute of limitations has expired for rape charges. Which demonstrates the danger of having corrupt officials.

    (And if criminal conduct is found in regard to the investigation and deal, I have no idea how that affects the statute of limitations, if at all.)

    As for his lawyers, in our adversarial system we rely on two sides taking absolute positions and fighting them out, even with dishonest or ridiculous arguments. This argument isn’t a crime…and there’s a prosecutor on the other side to ensure the jury hears how ridiculous the argument is. Justice is working for Epstein…finally.

  3. Regardless who (or what) their preferred sex objects are, they have absolutely no notion of consent. They may be able to say the word, but in order to grasp what it means, you need to have empathy and imagination, and they have neither.

    And, if the entire concept of consent is removed, all of this is perfectly OK.

    ALso, they may think children do or should belong to their fathers, but I am not seeing any suggestion here that they might have compensated those fathers for damage to their “property.” So I think that is just a cop-out. They don’t recognize anyone’s rights but their own, and they have extremely inflated views of those.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

The maximum upload file size: 128 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here