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

Graphista there is no evidence that this is what happened in that case.

• the girl was dressed in a way that implied she was at least/older than 16.
• the girl had been able to buy alcohol, implying that she had appeared at least 18 to the person who had sold it to her, although if they followed 'think 25', quite possibly older.

-the girl was out in the early hours and spoke to policemen who were specifically tasked with identifying underage children and was not identified as being so.

• a taxi driver thought she was 20 years old.
• she was at a taxi rank at 4 am.
• she declared herself to be above the age of consent.
• she actively and willingly participated (although did not consent, legally, due to her actual age, it has become apparent) in sexual intercourse.
• she did not express regret at any point.
• the only reason it was found out was that she feared pregnancy and confided in her sister, who took her to her GP.

The judge heard the testimony and viewed CCTV, which she herself felt to show that the girl looked older than 16. So she concluded that given the above, there was no way the defendant could have known that he was committing this crime. While the crime was not in doubt, and intent was not necessary, it simply isn't fair to punish him for having sex with her when he very possibly wouldn't have done if she had admitted that she was under 16, looked under 16 or acted under 16. The fact that he was just 19 at the time is probably another factor in his favour.

Graphista:

Well it's not good enough for me. I believe a criminal conviction requires criminal intent.

My 12 year old DD will not be in this position unless it is over my dead body, so I don't expect to be sitting in a court listening to how a 19 year old thought she was 16 when she went back to his flat at 4am for sex.

It's just awful how she's been let down. Unbelievable. Shocking.

Ah yes, I'd forgotten about your futuristic perfect parenting

And as for 'rape' - setting on one side the statutory rule that under 12 you can't give consent and therefore it's technically rape, it sounds like she wasn't in the least bit upset by what happened - probably thought she'd had a great night out!

WHERE WERE HER PARENTS/CARE GIVER/WHOEVER???

You'd hope people think that, but plenty of people think the girl is fully to blame for tricking this poor poor man, sorry - boy, into having sex with her. No sympathy for her at all.

Graphista:

Don't be so silly. Any parent worth the label would do everything to make sure their DD wasn't wandering round a city centre, drunk, sexually active and lying about her age. I appreciate that some parents aren't in the position to stop their 12 year olds doing this, but I am not in that bracket at the moment, luckily for her and for me.

Not silly just aware of how arrogant parents can end up in situations they never thought they would - seen it happen.

Graphista:

It is not arrogant to assume your child won't be allowed out on the piss at 12.

It is not arrogant to assume your child won't be allowed out on the piss at 12.

Fair enough.

None of us can say what will happen with any child, but we can state our clear intentions as parents. I can tell you now that if I am still on the planet, my daughter will not be going to school plastered in make-up at 12. There's a horrendous culture in some secondary schools of the girls literally spending a good hour before going to school putting on all this foundation, 'contouring', highlighting, who knows what, false lashes, thick matt lipstick (from Mac ...) - if you haven't seen it yet, you'll be shocked when you do. And the peer pressure is immense.

Wingsofdesire: I teach secondary - believe me, I know

lougle

Excellent summary of case and outlines the reasons very clearly why the judge was reasonable in her sentencing in this very sad and exceptional case.

AssassinatedBeauty / Graphista

What are you suggesting the man should have done in practical terms in this case? The only one I can think of is that men should apply a 'think 21/25' type rule, and that this should be the expectation in assessing capacity to consent..... However, whereas that may be something we could argue moving forward, it's hardly reasonable to apply it in retrospect in my view.

It is not arrogant to assume your child won't be allowed out on the piss at 12.

But it is arrogant to assume your children would never lie to you about there whereabouts.

I was the 'good girl' at school, top classes, top grades and my mother no doubt thought she'd never have to worry about me but from the age of 14 I was regularly telling her I was sleeping over at a friend's house when in reality I was out with boys. I remember once, when I was about 15 I stayed in a B&B with two of my friends (same age) and three guys that we'd met who were all 17/18 years old. I didn't have sex with anyone (not sure if my friends did) but it highlights that it goes on and the gentleman who offered us the rooms didn't ask for any proof of age as me and my friends all looked older than we were.

