• njm1314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      63
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Why do so many headlines leave that part out? I swear like half the headlines don’t feel that needs to be mentioned when it’s really a huge fucking part of the story.

      • sandbox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        because he’s probably not a pedophile - I read somewhere that a lot of child rapists aren’t actually pedophiles. But it should say child rapist.

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        52
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        if you’re genuinely curious: my bet is to avoid lawsuits. mind that people who use the word pedophile colloquially usually mean people who prey on children.

        in reality, pedophilia is not a legal term and not a part of the crimes or charges. it’s a psychiatric disorder and in itself not the crime. laws are not concerned with the disorder so long as the person does not act on it.

        on the legal side, crimes like statutory rape, child sexual abuse, or whatever it may be, are independent of the disorder and i would imagine a lot of people who engage in it might not have it; as sexual abuse is more often than not about power, not attraction.

        so i imagine shit stain perpetrators like this can technically say they’re not pedophiles as they aren’t legally found to be so and sue for defamation. so media sticks to the legal terms.

        that being said, even if they don’t use the word, they should mention that the victim was a 12 year old. so instead of pedophile rapist, it can say rapist of 12 year old. afaik that’s legally and technically true and shouldn’t be a legal liability.

        disclaimer that these are opinions of a layman, and I’m not a lawyer.