To think the result of this rape trial is disgusting

[joystir59]

Man gets off completely Scot=free for raping a 12 year old girl, and that this result gives such a wrong message to men, in a world in which girls are never considered too young anyway. I'm enraged!
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-39305042

In the early hours of the following morning, police searching for another girl who was missing spoke to the 12-year-old in Princes Street

Prosecutor Kath Harper said officers had not noted her details "as they were not concerned by her age".

I missed this bit. Sorry but if even police officers did not think she was that young then 'normal' guys can't be expected to know.

What makes you think police officers aren't 'normal'? They are CLEARLY just as fallible as others as THEY judged her age wrongly too.

Graphista

But we can asume the officers have experience and training for judging ages (it's skill I learnt as a barmaid) as well as if someone is lying. The 19 year old had probably had a few drinks but the police hadn't.

Isn't fallibility what's being judged here. He was guilty because that's what the law states, but often, the law uses the word 'reasonable' and based on the judge's, the taxi driver's and the judge's opinion, it was reasonable to think she was of legal age. Added onto the fact she was in a taxi queue after a night on the town at 4am and lied to him about his age, I think it would be unreasonable to treat him as a rapist.

What makes you think police officers aren't 'normal'? They are CLEARLY just as fallible as others as THEY judged her age wrongly too.

I meant...not like average people for stuff like this. They are more likely to be able to tell peoples ages as part of the job. Much like a bouncer is more likely to be able to tell someone who is underage than a punter who was just out that night. Or thats how it should work anyway.

I worked behind a bar for 8 years and my friends are still quite amazed that I tend to be able to tell peoples ages even when they 'don't look it' (to other people). Meaning, if someone presented me with a 16 year old and said she was their 18year old sister...9 times out of 10 I would know/suspect she was underage, where others wouldn't as they have never...needed to know that.

If that makes sense. Bit late so I may be babbling.

I wouldn't assume that at all of the officers. My brothers a police officer and it's generally the younger, newer officers assigned this type of basic task.

I like to think my brother a good officer but he's certainly come across officers less than competent and some downright corrupt.

On another thread also discussing rape I was commenting that there are police officers who are sex offenders too.

On another thread also discussing rape I was commenting that there are police officers who are sex offenders too.

And judges. What does that have to do with the price of bacon, or do you think this is a big conspiracy?

No I'm saying they are fallible and get it wrong they're not gods.

There's been lots of 'the judge heard all the evidence' 'the judge thought X was reasonable' judges, lawyers, police, juries get it wrong all the time.

No I'm saying they are fallible and get it wrong they're not gods.

I agree. When you take all reasonable and fair and normal and common and sensible precautions you can occasionally go wrong and that is why I believe the judge was correct in her sentencing.

judges, lawyers, police, juries get it wrong all the time

"All" the time or rarely?

I have not read the whole thread. A 19 year old having sex with a 12 year old is rape. It does not matter she lied about her age. If a 12 year old walked into a shop to but cigarettes and lied about her age could the licensee then say ohhhhh but she said she was older to escape the fine. Could they fuck.

He is not a rapist. He had a reasonable belief that she was old enough to consent to sex, as demonstrated by the other people who thought she was clearly older than 16. That's a defence under the law and I think a moral defence also. He has done nothing wrong, as unfortunate as this case is.

If someone served you a drink which was spiked, you would be less liable for driving under the influence.

If someone gave you a drug without your knowledge, you would not be responsible for taking an illegal drug.

He was misled. From his perspective a woman a similar age to him, out and about at a time when children are not out and about, had sex with him.

He had sex with a twelve year old. But not because he did anything young people across the country don't do all the time.

If we don't want this to happen again, we need to challenge the culture of having sex with people we don't know, not punish a nineteen year old for behaving in a culturally appropriate way.

When Trading standards test shops to see if they sell to underage people, they use children who look under age. They are careful not to use youngsters who look older than they are.

Unless we introduce a 'think 25' rule for sex...

Trifleorbust the child was 12, so there was no possibility of using the defence that he thought she was 16. Hence his guilty plea and guilty verdict. The judge has then used the evidence that several other men thought she was 16 to base her sentencing on. Hence the absolute discharge.

I think that what this man did was irresponsible and reckless enough to warrant a proper sentence e.g. a short suspended sentence. To put out the message to people that if you have sex with a total stranger the onus is on you to know they are old enough to consent, for it not to be statutory rape.

I think I struggle with the discrepancy between the age of criminal responsibility and the age at which someone can legally consent to sex.

AssassinatedBeauty: Technically true, but he DID think she was 16, hence the absolute discharge as his conviction was based on that technicality.

put out the message to people that if you have sex with a total stranger the onus is on you to know they are old enough to consent, for it not to be statutory rape

But it isn't. A reasonable belief is all that is required.

He is a rapist under scots law where the offence took place.

I'm actually wondering if the judges decision can be overturned.

Graphista:

The BBC story said it wasn't a conviction - the case has been discharged. Perhaps I don't get it.

But why do you think it might/should be overturned?

Because it's wrong morally and legally and doesn't enforce the law.

The reasonable belief defence doesn't apply to under 13s so surely the onus is on you to be certain they're not under 13. Or accept the risk that you could be committing statutory rape, with the punishment that entails.

Graphista:

Why is it wrong morally and/or legally? The judge was clear that the discretion to issue the discharge exists in the law. The circumstances were exceptional. The boy had no inkling she wasn't 16. He hasn't done anything wrong.

Hard to explain, as I understand it (scots lawyers about?) an absolute discharge is still a conviction but he doesn't have to serve a sentence or declare it (acts like a spent conviction for disclosure check purposes) but if he were accused of another similar crime it would then count as a conviction for the purposes of the courts knowledge.

AssassinatedBeauty:

You can never be certain. A reasonable belief is all there can be.

Graphista:

I just looked it up. No conviction - the trial does not proceed that far. So he was charged, pled guilty, a guilty verdict was returned but there was no conviction because of exceptional circumstances.

cjdamoo, you may not read the whole thread but at least read the report that it relates to. There is plenty of evidence that this girl looked well over 16. The duties of someone running a shop are totally irrelevant.

Trifleorbust, there was a conviction - an absolute discharge is the sentence.