Boy spared custody over girl rape after watching p0rn

[msrisotto]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18282560

Wow, I don't quite know what to make of it. I am not surprised that kids are influenced by the So easily available p0rn on the internet but I am surprised that this somehow eradicates the crime that was committed.

I would think the lack of a custodial sentence related to the age of the boy who committed the rape, and he pleaded guilty.

What is significant and extremely disturbing is the acknowledgement that the courts accepted that he committed the rape as a result of watching porn. It is recognised, for example, that children who have been sexually abused themselves, or have witnessed the sexual abuse of others may go on to commit sexual abuse themselves. This, in my mind, shows that the consumption of porn by a child is in itself a form of child abuse. Will be watching the aftermath of this case closely.

This is very disturbing, on many levels.

It is disturbing. I think there's a line though between rape and kids unknowling copying what they see on TV. I remember on the Wright Stuff there was some woman whod seen her daughter sucking a male friends penis, they were like 5 or 6 or something. I would say making a big deal of that would be completely wrong and would likely traumatise both parties and do far more damage than just telling them "don't do that, it's rude" or something similar. Where exactly you draw the line is beyond me though. A 12 year old really should know better. It would depend on the circumstances of what happened I think. It's worrying though that porn is so easily available to young children.

I don't know. A twelve year old wouldn't necessarily know better if his sex education has come from hard core porn, where rape is basically packaged as normal and enjoyable.

Twelve years old can be very very young.

Both of those children need intense intervention and counselling.

The sex education you get in primary school is about what sex is, not how it is done.

So he learned at ten or eleven what it is, then at twelve, he thinks he's seen how its done.

Reading that report the thing that jumps out (apart from the obvious awfullness of it all) is the idea that he watched this stuff and went and copied it.

Rape and sex are not the same thing.

So either the porn he was watching depicted rape (which would probably have been mentioned)
That it is generally accepted that the sex represented in "standard" hardcore porn in not distinguishable from a depiction of rape
Or
That a 12 year old cannot be expected to know the difference between consensual sex (as depicted onscreen) and rape

Whichever one of these is the case (or combination of these) the fact that it is reported so factually is really disturbing - that the judge and media do not seem to have questioned why watching consensual sex would result in someone having non consensual sex IYSWIM.

xposts

What is depressing is the judge is a woman. I wonder how the judge would feel if she would feel if she was raped. The terror that poor little girl must have suffered would have been horrific. She would have relived her experience going to court.

It is awful to think that a child went through the horror of a court case for nothing.

But what could the best outcome have been? The twelve year old didn't stop being a child when he raped the nine year old. He should never have been in a position to see the porn.

And having seen hard core porn, I'm not sure that you can tell the difference between consensual and none consensual, there's no back story, just violent banging. Further more, it doesn't matter what the nine year old said at the time, because it would have been rape even if she had asked him to do it. Any sex under twelve is rape.

Custody for children cures nothing. He should perhaps have been remanded to foster care, where he would be more closely supervised, but sending children to prison doesn't prevent further crimes, it just hones criminals.

YY of course children under 13 cannot consent

What I am getting at is that if the sex in porn is indistinguishable from rape to the person viewing it, then that is a pretty big deal and yet the reporting and what the judge said doesn't seem to think there is anything odd about this.

Well, you're right, it is fucked up, but I suppose they had to deal with the situation in hand and not start on the whole porn culture, much as it would help in the long run.

Poor kid. Poor kids.

I really don't know what to think. The poor girl and a seriously disturbed boy.

I think we will start seeing a lot more if this as pornography is everywhere now.

Poor little girl. And so difficult because the boy was so young. But I can't imagine either of my older boys behaving like this to a little girl no matter what they had watched. I don't know what to think.

The 12 year old boy can't consent to the abuse either

And the fuckwit adult who allowed him to view it are guilty of child abuse and just as guilty of the rape of the girl.

Any parents without controls on their Internet are IMO liable.

