Man gets 10-year sentence for circumcision of 2-year-old daughter

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I say Not guilty based on the article.  How can a mother not notice this for 1 year?  But then again how could the father miss it?  in either case, based on this I'd say not guilty, but if he were guilty, Longer.

Man gets 10-year sentence for circumcision of 2-year-old daughter

 
By Nick Arroyo, Atlanta Journal-Constitution via AP
 
Khalid Adem testified on his own behalf Oct. 27, but it didn't stop a jury from finding him guilty of the genital mutilation of his 2-year-old daughter in what was believed to be the first criminal case in the United States involving the ancient African tradition. 
 

 

LAWRENCEVILLE, Ga. (AP) — An Ethiopian immigrant who was convicted Wednesday of the genital mutilation of his 2-year-old daughter was sentenced to 10 years in prison in what was believed to be the first such criminal case in the United States.
Khalid Adem, 30, was found guilty of aggravated battery and cruelty to children. Prosecutors said he used scissors to remove his daughter's clitoris in his family's Atlanta-area apartment in 2001. The child's mother, Fortunate Adem, said she did not discover it until more than a year later.

Adem, who had no criminal record, could have been sentenced to up to 40 years in prison. He held his face in his hands and wept loudly after the jury's verdict was read.

During her father's trial, the girl, now 7, clutched a teddy bear as she testified on videotape that her father "cut me on my private part."

Federal law specifically bans the practice of genital mutilation, but many states do not have a law addressing it. Georgia lawmakers, with the support of the girl's mother, passed an anti-mutilation law last year. But Adem was not tried under that law since it did not exist when his daughter was cut.

During the trial, Adem testified he never circumcised his daughter or asked anyone else to do so. He said he grew up in Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia, and considers the practice more prevalent in rural areas.

Adem's attorney acknowledged that the girl had been cut, but implied that the family of the girl's mother, who immigrated from South Africa, may have been responsible. The Adems divorced three years ago, and attorney Mark Hill suggested that the couple's daughter was coached to testify against her father by her mother, who has full custody of the child.

Adem, who cried throughout the trial and during his testimony, was asked what he thought of someone who believes in the practice. He replied: "The word I can say is 'mind in the gutter.' He is a moron."

The practice crosses ethnic and cultural lines and is not tied to a particular religion. Activists say it is intended to deny women sexual pleasure. In its most extreme form, the clitoris and parts of the labia are removed and the labia that remain are stitched together.

Knives, razors or even sharp stones are usually used, according to a 2001 department report. The tools are frequently not sterilized, and often, many girls are circumcised at the same ceremony, leading to infection.

It is unknown how many girls have died from the procedure, either during the cutting or from infections, or years later in childbirth. Nightmares, depression, shock and feelings of betrayal are common psychological side effects, according to a 2001 federal report.

Since 2001, the State Department estimates that up to 130 million women worldwide have undergone circumcision.

[Alcon]

I'd have to know more about the details behind the case, but it's a horrible practice.  I'm not a fan of any cultural/religious issue that is forced upon an unconsenting child, but this is an especially egregious one and is definitely mutilation.

It does present an interesting case of cultural clash, though.  There are even some proponents of the practice out there, although generally less invasive forms (where less is removed).

Ten years sounds a little lax, but not ridiculously so.

[afleitch]

'Female Circumcision' is the horribly neutral term for what is outright mutilation; in this case cutting away the clitoris of his daughter. Male circumcision is a completely different ballgame however.

[Angel of Death]

Male circumcision is a completely different ballgame however.

Meaning what? That it's ok or just less bad?

[afleitch]

Male circumcision is a completely different ballgame however.

Meaning what? That it's ok or just less bad?

Meaning it's not comparible to clitoral mutilation (because the anatomy and function of the male and female sex organs are so different) which can have dangerous effects later on in life during penetration and increased difficulties with labour. There is a whole different set of arguments either for or against male circumcision, which if we exclude religious reasons is seen as 'beneficial' by many doctors and is carried out as a basic medical procedure into adulthood. Female circumcision does not benefit the female in any way and is designed purely to sexually satisfy the male who takes the girls virginity.

[Gabu]

If the father did indeed do it, it was a horrible act upon a defenseless child and he deserves to be put away for a long time.

If the father did not do it, then obviously he should have been found not guilty.

[Angel of Death]

Male circumcision is a completely different ballgame however.

Meaning what? That it's ok or just less bad?

Meaning it's not comparible to clitoral mutilation (because the anatomy and function of the male and female sex organs are so different) which can have dangerous effects later on in life during penetration and increased difficulties with labour. There is a whole different set of arguments either for or against male circumcision, which if we exclude religious reasons is seen as 'beneficial' by many doctors and is carried out as a basic medical procedure into adulthood.

Then why did you bring up the comparison in the first place? Do you support male circumcision for non-medical reasons or not?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The latter is baloney. The reasons for female circumcision may be misguided but that's not it.

[John Dibble]

If the father did indeed do it, it was a horrible act upon a defenseless child and he deserves to be put away for a long time.

If the father did not do it, then obviously he should have been found not guilty.

[Colin]

If the father did indeed do it, it was a horrible act upon a defenseless child and he deserves to be put away for a long time.

If the father did not do it, then obviously he should have been found not guilty.

[AuH2O]

But at least now American society is gifted with greater diversity. We could use more cannibalism too.

[Umengus]

20 years without parole seems good for me.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The man betrayed the trust of his child by performing a barabric act, the sole purpose of which is to deny women sexual pleasure... to therefore keep them faithful.

I don't support infant male circumcision, and FGM is GBH.

[MODU]

Unless he is a doctor trained in this practice, I would say he is guilty.

[John Dibble]

Unless he is a doctor trained in this practice, I would say he is guilty.

No legitimate doctor would be trained in this practice to begin with - it's not a valid medical procedure.

[MODU]

Unless he is a doctor trained in this practice, I would say he is guilty.

No legitimate doctor would be trained in this practice to begin with - it's not a valid medical procedure.

Then by all means, he's guilty.