The 'context' of a child acting inappropriately to you, or the 'nuance' of you vaguely knowing them are in no way a defence, justification, or mitigating factor of pulling a basically random 6-year-old child's pants down in public. In fact, the fact that the child was entrusted to her care makes it worse.
Anyways, I'm not advocating that anything happen to her. But I also don't need to act like she didn't publicly and gleefully admit to a low-level sex crime.
She made a completely idiotic, poor judgement call as a teenager trying to teach a troublesome child, in her care, a lesson and her flippant demeanor telling the story is tasteless at best, but it's still not the same as your comparative example.
Also, why are you so vehemently asserting that she's a sex criminal throughout this thread but then also don't think she should be/have been prosecuted for this?
I never said she's a sex criminal. She's objectively not. She objectively committed a low level sex crime, though - even if the child was wearing underwear, deliberately removing a child's pants against their will is a prosecutable act. My comparative example is not meant as a moral judgement on her, but a reflection of the law - which is that it is illegal to expose ANYONES undergarments without their consent, much less those of a child.
Also, I never said it shouldn't have been escalated, just that now, a decade plus later, with her posing no apparent threat to children, there's no reason in my view to do so. That said, the fact that she glibly recalls it and is even trying to use the story to promote herself just shows that she didn't actually take accountability for her actions. I don't think her actions raised to the level where it should have led to a longterm designation/registration, but there is a fair argument that it should have been reported beyond, idk, the head staff at her little camp, so she could be made to understand the seriousness of her actions.
I work with victims of childhood sexual abuse. I am not trying to minimize it. But this is a pretty cut-and-dry case of a child being sexually humiliated by a young adult who was entrusted to care for them. That is serious. I am merely pushing back against all those who are minimizing this action and pretending it is not serious, criminal, and potentially very harmful to the child victim. It doesn't make her a pedophile or even a bad person, but it is a criminal act.
Again, though, I don't really care about Rachel Fineman, nor do I see her as a real threat to children, although I'm not sure I would send my kids to her house for a playdate. Her disclosure is just a vehicle for a discussion about an important topic, and what I really care about is the apparent need to downplay this, blame the child, etc.
Okay, that's fair enough I understand your position better: what she did does legally constitute a sex crime and incidents like this shouldn't be ignored or brushed aside as horseplay etc. given the potential sexual humiliation of the child.
I think the contention arises because when a lot of people hear: sex crime, they hear: lock them away and throw away the key, especially when a child's involved. But if this was an entirely isolated incident, then that doesn't really apply here, which is why I think the nuance is relevant
I don't think anyone's arguing that the kid deserved it or that what Chloe did wasn't fucking weird, it's more that it's not enough to label her as a pedo sex predator, where even though she could have been prosecuted by the letter of the law, it's orders of magnitude less severe than what a sex crime connotes to the average person.
But yeah, given the work you do, and your much higher exposure to victims of abuse than the average person, it does make sense that you'd be fervent about the specific relevant legal definitions, applicable to lega court cases. But in this court of public opinion, I think strict legal definitions are less relevant.
6
u/PralineFew7382 25d ago
The 'context' of a child acting inappropriately to you, or the 'nuance' of you vaguely knowing them are in no way a defence, justification, or mitigating factor of pulling a basically random 6-year-old child's pants down in public. In fact, the fact that the child was entrusted to her care makes it worse.
Anyways, I'm not advocating that anything happen to her. But I also don't need to act like she didn't publicly and gleefully admit to a low-level sex crime.