Man walks free from court after statutory rape

[AssassinatedBeauty]

Saw this news case today, and am not sure what I think:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-39305042

I feel that it gives the message that it's ok for men not to worry about the age of girls/women they have sex with if they have reasonable grounds to believe they're 16+.

but in this case the victim spoke at length with two police officers who were specifically looking for children who were too young to be out

Can you link where you got this from (I am not implying you are wrong but I keep hearing conflicting reports about this part)?

Can you stick to what actually happened rather than inventing more palatable scenarios?

Whatever realistic age she said above 16 was irrelevant, the poor guy would still of got done for rape. Even if she had said she was 20 he would still have got done for rape.

It's in the sentencing statement

www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1754/HMA-v-Daniel-Cieslak

Option C would mean no teenagers (or, realistically, 20-somethings) could ever have sex with each other unless they know 100% who each other are and how old. In other words, no casual sex for, let's say, anyone under 25. Is that what you're proposing? It might please people who just don't like the idea of one night stands for whatever reason, but the majority of teenagers and people in their twenties, female and male, would have some strong objections to that idea I think.

Even if she had said she was 20 he would still have got done for rape.

Indeed, that's because he raped her.

When somebody rapes a child they "get done" for rape.

That "poor guy" is a rapist.

Is that what you're proposing?

No. I am not proposing anything. You are the one proposing things. I am advocating the current situation. What you are describing (the hardship of making sure you don't rape somebody) is how it already is.

Are you proposing we get rid of that pesky law surrounding the age of consent before those under 25s find out about it and riot in the streets?

No, Miffer, we're in complete agreement in supporting the current law, which is that everyone must reasonably believe that their sexual partners are over 16. As the judge noted, if the girl had been 13 the guy would not have been guilty of any crime since all parties accepted that he believed her to be of age and that this belief was reasonable in these circumstances.

What I described earlier is definitely NOT the current law. Young people are currently entitled to have consenting sex with partners they don't know anything about. All that is currently required is a reasonable belief that your partner is over 16 and actively consenting. Not proof or ID or any such confirmation, just reasonable belief. Do you agree that's sufficient or do you want the law changed?

A reasonable belief that a person is over 16 only applies to girls aged 13 and over here in Scotland.

So he is a RAPIST not just morally but legally and should have been convicted and sentenced appropriately which he hasn't been.

Judge is a fucking disgrace!

It's not up to children to prove they're old enough to consent, it's up to adults to not rape children.

It's not up to women to prove they're old enough to consent, it's up to men to ensure they're not raping children.

This can be done in a number of ways. One very effective way would be not to have sex with '16' year olds you don't know in case they are children that cannot consent.

I can't believe what she was wearing, that she was drinking and that she was out late at night were used as mitigating circumstances in this case. If she was an adult most people would be up in arms because of this but because she's a 12 year old child it's apparently fine.

She lied, the taxi driver, the police and the judge thought she was older than 16. Why would he not believe her when she lied about her age? Or should women (which he thought she was) not be believed now?

I think you mean children not women. The girl lied about her age but she said an age that is legally a child.

I can't remember ever asking someone's age when I have had a one night stand. The fact the men asked the girls ages implies to me they looked young.

Thanks for linking the actual sentencing remarks NoWinNoFfi

And it says the police were actually assigned to looking for those too young to be out. And that after they had conversed with her, they had no concerns about her age.

It seems my earlier post (and the exchange it led to) was misleading

I think that's what makes this case exceptional. Because police were fooled by her age on the same night

If the police were looking for a specific 12 year old and presumably could eliminate that one based on a description. Even if they thought she was a bit young what would they actually do (genuine question)? I would want to know more about the context.

It may be that there is more info out there but I haven't seen it

There is more info in the sentencing remarks. They were looking for, rounding up and sending home all those who were too young.

What an astonishing thread to find in feminism - full of justifications as to why it's a terrible shame for a man to be held responsible for raping a child.

Maybe men should be taking some of the advice around this that's dished out to women so frequently - don't drink so much and don't put yourself in a vulnerable situation with people you don't know. Why does that only apply to women? (rhetorical question - I know why. We only police women's sexuality).

They did a piss poor job didn't they?

I'm commenting on other thread too (which is even worse for apologism and victim blaming).

If I were the boss of these officers I'd be giving them the most almighty bollocking for failing to do the task!!

"I can't believe what she was wearing, that she was drinking and that she was out late at night were used as mitigating circumstances in this case. If she was an adult most people would be up in arms because of this but because she's a 12 year old child it's apparently fine."

It wouldn't have been relevant had she been an adult. Indeed, under the current law it may not have been relevant had she been 5 months older and the offence not been one with strict liability.

Her cconduct was considered only in terms of assessing her age, not whether she consented.

"Where the victim is under 13 years of age she is deemed by law to be incapable of consent. Her attitude is irrelevant and under the 2009 Act there is no defence that you had reasonable grounds to believe she was above the age of consent"

It doesn't matter what she wore, what she did, what she said. None of it is a defence.

I think he's got off extremely lightly. Understandable in the context of a culture that is frequently reluctant to punish rapists, but my answer to that is that we should be changing that culture! Not continuing to excuse it.

"I think he's got off extremely lightly. Understandable in the context of a culture that is frequently reluctant to punish rapists, but my answer to that is that we should be changing that culture! Not continuing to excuse it." Yep!!!

Most important question is why were 2 children allowed to go out late at night intentionally looking years older than they are. Where were their parents??

Just noted this from earlier:

"Better to ask an evidently very young woman out alone at 4 in the morning more about herself."

She was't alone.

She was with someone who looked and claimed to be 17. (There is no info on how the night panned out for the 13 year old, but there do not seem to be any cases brought, possibly because strict liability no longer applies)

The judge has seen the girl, and CCTV of her that night, and there is evidence from the police, the taxi driver; I do not think that they were all in a conspiracy to leave very young, underage girls out drinking and partying (especially not when in the very patrol charged with stopping that).

It would be wholly exceptional for a 12 year old to convince a police patrol that she was materially older. But that is what is described as happening. And contributed significantly to the sentencing decisions.

I think in a world where youth is fetishised, the top category on PornHub is "barely legal", where we categorise grown men cat-calling 13 year olds as "banter", and where we analyse every last facet of a raped woman's behaviour, but never the behaviour of the rapist, culture of male sexual entitlement, this is a logical outcome.

It's fucked up. It needs to stop. This is rape culture. This is what it does to women and children.

*never the behaviour of the rapist or the culture of male sexual entitlement

Of course the police officers are going to agree that the girl was older than she really was.

Once again this is all about the appearance of women and girls contributing to the rape.

And I'm astonished that police resources are used to round up young girls out at night. It's a sign of something seriously going wrong.

Option C would mean no teenagers (or, realistically, 20-somethings) could ever have sex with each other unless they know 100% who each other are and how old. In other words, no casual sex for, let's say, anyone under 25.

It works for the buying of drink though, doesn't it? An id card is required to prove your age.

"Of course the police officers are going to agree that the girl was older than she really was"

Of course they are - they were tasked with rounding up underage children and they missed one. They would say that, wouldn't they? I'm not saying they deliberately lied, but they're not likely to be forthcoming if they had any doubts, are they.

Most important question is why were 2 children allowed to go out late at night

How can that possibly be the most important question? Being out when you really shouldn't be doesn't mean you deserve to be raped.

I think if there is in operation, a unit going around looking for young teenagers then it should be required that if age cannot be proved, then no assumptions should be made.