Teen boy avoids jail after rape of girl, 12

[Imnobody4]

A TEENAGE boy has been handed a youth rehabilitation order after raping a 12-year-old girl who has since died in Kidlington.

Addressing the boy, Judge Lamb said: “I’m not sure it’s right to say that you were selfish but you were not kind and you need to understand that women and girls need to be treated with respect…respect and care.”

https://www.thisisoxfordshire.co.uk/news/24234880.teen-boy-avoids-jail-rape-girl-12-kidlington/?ref=twtrec

What sort of idiotic language is this. Rape isn't a very kind thing to do.

If only all the time and money that has been, and is being, wasted on purchasing and implementing TQ+ ideology, and all the time and fundraising and brilliant brain power that has gone on, and is still going on, to correct the damage caused by TQ+ ideology, could have been spent on mental health services for young survivors of both sexes, and masses of proper education about consent and respect...

No you haven't, unless you're saying there are reasons which you feel are acceptable for a 12 yo girl being raped then killing herself as we can't forget about the feelings of her rapist (poor lad).

I said there could be reasons but we won't know that from an article as a lot of background information doesn't get carried out of court. I have no idea of the particulars of this specific case, my point is that noone on here, unless they have been in the court room or knows all involved does.

And yes I do believe there are some circumstances where someone can be both a rapist and abused/exploited/vulnerable themselves. As stated above. I can't say that applies to this specific case but I also can't say that it doesn't because we aren't privy to those details.

But that just means you think that there are reasons for rape, and that's something I can never agree with.

There are barely any details of the case here from just a quick glance at the article. He was 13, she was 12. It could have happened in all sorts of ways. There's nothing to say it was stranger rape, that this was some evil and sinister boy who attacked and innocent girl out on her own in the park. For all we know they COULD have been only months or even weeks apart in age and been boyfriend/girlfriend and happy together just snogging and heavy petting etc for a while until he wanted to go further and she didn't really want to but went along with it thinking that he might finish with her if she didn't. Maybe he even suggested to her that could happen. They might still have carried out being boyfriend and girlfriend for a while afterwards. But legally it was still rape because she was under 13 and who knows what emotions she might have gone through afterwards when realising that? I wonder if it was this scenario that that explains the strange vocabulary used towards the boy, that he was being "unkind" that day making her believe that he would finish with her if she didn't go along with it. I hope the judge made it clear that it's the legal situation that matters and emphasised that sex with a girl under the age of 13 is always rape.

I bet there are thousands of young women who have been through very similar in their early to mid teens. And i bet there are thousand of boys around the age of 13/14 who have absolutely no idea that sex with a girl under 13 is legally rape, no matter whether they see themselves as being in some kind of relationship. SRE/PHSE lessons do cover consent but I hope it's being taught properly.

@CurlyhairedAssassin so he was part of a group who spiked her drink then raped her, but yes, definitely find ways to blame her
....

I honestly can't believe the number of mn posters in defence of the rapist and all the 'Yeah but she....'

So in the example I gave, where a child is exploited and forced by an adult to rape another child - in your eyes that child is 100% accountable and is in no way a victim themselves?

Or where a child has grown up being repeatedly sexually abused and then goes on to sexually abuse another child due to trauma - they are in no way a victim in your mind? Baring in mind that we are talking about children, not adults?

Or where a boy with a learning disability is set up and is bullied into sa a girl and doesn't understand what's happening and where he's genuinely afraid of his peers? Is completely to blame and is in no way vulnerable himself?

Your world is much more black and white than mine if you can't see why the context is important in those scenarios. 'Reasons' of course aren't complete absolution - but they do need to be taken into account. Especially where the perpetrator is a minor.

Well @Lavender14 an erect Penis to penetrate is required I thought. So are you saying they are forced to be sexually excited?

he was 13. We don't put people in prison for crimes the commit at 13

I take back what I said in my first post after reading the second article which someone else posted which had proper details.

Stupid thing to do to post the first article with no detail when there WERE other sources online with the full details of the case.

@DoreenonTill8 biology tells us that bodies will react in certain ways when certain stimulation is present and that's not always in someone's control. Which is why we don't use the outdated notion that it can't be rape if the woman orgasmed any more. Because its harmful, not biologically sound and incredibly damaging to sa survivors.

@Imnobody4 I think you should edit your first post to include the second newspaper article reporting fuller details of the case. People will only read and respond about the article you originally linked to if they haven't had time to RFTF, as I did, which means that people will give a COMPLETELY different answer based on just those few sentences with all detail left out. It's not fair for other people who have read further on to then accuse those posters of victim-blaming. You wouldn't sit on a jury for only half the length of a case and then be asked to give your verdict based on half the facts, would you?

As the defence barrister made no reference to the boy being in any way from a difficult background I am not sure why anyone is putting this forward. Let alone that he was coerced.

And any way it is complete BS that somebody can be excused of committing crime because they have had a difficult background.

Many people try to use thise "excuse" and they are dismissed.

If the information a PP have put forward that this was about a group of boys drinking then they should all have been charged under joint enterprise.

Is it any wonder so many boys are now rampant misogynists is this is how some adults rationale their behaviour.

A crime was committed. Women get sent to prison for not paying their TV licence because they are poor.

And as for this, oh we shouldn't say anything because we dont know the facts is also bullshit.

This is a public record of a trial and based on that the leniency is appalling and it should be looked into, even if it only leads to the Judge explaining in more details. Because not only is the outcome shameful it is now in the public domain and again feeds into this narrative that boys just cant help themselves.

