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+.

Sorry, no idea what happened with that link - I copy/pasted from Google but I clearly messed up something somewhere... Here it is again in working order this time:
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/shameless-couple-caught-having-sex-8960356

(Not that it was important, just a random example of genuinely skeevy behaviour for anyone disbelieving that it happens)

Orchids - don't be ridiculous.

Are posters really meaning to sound judgmental about consensual casual sex?

If one of the participants is underage, or the age difference is such as to not make it truly equal then yes, definitely.

Dervel Absolutely agree. But I would add that I wouldn't be looking at my son in the same way again if he did this. I would be ashamed to have raised a son who behaved in such a way. I would have hoped he would have understood her age and got her home safe. As most young men would do.

So most posters here are prudes. Because we are judgemental about a 19 year old raping a 12 year old.

Orchids isn't being ridiculous, what she's doing is highlighting that 'strict liability' has no regard for how reasonable the offender may have been. That's a valid criticism.

However, even if we accept that this one offender did, entirely reasonably believe the girl was 16, I don't think that is sufficient to justify a weakening of the law. For me, the purpose of having the strict liability offense greatly outweighs any degree of 'bad luck' on behalf of the extremely-rare 'unlucky' defendant.

Just going to keep dotting this around

But no-one is actually saying that. They're saying people should take a bit more care, or accept that there will be consequences if they get it wrong.

If one of the participants is underage, or the age difference is such as to not make it truly equal then yes, definitely.
Of course. But it had got more general.

So most posters here are prudes. Because we are judgemental about a 19 year old raping a 12 year old.

Elendon if that is directed at me then it is really offensive. I have never been anything other than clear I disagreed with the lack of sentence and think sex with a child is unacceptable. I don't think wondering off on a tangent that implies casual sex is wrong or that women can't enjoy it helps in the slightest.

I think the whole spectrum of human sexuality needs tearing up, discarding and looked at again from the ground up. Nothing prudish about it sex is great fun and a wonderful side of life.

I also don't think it's all prudish to apply some very basic moral philosophy to ensure that everyone can have a great sex life free from rape coercion and the spread of disease.

I love a drink, I know not to get in a motor vehicle after doing so. Nothing prudish there just common sense. All that is being proposed here is a bit of common sense applied to one nigh stands.

I think any accusations of prudishness comes from having no argument.

You seem unfazed by sex in cars and parks so perhaps that's the London way

Not particularly, I've only personally seen one couple have sex in a park afaicr, never caught anyone having sex in car, but I know perfectly well it goes on.

I think you're the one who's naive Orchids, you're taking a bit of provincial Sussex as representative of the world and it's not.

I think it's naivety that's impeding you from grasping that teenagers are subject to laws in this country like everyone else. Any teenager with half a brain knows this .

If some rather unsophisticated teenagers fuck before they think, well they may have to learn the hard way.

How is it judgemental to expect adults to ensure they're not about to embark on a ons with a child? If you're choosing to sail close to the wind wrt consent then I think you deserved to be judged and you shouldn't be having ons.

I'm sure everyone outside the club at 3am and in bus stops are having mind blowing intercourse and if it's consensual and between adults good luck to them.

I'd really rather my dd grew up in a world where the majority smiled benevolently as she experimented with clothes, make up, self image, alcohol etc rather than use these things as excuses to take advantage of her naivety and desire to be seen as grown up. Fingers crossed

Orchids isn't being ridiculous, what she's doing is highlighting that 'strict liability' has no regard for how reasonable the offender may have been.

No she's not, she's saying that it's unreasonable for teenagers to verify a partners age if they have sex straight after meeting.

She's not providing examples of teenagers who had good reason to suppose a partner was older than they were, but of teenagers having random sex without discussion.

wondering off on a tangent that implies casual sex is wrong or that women can't enjoy it

Did anyone actually say that? If that's what you inferred from my posts, it's not what I meant.

