Page 21 | To think the result of this rape trial is disgusting

joystir59 · 2017-03-17T20:48:32+00:00

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! [[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-39305042]]

oblada · 18/03/2017 10:51

Enthus - are you talking about civil law or criminal law? Yes in criminal law there are areas of strict liability where the intention to commit a crime isn't required but it's the exception...in civil law it's different and the consequences are different of course...

RebelRogue · 18/03/2017 10:51

It should be the same for the 'criminal age' ie age where someone can be convicted of a criminal offence: there should be no minimum just an assessment on the facts!

So someone(AN ADULT!!)can have sex with a 10(or is it 9?!?) year old child and everything is fine? What the actual fuck?!? You really can't see anything wrong with that?

RebelRogue · 18/03/2017 10:52

Oh I misunderstood sorry.

LoginInformation · 18/03/2017 10:52

That strict liability in these cases is wrong
I agree

That the girl lying and 'willingly participating' makes it acceptable.
Not acceptable but it stops him being guilty of rape.

'If she were a few months older...'
if she were 15 and 364 days would you use the same argument?

That his 'spontaneous distress' means he was contrite - he could well have been 'spontaneously distressed' because that's the point at which he knew he was facing a serious criminal charge.

I think he knew that when he pleaded guilty to statutory rape. I suspect the judge has seen ersatz and genuine remorse many times and is a fair judge of which is which.

There is little to no compassion or empathy for the victim

I think the girl needs empathy and compassion and support for events previous to this which led or enabled her to be in this situation and want to have sex as a 12 year old. I really feel for anyone who can be so disturbed at such a young age. As for the act itself, there is no suggestion she regrets it so no, I don't have compassion for her as a victim of a crime.

oblada · 18/03/2017 10:54

Rebel - not said that at all... Just saying there should be no arbitrary cut off in terms of age. It should be down to the facts as to whether both consented, whether one had authority over the other etc etc rather than arbitrary age limits. To me it makes no sense for a 17yrs old to be guilty of rape for sleeping with a 15yrs old just on those facts alone. And I say that knowing I was the very consenting 15yrs old in such a scenario when I was I growing up lol

prh47bridge · 18/03/2017 10:56

I see none of that in the judge's comments.

She does not imply that the law is wrong.

She is clear that strict liability is correct and states why the law is as it is.

She does not say that the girl's behaviour makes it acceptable. Indeed, she specifically says that her attitude is irrelevant to guilt. However, as a matter of law the fact that she consented is a factor to be taken into account when passing sentence.

"If she were a few months older" is again a factor to be taken into account when passing sentence. It does not alter the fact that there is a cut off age.

She does not say his spontaneous distress means he was contrite. She mentions it as supporting evidence that he genuinely believed she 16.

These are sentencing remarks. They rarely say much about the victim. However, the evidence is that the victim in this case has not suffered any distress as a result of what happened.

I suspect you are not used to reading sentencing remarks. These are fairly normal. The judge has laid out what happened and the reasons for conviction. She has then looked at mitigating and aggravating factors. Things such as the victim's consent (or lack thereof) come into play at this point and will always be mentioned. This does not mean the judge in any way disagrees with the law. It means the judge is doing her job.

RebelRogue · 18/03/2017 10:57

Well 1. It wouldn't be rape,i think it's called sexual act with a minor?

Common sense is used when the ages are close,there is a relationship etc,even if one of the parties is under 16.

coconuttella · 18/03/2017 10:58

All those saying"he should have known!" Seem very reluctant to put forward credible suggestions of how he should have known. If you believe it's ok to have consensual sex with a 16 yo things will unfortunately happen.

RebelRogue · 18/03/2017 10:59

However, the evidence is that the victim in this case has not suffered any distress as a result of what happened.

Yet.

AssassinatedBeauty · 18/03/2017 11:00

A 17 yr old wouldn't be convicted of statutory rape, it would be unlawful sex. And probably not actually prosecuted if they were that close in age and in the context of a relationship.

RebelRogue · 18/03/2017 11:01

Coco it's not that he should have known. It's that he should've postponed his "needs" for long enough to ensure that what he did was legal,or if in doubt put the girl in a cab and send her on her merry way.

oblada · 18/03/2017 11:09

Statutory rape is the general terminology, the actual offense will depend on which jurisdiction we are talking about yes. To me it shouldnt be a strict liability offence. Romeo and juliet laws allow for a defense for close age gap but not everywhere. And to have to rely on the good will of the prosecution service at the time is unsatisfactory in my view.

coconuttella · 18/03/2017 11:11

Rebel

How exactly? How could anyone be sure?

It's completely inconsistent to be simultaneously a) outraged that there wasn't a harsher sentence and b) fine that casual ONS type sex should be legal from 16 years upwards.

TheFallenMadonna · 18/03/2017 11:11

I do believe that in so far as he considered it, he thought she was 16. However, there is always a risk when you have sex with someone you don't know, that they might be lying to you. Therefore, in the absence of corroboration, you have the choice to believe them and accept the risk, or walk away from the sexual encounter. If you make the wrong choice, you accept the consequence. As, in fact, this man did. It is the women on here who think he should not need to.

prh47bridge · 18/03/2017 11:12

A 17 yr old wouldn't be convicted of statutory rape, it would be unlawful sex

This is wrong.

When someone has sex with a child under the age of 13 the offence is "rape of a young child" in Scotland. In England & Wales the equivalent offence is "rape of a child under 13". In both cases the age of the accused does not affect the nature of the offence or the sentence.

If the victim is 13 or over and the activity is consensual the offence is "having intercourse with an older child" in Scotland, "sexual activity with a child" in England & Wales. The age of the accused again does not affect the nature of the offence but it will result in a reduced sentence if they are under 18.

