You are correct. Just talking to kids in public isn't a crime. Whet this guy did after that should be though!
It's a big difference: "Hey lil dude! Catch anything? Nice day eh? Good luck!"
vs:
"Leave your gear behind & come get ice cream with me, I'll drive you home for reals!"
Boku no Pico starts with a car ride to get ice cream, ...or so I've been told!
Yeah. I agree. Taking a kid of the streets and driving them around for a day should definitely be a crime.
It shouldn't be the same crime as diddling a kid, though.
Which is why it matters whether this was attempted diddling or just a crazy person thinking it would be fun to pretend to be this kid's big brother for the day.
Careful, there. Throughout history, people who have been too gleefully casual about talking about handing out "the rope" have often been among the first against the wall.
He's obviously not "crazy" (a term often used to excuse criminal behaviour); he justified his actions rationally. And he justified it using his own culture, which is notorious for normalising rape.
If his intent was, inferred via his own admission, to rape the kid, should he get a reduced sentence just because someone stopped him?
You can't have it both ways. If "intent matters" such that good intentions absolve bad actions, then bad intent needs to be punished as though the actual crime was committed.
You are correct. Just talking to kids in public isn't a crime. Whet this guy did after that should be though!
It's a big difference: "Hey lil dude! Catch anything? Nice day eh? Good luck!"
vs:
"Leave your gear behind & come get ice cream with me, I'll drive you home for reals!"
Boku no Pico starts with a car ride to get ice cream, ...or so I've been told!
Yeah. I agree. Taking a kid of the streets and driving them around for a day should definitely be a crime.
It shouldn't be the same crime as diddling a kid, though.
Which is why it matters whether this was attempted diddling or just a crazy person thinking it would be fun to pretend to be this kid's big brother for the day.
I feel like you're too hung up on leaving little loopholes for the slightly-creepy-but-not-rapey pedos to get away with it.
They should both get the rope. And you too if you disagree even slightly.
Careful, there. Throughout history, people who have been too gleefully casual about talking about handing out "the rope" have often been among the first against the wall.
For the sake of executing pedos, I'll take my chances
He's obviously not "crazy" (a term often used to excuse criminal behaviour); he justified his actions rationally. And he justified it using his own culture, which is notorious for normalising rape.
If his intent was, inferred via his own admission, to rape the kid, should he get a reduced sentence just because someone stopped him?
You can't have it both ways. If "intent matters" such that good intentions absolve bad actions, then bad intent needs to be punished as though the actual crime was committed.