I don't think the little girl abused the boy.
That idea makes me feel really uncomfortable.

In law no child under 13 can consent to sexual activity.
But for sure a child under 13 can be guilty of sexual abuse. He sexually abused the little girl. He raped her. This is not a crime which was committed mutually.

How that needs to be handled is a different question.

"Custody for children cures nothing."

The justice system is about PUNISHEMENT as well rehabitation. The lad has been convicted of rape and recieved no punishment. I think a secure severe EBD unit with boarding provision would help the boy and keep other children safe. I agree that prison is not appriopiate for him, but I do not think he should have the freedom the average teen has.

He raped a nine year old pre pubscent child. Not a teen but a little girl. Imagine the physical pain and terror she would have felt when the penis was inserted into her. Its likely that she would have bled from the physical damage. She would be bruised all over, and deeply ashamed. There is nothing romantic about rape.

That little girl has lost her entire childhood. She will struggle with mental scars for the rest of her life. It will interfere with her marriage. She will get flash backs in her thirties. It will cause her difficulties giving birth and put her at greater risk of depression.

Anyone would think the boy was victim. He knew his actions were wrong. He probably thinks its one massive joke at the moment. I feel we should empathise with the little girl and her family a little bit more.

the whole thing is sad.

the people tha tshould really be brought to account is his parents.

he lost his childhood too - that isn;t negating anything that the little girl experiences - but i think it is far far to easy to depict themale in this scenario as a villain

This bit is key though

"Judge Lady Smith said the case would be referred to the Children's Panel and the boy kept under supervision."

He has not just been released, I imagine (but really am guessing here, not being scottish or an expert in this) that the children's panel have powers to get him to do stuff and he will be watched closely monitored have to have therapy all sorts of things.

What bothers me on rereading it is that this happened in a "scottish island community" - places with small populations and very close communities. I imagine there are issues there and I hope they are being addressed in a serious way. Even from the POV that at the moment these children prob go to the same school. She shouldn't have to have him anywhere in her life, or anywhere she knows is even nearby.

I don't agree with him being put into foster care. Many children in foster care get moved round from placement to placement and they end up with major pychological scars. Nice children without crininal records often have foster placements fail. I don't think he would stand a chance in the care system.

I feel the stablity of a severe EBD boading school might be better for him. Also the high ratios of staff would keep other children safe.

Not convinced with that argument at all custardo.

Boys this age have been committing sexual assaults and rapes from long before there was porn on the internet.

A mistake I think to assume he is a poor corrupted boy. A mistake also to assume he is inherently evil. Either could be true. Fact is though even if he was corrupted by the films he raped a much smaller person which is a terrible, violent act.

Psychiatric intervention is needed to try and see which sort of criminal he is.

And as RT points out the girl in this, the poor girl, who is the focus of no-one. She needs safety and support and if that means the boy needs to leave his family then so be it IMO.

ReallyTired, in Scotland we assume that a child who commits such an awful crime has him/herself been the victim of crime (sexual abuse of some sort, in this case) and we do not view it as appropriate to PUNISH victims. In this case, the boy was moved hundreds of miles from home and accommodated in a secure unit; he was not given "the freedom the average teen has." He pled guilty asap, and the girl was at least spared the agony of a trial.

The "island community" is Skye, hardly isolated; there's a bridge and everything! The Childrens' Panel system is not foster care.

The article says he had 'unfettered access" and that what he was known to have seen was similar to what he was known to have done.

This is a case in the Scottish system, under the Scottish sexual offences act, and I think there are some differences between the Scottish and English/Welsh trial procedures and sentencing norms for children too.

Referral to the Children's Panel is a good thing, if there is to be hope of rehabilitation.

I am glad there is no reference to the victim in the reporting. If anonymity is important for adults, it is doubly so for children and I do not take silence on that as indicative of lack of focus.

Ah in the article the way it said "scottish island community" sounded like a small and fairly isolated sort of place!