AssassinatedBeauty · 18/03/2017 11:14

Maybe he could have refrained from sex rather than go ahead knowing she was at most 16. Crazy idea though.

Goprogo · 18/03/2017 11:17

Does anyone know how it was discovered he had sex with her? Genuinely curious. If she was masquerading as this über confident, sexually aware, 4+ years older 'woman' and simply went home maybe saying she had stayed at a friend's house - totally unaffected and having just had a good night out how did the issue of rape come up? Did her parents suspect? Did her 'carers' suspect ( if she was a looked after child) - did she get pregnant? Did she wake up and feel violated and reported him. there's no mention of her been illegally served drinks in a pub or club. I'm just wondering how the police ended up at his door to arrest him? I'm just trying to imagine my 12 year old son out in the city, drunk, in the dark, catching a taxi to an unknown part of the city with a complete stranger and getting home again the next day (totally fucking unimaginable he gets lost beyond a few streets away and I would never allow him out at this age) I know we'll probably never know because quite rightly her anonymity is protected. I don't know what to think - I am not going to say you shouldn't have sex with random strangers because how you choose to behave sexually is entirely up to you as long as there's consent - I do have sympathies for both parties if he was genuinely of the mind she was old enough and just thinking he'd managed to pull - I think If the judge had been a man I'd have had my suspicions but a woman judge has obviously seen the girl, heard the testimony of eye witnesses on the ground and weighed up the evidence. I would be interested to know if any of the police who spoke to her on the night were women but again we'll never know.

AssassinatedBeauty · 18/03/2017 11:17

Thank goodness we have you to give us the exact terminology prh47bridge. I'm not a legal expert and was using my own imprecise terminology to try and express my point of view.

coconuttella · 18/03/2017 11:19

AssassinatedBeauty

So should ONS's be illegal when a person isn't unequivocally over 16.... say 25? If not, why not?

TheFallenMadonna · 18/03/2017 11:20

I think the notion that women can't be misogynistic is well and truly blown out of the water on this topic. One poster argued quite robustly that her "sexual history" was relevant.

prh47bridge · 18/03/2017 11:22

I'm not a legal expert and was using my own imprecise terminology to try and express my point of view

Sorry if I'm a bit pedantic. It comes with my line of work, I'm afraid.

Does anyone know how it was discovered he had sex with her

A few days after the event the victim told her sister that she was worried she was pregnant.

GreenPeppers · 18/03/2017 11:22

I can't keep up with this thread.

From much earlier on the thread, yes trifle that's exactely what I mean.
The only way to be 100% sure that a woman/girl is over the agree of consent is from a form of ID.
BUT we also know they are easy to forge. So you could end up with 13 or 15 yo forging an ID saying they are over 16yo. Or people using it as a defence 'I have checked but I was fooled - what else could I have done?' Even though said forged ID might have been done by the rapist.

So if you remove the idea that a woman should be able to prove her age, then what else can be done? Not a lot apart from one person making a judgement on how old the other person is (btw I don't think it applies only to girls. It should also apply to boys and to homosexual sex).
Which brings us back to the original case - someone who genuinely believed that the girl was over 16yo, just like all the other people she met, incl the Police.

The only thing I vamthink about that would maybe stop that sort of thing is to ban casual sex and one night stand. So that you have time to know the other person and cross check from friends etc... that she/he is who she/he is saying. I can't see that happening either

That's why I really believe that the judgement was fair. This guy will live for the rest of his life with a condamnation for rape (and all the issues coming from that), and the guilt of having 'raped' a child.
He will alsomto live with the consequence of having his name and photo plastered all over, even though he really did that in the best faith. That's really plenty IMO.
This girl will have to live with the fact she did seek sex at an age when she should be playing with dolls.
Crap for all concerned really.

Graphista · 18/03/2017 11:23

LoginInformation

That strict liability in these cases is wrong
I agree - *you think strict liability in an adult having sex with a 12 yr old is wrong? Even though it is the law?

That the girl lying and 'willingly participating' makes it acceptable.
Not acceptable but it stops him being guilty of rape. no it doesn't. She is a CHILD the law says it is RAPE

'If she were a few months older...'
if she were 15 and 364 days would you use the same argument? yes

That his 'spontaneous distress' means he was contrite - he could well have been 'spontaneously distressed' because that's the point at which he knew he was facing a serious criminal charge.

I think he knew that when he pleaded guilty to statutory rape. I suspect the judge has seen ersatz and genuine remorse many times and is a fair judge of which is which.

do you have experience of this judge? I think I shall be looking at her other cases

There is little to no compassion or empathy for the victim

I think the girl needs empathy and compassion and support for events previous to this which led or enabled her to be in this situation and want to have sex as a 12 year old. I really feel for anyone who can be so disturbed at such a young age. As for the act itself, there is no suggestion she regrets it so no, I don't have compassion for her as a victim of a crime. i am so shocked by this I have nothing I can say that wouldn't be deleted other than that is a horrifically cruel ignorant attitude to the long term effects on victims of child sexual abuse

GreenPeppers · 18/03/2017 11:23

coconut it seems that we are coming to the same conclusion.

Let's ban ONS and casual sex to avoid rape......

EnthusiasmIsDisturbed · 18/03/2017 11:25

I am not talking about not the technicalities of cival or criminal law

what this case comes down is our society attitude. Look at how many are defending him and how they are taking about a girl who was 12 years old at the time she is devious, he is the one who had been raped and so on do you think we would talk about a 12 year old boy in the same way if has sex with a man and the circumstances were the same no we fucking wouldn't be he would be in prison now.

It had come down to how could he have possibly known and think straight when he was blinded by sex on offer and all maybe's/could she questions he couldn't possibly be expected to think about after all she said she was 16