When Sherry Johnson was eleven, she found one day that she’s gonna marry a 20-year-old member of her church who had raped her. She became pregnant and in order to avoid investigation and criminal case, her family and church officials decided to make the girl a legal wife of this monster.
“My mom asked me if I wanted to get married, and I said, ‘I don’t know, what is marriage, how do I act like a wife?’” Johnson remembers today, many years later. “She said, ‘Well, I guess you’re just going to get married.’”
However, her case is one of thousand cases of child marriage. According to statistics, children 16 and under are still being married in Florida at a rate of one every few days.
Johnson and her family also attended a conservative Pentecostal church and that other girls of a similar age periodically also married. One girl said when she was 10 she was raped by both a minister and a parishioner and later gave birth to a daughter. There were all documents confirming her and her child’s age, but still, the judge approved the marriage to end the rape investigation, telling her,
“What we want is for you to get married.”
And nevertheless, America prefers to interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, like in Syria, calling it “defending freedom” rather than to change states’ laws and to protect American children from rape, coercion and molestation.
Today, Johnson is campaigning for a state law to stop underage marriage that has already become a norm in some states.
Please, help me to raise awareness to this issue. No one can remain indifferent to the problem of child molestation.
I remember hearing of a well documented, and publizied case from my sociology class in high school.
I do not remember the state but the 13 year old with her 20-something year old “lover” fled to another state to get married because in that state if you are pregnant your could get married without parental consent… even if you are 13.
The mother of the 13 year old was disabled and had multiple restraining orders against him to stay away from her and her young daughter…. but they are just pieces of paper after all.
this is the single most accurate video about australia ever made from the grey hobo hair to the woolworths fabric bag
what the fuck
For those confused: that’s a joey, or baby kangaroo. It looks a little big to getting in a mum kangaroo’s pouch but young enough that it will want to try to get in for comfort. Old mate is taking advantage of the joey’s safety instinct, because it feels safe and happy diving into a bag. There’s no way you could fit a shopping bag over a fully grown kangaroo
Under ancient Jewish law, if a suspect on trial was unanimously found guilty by all judges, then the suspect was acquitted. This reasoning sounds counterintuitive, but the legislators of the time had noticed that unanimous agreement often indicates the presence of systemic error in the judicial process, even if the exact nature of the error is yet to be discovered. They intuitively reasoned that when something seems too good to be true, most likely a mistake was made.
In a new paper to be published in The Proceedings of The Royal Society A, a team of researchers, Lachlan J. Gunn, et al., from Australia and France has further investigated this idea, which they call the “paradox of unanimity.”
…
The researchers demonstrated the paradox in the case of a modern-day police line-up, in which witnesses try to identify the suspect out of a line-up of several people. The researchers showed that, as the group of unanimously agreeing witnesses increases, the chance of them being correct decreases until it is no better than a random guess.
In police line-ups, the systemic error may be any kind of bias, such as how the line-up is presented to the witnesses or a personal bias held by the witnesses themselves. Importantly, the researchers showed that even a tiny bit of bias can have a very large impact on the results overall. Specifically, they show that when only 1% of the line-ups exhibit a bias toward a particular suspect, the probability that the witnesses are correct begins to decrease after only three unanimous identifications. Counterintuitively, if one of the many witnesses were to identify a different suspect, then the probability that the other witnesses were correct would substantially increase.
so…jews argue so much there’s something WRONG if we agree?
When someone’s life or liberty is on the line, then, yes, that is exactly the logic behind this, and that’s it’s better to err on the side of caution rather than condemn an innocent.
You may find this interesting – in any death penalty case (which I’ve explained elsewhere how difficult it is to get the death penalty) there was a panel of 23 judges. The Talmud in Tractate Sanhedrin explains that these 23 are divided into 3 groups. A group of 10 whose responsibility was to find legal loopholes or clear evidence, or faults in the testimony, in order to try and prove the defendant innocent, a group of 10 who would argue against the defendant, acting as a prosecutor, and a group of 3 to make the judgement and decide the ruling. The GOAL was to avoid the death penalty – at almost all costs – and to MAKE argument, because in judaism, when there is argument and debate, we are always more likely to come to the truth.
I saw this, and almost posted it. The paper is basically an academic paper saying “Yeah, that thing Jews have been doing for 3000 years? They nailed it. If we all agree on something, or if all our data is the same massive pile, then…well, maybe there’s something wrong with our detectors, there’s too much noise in reality for all our actual measurements to agree.”
Flamingsalyut Safehaven 