NationStates Jolt Archive

Anger at 'lenient' rape sentence

Children's charities have reacted with anger after a window cleaner who raped a girl of 10 was jailed for two years.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6237480.stm

Well, at least the nation isn't completely oblivious and braindead. I frequently read of ridiculously short sentences being handed out, with there being no outrage. In fact, the judges often say something to justify the 'severe' sentence they've just given! But for once, British people actually seem to want a criminal to get a sentence that they won't miss by blinking.

Two years?! The little slut was blatantly asking for it!



Edit: Oh gods, I just read the article and the judge actually said words to that effect >_<

Eh don't worry, the child rapist will be put with the general prison population, word will get out (read leaked out by one of the guards) that he raped a little girl, and the prison population will kill him while the guards are 'off' duty.

I didn't know the British handed out short sentences.

"But he said the girl had dressed provocatively and looked as though she was 16."

The bitch was asking for it defense. *sighs*

I didn't know the British handed out short sentences.

Not generally; it's usually community service.

Two years?! The little slut was blatantly asking for it!



Edit: Oh gods, I just read the article and the judge actually said words to that effect >_<

To be fair, if it was consensual as is said, then she kind of was asking for it

But then again she's too young to consent

I didn't know the British handed out short sentences.

Well, now you do. I'm starting to think that judges are almost as bad as politicians.

Two years?! The little slut was blatantly asking for it!



Edit: Oh gods, I just read the article and the judge actually said words to that effect >_<

is that your opinion?

To be fair, if it was consensual as is said, then she kind of was asking for it

But then again she's too young to consent

When shagging someone you think may possibly be within 10 years of borderline get ID before you do anything.

is that your opinion?

The first sentence or the edit?
The first sentence was meant in purest irony, I assure you.

Edit: Suppose it's "the first two sentences", really.

"But he said the girl had dressed provocatively and looked as though she was 16."

The bitch was asking for it defense. *sighs*

Genuine enough defense. If even the doctors examining her thought she was 16 then an average bloke is quite likely to make the mistake. From his point of view it's "girl who looked 16 engaged in consensual sex with him".

what is the west coming to?

Well, now you do. I'm starting to think that judges are almost as bad as politicians.

I'm one step ahead of you there, pal. I know judges are as bad as politicians.

I don't know how the British people view this, but if a girl is that young, I don't care if she says yes, it is still horribly wrong, and should be harshly punished.

~ Romandeos.

I'm one step ahead of you there, pal. I know judges are as bad as politicians.

I don't know how the British people view this, but if a girl is that young, I don't care if she says yes, it is still horribly wrong, and should be harshly punished.

~ Romandeos.

Unless of course the guy didn't know she was that young ...... in which case he should be punished to a justified level

Unless of course the guy didn't know she was that young ...... in which case he should be punished to a justified level

I'll agree with you there...provided he can prove beyond even the slightest reasonable doubt that he legitimately had no idea she was that young.

I've heard too many stories of rapists using the "I didn't know she was that young" line to escape harsh sentences. It makes me sick.

~ Romandeos.

I'll agree with you there...provided he can prove beyond even the slightest reasonable doubt that he legitimately had no idea she was that young.

I've heard too many stories of rapists using the "I didn't know she was that young" line to escape harsh sentences. It makes me sick.

~ Romandeos.

But that doesn't mean we should bias the judgement of such a claim because it has been abused

ten is too young for any kind of consent.

if she did want it, she had prolly already been abused, and this certainly didn't help any.

ten is too young for any kind of consent.

if she did want it, she had prolly already been abused, and this certainly didn't help any.

Your assumptions would hold up in a court of law i'm sure not that her possibly being abused should have any impact on the trial of the defendant

Unless of course the guy didn't know she was that young ...... in which case he should be punished to a justified level

May have been important information for him to ask after only just knowing the person for 45 minuets and having sex.

