By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Joseph Dean Martin, 28, of Uniontown, faces multiple felony charges including rape of a child after allegedly sexually assaulting his ex-girlfriend’s 12-year-old daughter on several occasions. The girl reported that she and Martin engaged in sexual activity, including an incident in a cemetery after watching a movie, and that the relationship had been ongoing for two years. Evidence, including license plate reader data, surveillance footage, and receipts, supported the girl’s claims, leading to Martin’s confession and current incarceration in the Fayette County Prison without bail.
Read the original article here
Fayette County man accused of having sex with his ex-girlfriend’s 12-year-old daughter, a scenario now more accurately described as rape, is the central point of this disturbing case. The initial phrasing, “having sex with,” feels like a gross understatement of the severe crime committed. It’s crucial to understand that a 12-year-old cannot legally consent to sexual activity, and therefore, any such act constitutes rape. The very act of framing it as “having sex” can inadvertently normalize and downplay the horrific nature of the abuse inflicted upon a child.
The girl’s account, as reported, indicates that she and the man had been engaged in sexual acts for two years, beginning when she was just 10 years old. This detail is particularly harrowing. It means the abuse spanned a significant portion of her childhood. The narrative includes accounts of their activities, such as going to a gas station to buy condoms and ibuprofen before the sexual act in a cemetery. These are not the actions of a consensual relationship; they highlight the predatory nature of the adult’s behavior. It underscores that she was being actively and repeatedly abused.
The choice of words in the initial reporting—”having sex”—is particularly troublesome and likely incorrect. The use of the word “rape” is necessary to accurately reflect the crime. This kind of wording, possibly chosen for shock value or to appease, fundamentally misrepresents the situation. To frame it otherwise is to normalize, even subtly, a deeply disturbing act of violence against a vulnerable child. Such careful word choice is more than a semantic quibble; it shapes how the public perceives and understands the gravity of the situation.
The article also suggests that the title was changed from “having sex” to “raping.” This shift is a welcome acknowledgement of the truth. The initial wording could have served to cloud the issue and potentially soften the impact for the readers. The adjustment is not only an issue of word choice; it’s a matter of conveying the truth. The original reporting should have been clear from the start.
The entire situation is a stark reminder of the importance of language in reporting such sensitive and critical situations. The case demands that the media report with precision and avoid language that could normalize this appalling kind of abuse. It is a case of severe abuse that demands to be understood by the public. The use of the word “rape” is not only accurate but also vital in conveying the severity of the offense and the profound harm inflicted on the young victim. The media has a responsibility to use that word.