My mother would be horrified if she knew what I used to get up to as in her eyes I was just her well behaved daughter who stayed out of trouble.

Yes the 12 year old shouldn't have been out late at night but teenagers do lie about what they're up to in order to keep parents/carers in the dark.

Apparently in Scotland - as in some American States, I believe - intercourse with a girl too young to consent but whose state of mind is what would be consent if she were older - is called "rape". That is logical but not reasonable.

In England genuine mistake to the charge of "sexual activity with a child" is a defence if she (or he, but more often she) is 13 to 15, but not if she is 12 or under. That makes sense, provided that in the wholly exceptional case such as this seems to be the judge can act appropriately at sentencing time - or indeed the CPS can decide not to proceed.

Agree about the parents.

It's arrogant to assume anything parenting wise imo. You really don't know what's round the corner.

Eg make up banned by parents, I have aunts in their 70's who remember leaving home looking prim & proper going to a friends/public loo/wherever and changing into clothes their parents wouldn't approve of and putting on makeup etc

As a secondary teacher I would expect you to see/hear many teens revelling against parental rules on dress/makeup/drink/drugs/sex.

coconuttella:

As much as a 'Think 21/25' rule sounds reasonable, it actually isn't, for several reasons. 1) fake ID is rife, so any girl who wants to be thought to be over 16 already has 'proof' - all this would do is make it possible for perverts to say "Well, I asked her for ID" (even when the girl really does look 12) 2) a 16 year old lad can't really tell the difference between 20 and 25 most of the time as he has no context. This would be meaningless in practice. 3) The law is already clear on 'reasonable belief' and the age of consent. We shouldn't be placing unreasonable restrictions on sex between adults.

Or perhaps the age of consent should be raised to 18..... on reflection I think this reasonable. It doesn't change the facts of this case and my view that the sentence was correct, but 18 is the age of adulthood. It's bizarre that a 16 yo can have sex, but has to be 18 to watch it (even non-hardcore depictions) drink alcohol and smoke. Yes, it wouldn't stop teens from having sex overnight, or perhaps at all, but would be a sensible clear message from society about the responsibility associated with sex.... and it would help prevent younger teens from being exposed to sex as early as they currently are, and may have prevented this 12 yo from being in this position.

Graphista:

For me to imagine my 12 year old might be hanging out in bars, on taxi ranks, in strangers' flats would be for me to show alarmingly low expectations of my own parenting skills. It's possible it could happen if I was physically incapacitated, but otherwise I would follow her and stop her, end of.

"it's hardly reasonable to apply it in retrospect in my view." But it's not retrospective is it? The expectation that he make a proper assessment of her being of age which I don't believe he did.

"We shouldn't be placing unreasonable restrictions on sex between adults." Nobody is, she was a CHILD.

Trifle:
I teach secondary - believe me, I know

Graphista:
As a secondary teacher I would expect you to see/hear many teens revelling against parental rules on dress/makeup/drink/drugs/sex.

Graphista, yes, I know, of course - but you can't have seen this make up thing. It isn't a bit of mascara and lip gloss. It's full Dolly Parton. It is crazy.

coconuttella: I agree with that.

writer you describe what you did from the age of 14 not 12. Yes I'm sure children lie about their wearabiuts when they are 14, although mine didn't as they have more freedom. At 12 the vast majority of patents can say they know exactly where their child is.

Yea ok, cos kids never sneak out, or go to a friends for a sleepover and sneak out from there.

And where would that leaves girls with parents who don't give a shit? Not the girls' fault.

Graphista:

I know she is a child. My point is that requiring someone to prove they are 16 unless you believe telnet are 25 is an unreasonable restriction to place on an adult. If two 21 year olds hit it off in a bar and want to go home and shag, but one doesn't have ID or wants to stay anonymous, the law shouldn't (effectively) criminalise one of them to the point that he/she has to decline an evening of casual sex for fear of being a rapist. A reasonable belief should be enough.

I've a 16 year old dd I'm well aware of the current fashion make up wise and that some girls store their makeup stash at friends houses, leave home early in order to have time to apply.

The amount of makeup is insane!