ignatz (09/02/82)
I don't normally say anything on topics like "Jo Jo" (how cute...). That is, emotional topics; since the number of people I know who are willing to change their opinions due to discussion can be counted on the toes of my third leg. So consider this a self-gratifying flame. The man is a rapist. There is *NO* mitigating circumstance for this crime. It is a crime unique in the repertoire of crimes. The perpetrator is denying the humanity of the victim; using them like latex dolls, and leaving a legacy of torn sphincters and crushed souls. Although there is natter about rape of men, it is almost totally an offense against women. And it is *not* a crime of "passion"; you may murder someone by grabbing a knife in a fit of rage and stabbing them, but a rape is, at the very least, planned to the extent of getting the victim out of their clothes and... But most disgusting is the fact that most societies take the attitude that, "Well, you look ok...you're not permanently hurt..it can't have been that bad.". If the victim manages to get the criminal to court, convictions are often difficult to obtain; the defense often rests upon further degradation and defamation of the victim, and most often the offender walks free to rape again. Many brought to court on these charges are repeat offenders. Need I go on? This is a crime, possibly by sick people, but still a crime that is degrading in a way difficult to express. I know this could never be passed in our society--and probably shouldn't be--but when I hear about things like "Jo Jo", I wish that the proper punishment was a total orchidectomy. At the very least, why can't we make the punishment severe enough, and strictly enough enforced, to deter first timers? And prevent first offenders from *ever* being unsupervised enough to do it AGAIN??? I feel sick. Dave Ihnat ihuxx!ignatz (312) 979-6747
mag (09/03/82)
I have a question about JoJo Giorgianni. There have been a lot of flames recently about all the facts surrounding the case, and I have no sympathy for rapists, but I can't find any reliable source that says JoJo is a rapist. Our local rag in NJ, the Daily Record, always headlines "rape" when rtalking about this case, but when you read the stories, you find that he was convicted of "impairing the morals of a minor", "indecent carnal knowledge", and the like. The word rape is never mentioned. So, was his crime a forcible rape, statutory rape, or what. Does anyone know? As far as I can see, all the flames on the net assume that he committed a forcible rape. If anyone knows what his crime really was, it would help me understand the issues in the case better. Please reply to the net if you have any info about this. Thanks. MAG.
rhm (09/03/82)
Jo Jo was not charged with rape. He was charged with crimes that involved "carnal knowledge" of a girl under 16. No force was alleged. There was evidence presented to the jury that made the offense more serious than that implies. The girl was 14, probably drunk, and possibly unconscious.
genesis (09/03/82)
According to the Thursday edition of the Chicago Sun-Times, Jo Jo and Clarence Sindora were convicted of "carnal abuse" and "debauching the morals of a minor". It also says that they (Jo Jo and Clarence) got her drunk, and as she lapsed in and out of consciousness, the two men sexually assaulted her. Russ Sehnoutka Bell Telephone Labs