And it is worth asking for a review to let the judiciary now that they might think they are entitled to "be kind" and understanding. But the public needs to know that sexual assualt and rape crimes are punished.

Men need to know there are consequences for their abuse of women.

Women need to know that men will be punished.

In you opinion.

Seriously someone posted a link you responded.

Why didn't you do more research before responding.

A PP has shown it was easy to do.

And any way your comments in response to the description of the crime is just out on a limb.

Why is that we must consider the male’s background?

So what if the rapist was slow, does that lessen the trauma the girl/woman experiences? I, quite frankly, do not give a shit if a rapist had a bad life or is disabled. I care about men believing they have a right to girls and women’s bodies.

If learning disabled men are a threat, they should be prevented from accessing females. Not used as an excuse.

You're wrong Lavender, there is never an excuse to rape, can you not understand that? The minute you allow excuses is the minute you condone abuse. This boy has indirectly taken a life, but you're insinuating that's okay?
Look rape doesn't just impact the person who was rapped, it's like the insidious tentacles of a jellyfish that stings everyone connected to the victim (I hate using that term), it puts a huge cloud over any potential relationship, it destroys trust and mental health, it's tendrils destroy happy healthy relationships for ever. Don't ever underestimate the effects rape has on a person and their loved ones. I can not emphasise enough that rape needs to be considered a very, very serious crime, and the justice system has absolutely failed that little girl....she was 12, 12 years old, with her life ahead of her, and a another child took that away. That is not okay, whatever shit the rapist had going on, he had no right to take it out on another child, no right at all. More to the point if he has difficulties which means he can't control is urges then he needs to be somewhere safe and secure so he can't hurt anyone else, and needs therapy and rehabilitation to ensure everyone's safety. That has not happened, so we can assume he is able to control himself? In which case no excuses. You can't have it both ways he's either had a troubled life and needs to be in a secure place receiving therapeutic interventions, or he's of sound mind and needs an appropriate punishment.

I think in this specific instance, there's been a period of time between what we're now reading and when it actually happened. So we don't actually know what therapeutic or rehabilitation work that boy has done. Nor would that be likely to be made public knowledge.

As someone with personal experience of SA I'm fully aware of the implications it leaves someone with - thank you for reiterating it to me though.

Under no circumstances am I saying rape is fine or acceptable or okay, of course it isn't and of course there needs to be accountability. I'm not naieve. What I'm talking about is fair and appropriate sentencing. And in that respect I feel context matters. Age matters. I don't think making an example out of boys who have also been abused or exploited is the right way to better protect women and girls. What that essentially does is let puppet masters and other abusers walk free and creates scapegoats which I've seen happen - that's just a race to the bottom and it's not appropriate justice either. The problem is that our justice system is so shit and its so difficult to get any prosecution at all. If it was a better system, it would be easier to weed out the more complex cases from the ones where accountability, understanding and intentionality is clearer cut and sentencing would reflect that with an overall higher conviction rate. I and others have said repeatedly through this thread, we have no idea of the ins and outs of this specific case. Why were the other boys not held jointly responsible if they've created a plan to spike a drink. Why was the judges choice of wording so over simplistic. To me, it reads like there is more in the background so I'm not going to make a judgement when i don't have all of the information. What he did was wrong, absolutely, but I can't comment on the sentencing because I don't actually know what that has been based on.

Selfish is such a small word in the case too, he was abusive, manipulative, evil .... so to deny he was being selfish and say he needs to be kind is such a fucking head fuck.

Poor poor girl and her family. I wish karma was a real thing.

What he did was wrong, absolutely, but I can't comment on the sentencing because I don't actually know what that has been based on.

You keep missing the point by bringing up red herrings such as we dont have all the facts.

The point is for us, the public, the sentence is appalling.

Therefore some of us are using the system the Government has created to question it.

Instead of using thousands of words trying to construct false realities to make it seem it was okay you saying there might be "mitigating" circumstance, do the obvious thing.

Use the process to get the Judge to explain, which is the point of having it.

Hopefully whatever waffle she comes out with, the boy's sentence will be increased and used to explain to boys there WILL be consequences if the assualt girls.

That is what this is about.

There are endless reports (hint you could use google to find them) saying that sexism and actual sexual assualt is increasing in schools. It has to be stamped out.

Your first example doesn't in any way apply here.

With your second example, that's why we have the age of criminal responsibility. Abuse victim or not, someone over the age of criminal responsibility is expected to know right from wrong.

Your third example is the only one plausible. If it was applicable, SS should be involved as a child that vulnerable shouldn't have been in a park without parental supervision. And news reports indicate that the third example is unlikely to apply here.

The murderers of James Bulger were younger and were incarcerated, although rightly not in adult prison.

That is outrageous!

The judge needs reprimanding, he spoke to the teenager like he was a 7 yo.

Proper sentencing guidelines need to be applied. This needs to go in for referral, hope the police/customers do this...

There is no circumstance where rape isn't selfish. Ever.

What on earth was the judge thinking ? Is he senile?

This is a desperately sad case. We all need to remember that a newspaper report probably only quotes part of the legal arguments made by prosecution and defence and the summing up by the judge. The "not selfish" comment might be in response to another remark, although it sounds ridiculous in isolation. All the judge's comments read as if addressed to someone much younger than 16. I would assume the "not guilty" plea was based on consent, and a 13 year old boy was ignorant or uncaring that a 12 year old couldn't give consent?