I mean at BEST she MAYBE looked the legal MINIMUM. You would have to be fucking negligent to trust your own age estimation or even someone else's word when at absolute best she was just barely legal

But that doesn't mean we should bias the judgement of such a claim because it has been abused

No, you are right there, that should not be done. That doesn't change my opinion that he should be called upon in court to prove his claim beyond reasonable levels of doubt.

Myself, I hate rapists, but sadly they, like everybody, are entitled to fair trial.

I will also agree with Betacarotene that if she is ten, she is too young for any sort of consent. Just because she might have wanted it...well, that just doesn't make it right.

~ Romandeos.

*sigh*

I do honestly wonder how one can find a 10-year-old to look like she's 16. I mean, hell, the fact that there would be absolutely no breasts on a 10-year-old should've cried out to him, don't you think?

Sod it, women dress provocatively all the time, yet they don't deserve to be raped. A defense like that should be shot to bits. Yet, with British Judges being...well, British Judges, they seem to be bordering senile half the time.

*sigh*

I do honestly wonder how one can find a 10-year-old to look like she's 16. I mean, hell, the fact that there would be absolutely no breasts on a 10-year-old should've cried out to him, don't you think?

Sod it, women dress provocatively all the time, yet they don't deserve to be raped. A defense like that should be shot to bits. Yet, with British Judges being...well, British Judges, they seem to be bordering senile half the time.

Fine arguments, friend. Unfortunately, most judges in any country these days more often think "How can I best use this to advance my career?" than they think about justice.

~ Romandeos.

what kind of judge believed the story that it was in any way consentual.

this 10 year old girl was raped in the park then taken home by a friend of the rapists to be raped again.

why would anyone believe that a 10 year old, even an abused girl, would consent to that? what possible difference would it make if she were dressed provocatively?

the article doesnt say that the GIRL claimed it was consentual, the men's lawyers said that.

i see no reason to believe it.

what kind of judge believed the story that it was in any way consentual.

this 10 year old girl was raped in the park then taken home by a friend of the rapists to be raped again.

why would anyone believe that a 10 year old, even an abused girl, would consent to that? what possible difference would it make if she were dressed provocatively?

the article doesnt say that the GIRL claimed it was consentual, the men's lawyers said that.

i see no reason to believe it.

And we have no information to give us reason to disbelieve it. Honestly we haven't got any of the necessary information to judge this

*sigh*

I do honestly wonder how one can find a 10-year-old to look like she's 16. I mean, hell, the fact that there would be absolutely no breasts on a 10-year-old should've cried out to him, don't you think?

Sod it, women dress provocatively all the time, yet they don't deserve to be raped. A defense like that should be shot to bits. Yet, with British Judges being...well, British Judges, they seem to be bordering senile half the time.

The doctors thought she looked to be in her mid-teens and i'm sure they've seen their fair share

May have been important information for him to ask after only just knowing the person for 45 minuets and having sex.

I mean at BEST she MAYBE looked the legal MINIMUM. You would have to be fucking negligent to trust your own age estimation or even someone else's word when at absolute best she was just barely legal

Yes and I think its fair to say 2 years is a pretty good punishment for not asking that question. (based on the information we have)

I reckon we should bring back Hangings!

Although judging by the current state of the British legal system that would probable just mean you had too wear a tight scarf for a week.............

And we have no information to give us reason to disbelieve it. Honestly we haven't got any of the necessary information to judge this

i feel that the story put forth by the defendants is unbelievable on the face of it.

even if the girl backed up their story, which it seems she didnt, it would require much more jail time for statutory rape of a 10 year old.

Lawyers for the defendants stressed that the sex had been consensual, and was only termed 'rape' because of the framework of law.
Think about it.

Myself, I hate rapists, but sadly they, like everybody, are entitled to fair trial.


So far, none of them have been. Even convicted, they get ludicrously light sentences.

30 years in prison sounds a lot better than these cast off year or year and a half sentences.

