Comments on: When is female genital mutilation just peachy?

By: Cate

Cate — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 01:57:31 +0000

Wow, this story is disgusting. I am always amazed at human beings, both for the beauty and the monstrosities we are capable of…

Something else that I noticed, however…

“…who acquitted this woman (probably a nice, Christian woman) for mutilating her daughter’s genitals…”

There’s absolutely no need for that. I think it’s safe to say we have no idea what this woman’s beliefs are, and regardless of your personal prejudices, not all folks who call themselves Christians are crazy.

By: Schmorgluck

Schmorgluck — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 01:54:22 +0000

I think she’s been mostly batshit stupid, aggravated by a lack of consideration for her daughter.
I don’t agree that she should be sentenced to many years of imprisonment. Thirty years would be, given all the facts exposed, clearly unbalanced, in my opinion.
Still, some years would have been fair and, if I understand right, that’s what the prosecutor tried to achieve. But the judge refused, and left the jurors with a choice between acquitment and a largely exaggerated sentence. They chose the former, and I think I’d have too, by principle.
The foreman’s explanation is completely scary, though. Totally missing the point, and totally putting the blame on the victim, which angers me more than I can express.

On a side note, I have a question about a point in US’ penal procedure (or maybe Florida’s penal procedure in this case) I’ve failed to make clear in my head: is the prosecution able to file an appeal in such a case?

By: githy

githy — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:21:58 +0000

Bottom line is a women done a bad wrong to her child over a man and both man and women should pay . This child has to live with the facts that happen to her and she should not have to at all.
Im not a lawyer or doctor dammit man there is clear right and wrong here it is like black and white . In my oppion “woa to them to harm the little one of this world “

By: Swoops

Swoops — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:18:40 +0000

this is messed up i swear. I hope the man is locked up. I think they should prosecute the jury for being inconsiderate crack smoking asswholes who must do the same kind of shit

By: J

Tue, 06 Nov 2007 17:04:00 +0000

“Yes juan it is was worse then removing a babys foreskin. You can’t compare the two. They are in completely different catagories!”

Personally I would say that excision of an erogenous zone is -worse-.

“The problem with the mother is that what she did is unusual? How about fucked up! What she did was fucked up! And no amount of debate is going to change that. She held down her teenage daughter and put a fucking needle through her labia to make it painfull for her to have sex. How can you even fucking compare that to circumcision!”

Because they both involve damage to erogenous zones.

Indeed circumcision in secular terms was originally designed to deter masturbation. Not that dissimilar, really.

By: Marle

Marle — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:03:44 +0000

Right. Because if the mom wasn’t malicious and it wasn’t intended to prevent sex, and it was done more for, say, cultural reasons, it would be so totally okay.

It was intended to make it painful for her to have sex, as a punishment for being raped by her mother's boyfriend. Look, I'm against circumcision too. But what this mother did was so much worse and disturbing and traumatizing than routine circumcision. There really shouldn't even be a comparison.

By: Marge

Marge — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 19:35:20 +0000

Yes juan it is was worse then removing a babys foreskin. You can’t compare the two. They are in completely different catagories!

The problem with the mother is that what she did is unusual? How about fucked up! What she did was fucked up! And no amount of debate is going to change that. She held down her teenage daughter and put a fucking needle through her labia to make it painfull for her to have sex. How can you even fucking compare that to circumcision!

By: Ms.Feasance

Ms.Feasance — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 17:25:54 +0000

Two things truly sadden me: 1) In noting case law progressions about aggravated child abuse, there are a litany of cases where mothers who whipped their sons with leather belts were found guilty (and had their convictions upheld at appeal) of aggravated child abuse. (After Kama v. State, 507 So. 2d 154, in which a mother's conviction for aggravated child abuse for whipping her son with a leather belt was upheld, the Florida legislature amended the law to specifically permit a higher level of corporal punishment.) Yet, in most places in the case law, the victims of aggravated child abuse whose abusers' convictions were upheld were male. 2) Why wasn't this mother charged with some form of sexual abuse? According to Fla. Stat. (s) 39.01 (emphasis mine),

(66) "Sexual abuse of a child" means one or more of the following acts:... (c ) Any intrusion by one person into the genitals or anal opening of another person, including the use of any object for this purpose, except that this does not include any act intended for a valid medical purpose. (d) The intentional touching of the genitals or intimate parts, including the breasts, genital area, groin, inner thighs, and buttocks, or the clothing covering them, of either the child or the perpetrator, except that this does not include: 1. Any act which may reasonably be construed to be a normal caregiver responsibility, any interaction with, or affection for a child; or 2. Any act intended for a valid medical purpose.

So now, I suppose that we are to infer that this case indicates that genital mutilation serves a valid medical purpose; or that publicly humiliating your child for sleeping with your boyfriend can be "reasonably construed to be a normal caregiver responsibility."

By: Juan Perez

Juan Perez — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 16:19:23 +0000

No doubt the piercing was a stupid thing to do.
But was it worse than boys foreskin removal in boys which is widely practiced in USA? Piercings can be easily removed but circumcision is very difficult to revert. The problem with this mother is that wat she made is unusual .

By: Laura

Laura — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 02:23:38 +0000

In every state, there is a program for “out of control” children. The court orders the child home at a certain time and/or gives other stipulations. If the orders are not followed, the kid gets in trouble with the court and can risk being sent to a juvenile detention center, in some cases. So it is curious to me that the jurors made their decision based on the fact that they felt nothing else could have been done about this girl. The courts are supposed to be there so that people DON’T take matters into their own hands. Here is an example where the courts failed twice on this matter. I’m disgusted.