It's not judgemental to expect teens to have the intelligence and maturity to consider the age of their partner and the consent laws, just as adults do. If they don't they may end up on the wrong side of the law. That's just basic sex ed.

Maybe I'm being oversensitive but it seems like there is a moralising tone about what is normal casual sex or not. I don't think that's ever helpful.

I did Errol. Sorry if I was reading that incorrectly. Haven't time to reread just now.

NancyWake - I was referring to her post at 16:10 (and other posts I've seen from her, possibly on the other thread).

Sorry, I'm NoWin.

No she's not, she's saying that it's unreasonable for teenagers to verify a partners age if they have sex straight after meeting.

Nancy you aren't even twisting my words, you're completely making them up 🙄

Of course people should assess their partner's age. Of course teenagers are subject to the law like everyone else. I never said otherwise as I'm sure you're very well aware.

What I said was that it's not possible to verify someone's age with 100% certainty unless either you know their family, or you know for sure where they work / go to uni / what year in school they're in, or something similar. That's not "ridiculous" it's a statement of fact.

And even if you ignore the supposedly aberrant behaviour in the provincial corner of Sussex where I grew up you yourself have described as "normal" plenty of behaviour in your sophisticated area of London that would fail the "100% sure" test.

NoWin I don't agree with weakening the law either. I think strict liability is necessary and the threshold of it applying to under 13s is correct. But I'm also glad the law on sentencing contains sufficient leeway to recognise that occasionally there will be an unusual case where strict liability produces an unfair result and should therefore be reflected in the sentence. I think the law and sentencing was applied correctly here. Tbh I don't think I've seen anyone saying the law should be weakened. The argument is about whether it should be made stricter.

Haven't time to reread just now.
Me neither, but I thought I was mostly talking about teenagers, not women. I certainly question whether ONSs with strangers are a great way for girls to get their first experiences of sex. That's not a matter of morality, but concern for their physical and emotional wellbeing.

Orchids - i was about to ask you directly if you would scrap strict liability, so thank you for the preemptive answer!

I agree with you re. the sentencing in this case (based on the facts found by the court).

There were one or two in the other thread who wanted to scrap strict liability, but i think they're a real minority (along with the ones who would outlaw one night stands!)

What I said was that it's not possible to verify someone's age with 100% certainty unless either you know their family, or you know for sure where they work / go to uni / what year in school they're in, or something similar

It is possible to verify someone's age, particularly with teenagers, when you can find out what school they're at and what year they're in. It's only an issue if you're going to have sex straight away, before you've a chance to find out.

What you actually said was:

It's a pretty extreme idea that all teenagers who have what is considered a normal sex life these days should just accept the fact that if they happen to be unlucky they could end up as a sex offender

But the problem is that would mean any of the millions of teenagers who engage in casual hook ups could potentially end up as a sex offender if they're unlucky.

Anyone, teen or adult could potentially end up as a sex offender if they don't take sufficient care. I've said before if they're not mature enough to grasp that they're not mature enough to be having sex. With sex comes responsibility. It's not a question of bad luck, but lack of care.

If teens learn to drive they have to obey the laws of the road. And if they don't they can end up with a driving offence.

NoWin, yes I think (and hope) that's a small minority at both ends of the spectrum! I stopped reading the other thread after someone implied the defendant had been "raped by means of deception" or some such

On the other thread I think there were lots of posters (or at least lots of posts, but I know I at least have been repeating myself...) who said that he shouldn't have been convicted at all, not just not sentenced. I'm not sure they all responded when challenged over strict liability, or whether they just hadn't thought it through.

you yourself have described as "normal" plenty of behaviour in your sophisticated area of London that would fail the "100% sure" test.

Like what? Like the friend of mine who went out with a 21 year old? He knew exactly how old she was. I've said nothing else to which that applies.

We were all very aware of the law growing up and what it could mean for us.