What this thread need is a picture of the girl for unbiased evaluation. :eek:

In anycase, I think the persons to blame here are more her parents than anyone else *IF* the case really is about a 10 year old girl who has gone through early puberty having consentual sex pretty much after meeting up. :confused:

Regadless...'tis a sick world we live in. :(

Unless of course the guy didn't know she was that young ...... in which case he should be punished to a justified level

It was his responsibility to find out. I hear this way too often - "I didn't know," "she led me on," "it's not my fault." Jeez! Ignorance is not an excuse! If some men would learn to think with their big head and not their little head, we'd hear a lot less about this sort of thing. Some men should just learn to take responsibility for their actions. So she was dressed provocatively - so what? That's used as an excuse when men rape adult women, too. I don't buy it in either circumstance.

If the following is true
Lawyers for the defendants stressed that the sex had been consensual, and was only termed 'rape' because of the framework of law.

And that the girl did indeed look considerably older than she was, AND actively seek to misinform the man of her age (maybe not even that). Then I fail to see why he should be convicted for rape.

It was his responsibility to find out. I hear this way too often - "I didn't know," "she led me on," "it's not my fault." Jeez! Ignorance is not an excuse! If some men would learn to think with their big head and not their little head, we'd hear a lot less about this sort of thing. Some men should just learn to take responsibility for their actions.Even if the girl did indeed somehow look 16 and lie about her age?

So she was dressed provocatively - so what? That's used as an excuse when men rape adult women, too. I don't buy it in either circumstance.This doesn't appear to have been the case. It appears to be case of statutory rape. That is, the law states that the man automatically raped the girl as she cannot legally consent, even if she wants to.

ten is too young for any kind of consent.Why? Sex is just sex. There's nothing special about it. It's like saying ten is too young for a girl to be kissing/hugging/touching another person in any way shape or form.

Even if the girl did indeed somehow look 16 and lie about her age?



This doesn't appear to have been the case. It appears to be case of statutory rape. That is, the law states that the man automatically raped the girl as she cannot legally consent, even if she wants to.

Yes! Even if! A ten year old is by law not responsible for her actions, an adult male is! I repeat - some men need to learn to think with their big head not their little head. He didn't think, he just followed his penis!

So somehow, statutory rape is more excusable than regular rape? A ten year old girl not only can't legally consent, she doesn't have the information to emotionally or intellectually consent - even if she, as my father would say, knows the words, she still doesn't know the music. Rape is rape and he is responsible - she is not! And he needs to be held responsible and not be given a slap on the wrist. If men were given the maximum for this kind of behavior, more men would ask the right questions instead of succumbing to the siren song of their gonads.

Yes! Even if! A ten year old is by law not responsible for her actions, an adult male is! I repeat - some men need to learn to think with their big head not their little head. He didn't think, he just followed his penis!

So somehow, statutory rape is more excusable than regular rape? A ten year old girl not only can't legally consent, she doesn't have the information to emotionally or intellectually consent - even if she, as my father would say, knows the words, she still doesn't know the music. Rape is rape and he is responsible - she is not! And he needs to be held responsible and not be given a slap on the wrist. If men were given the maximum for this kind of behavior, more men would ask the right questions instead of succumbing to the siren song of their gonads.Um, yes, I believe rape is considerably worse than statutory rape. Statutory rape implies that someone who is 5,843 days old is emotionally retarded and unable to make any decision regarding sex for themselves what-so-ever. Yet someone who is 5,844 days old was somehow magically equiped with all the tools and experience they need to come to a mature decision regarding sex.

I know people who have had sex when they were 12 and have said that on hindsight they would have prefered to have waited, but that nothing bad came of it. In stark contrast I know people who are 21 and say they still don't feel ready for sex. Yet the law treats them exactly the same with a one-size-fits-all solution.

Um, yes, I believe rape is considerably worse than statutory rape. Statutory rape implies that someone who is 5,843 days old is emotionally retarded and unable to make any decision regarding sex for themselves what-so-ever. Yet someone who is 5,844 days old was somehow magically equiped with all the tools and experience they need to come to a mature decision regarding sex.

I know people who have had sex when they were 12 and have said that on hindsight they would have prefered to have waited, but that nothing bad came of it. In stark contrast I know people who are 21 and say they still don't feel ready for sex. Yet the law treats them exactly the same with a one-size-fits-all solution.

And how else would you do it? There are too many people to treat everything on a case by case basis. and in any case, the difference between 15 years 364 days and 16 years is vastly different than the difference between 10 years and 16 years. And I have yet to meet any 10 year old who's emotionally or intellectually ready for sex, no matter how mature she or he looks. The fact remains, the adult is and should be held responsible for his actions to the full extent of the law. People need to learn to use their brains and not their sex organs for thinking.

And how else would you do it? There are too many people to treat everything on a case by case basis.Really? The system seems to be coping well enough with the number of cases that are currently brought to trial, pathetically low as it is.

And in any case, the difference between 15 years 364 days and 16 years is vastly different than the difference between 10 years and 16 years. And I have yet to meet any 10 year old who's emotionally or intellectually ready for sex, no matter how mature she or he looks. The fact remains, the adult is and should be held responsible for his actions to the full extent of the law. People need to learn to use their brains and not their sex organs for thinking.If I were to reform the law then I'd probably set an age limit after which all consensual sex is not considered rape.

If below that age there should be some guides to help reach a conclusion as to whether consent could be given. It would include, amongst other things:

a) level of a trust - a teacher or parent would be considered to have abused the trust the child placed in them and thus making it more likely that consent could not be given
b) age range - the closer the two are in age the more likely that the consent could be given
c) how long the two had known each other - if the two had just met then it would be considered very unlikely that consent could have been given.

It was his responsibility to find out. I hear this way too often - "I didn't know," "she led me on," "it's not my fault." Jeez! Ignorance is not an excuse! If some men would learn to think with their big head and not their little head, we'd hear a lot less about this sort of thing. Some men should just learn to take responsibility for their actions. So she was dressed provocatively - so what? That's used as an excuse when men rape adult women, too. I don't buy it in either circumstance.

And he is being punished for his mistake with 2 years in jail.

Your comparison with a guy who rapes an adult woman because she was dressed provocatively doesn't work if this was consensual statutory rape

You know, when I opened this thread, I thought it would be about people caring about something important. Nope. Just the usual DCD bullshit.

You know, when I opened this thread, I thought it would be about people caring about something important. Nope. Just the usual DCD bullshit.I think you misunderestimated the thread starter.

And he is being punished for his mistake with 2 years in jail.

Your comparison with a guy who rapes an adult woman because she was dressed provocatively doesn't work if this was consensual statutory rape

Yes it does at 10 there is no way she could consent ... thats the whole point of that law.

Yes and I think its fair to say 2 years is a pretty good punishment for not asking that question. (based on the information we have)

No maybe double that ... or more much more appropriate

The judge was in the headlines in February when he said compensation to a child sex abuse victim could be used to buy a bicycle to cheer her up.

:eek::confused::eek:

What on odd thing to say...

Yes it does at 10 there is no way she could consent ... thats the whole point of that law.

I should have clarified that I meant if there was no violence or forcing involved

These kind of stupid rulings is what got so many "mandatory minimum sentence" laws put up in the US (I'm guessing).

And we have no information to give us reason to disbelieve it. Honestly we haven't got any of the necessary information to judge this

A ten year old girl was raped. It is your responsability to find out their age before hand. Ignorance should not be used as an excuse. I'd say 4-5 years and then have him as a registered sex offender for the max. amount of time (that's life right?). Or do they have that in England?

A ten year old girl was raped. It is your responsability to find out their age before hand. Ignorance should not be used as an excuse. I'd say 4-5 years and then have him as a registered sex offender for the max. amount of time (that's life right?). Or do they have that in England?

Ignorance isn't an excuse to get you out of any punishment but my personal opinion is that it is something that should be taken into account during sentencing.