Rape and Judges

gavintc · June 2007

I have just read the following on the BBC site. I find it rather strange and if true, a remarkably lenient sentence for what appears to be not a date rape but an attack rape and therefore more black and white with little wriggle room for a defendant. The judge does appear to be one of the dinosaurs of the legal profession.

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

Unknown · June 2007

The report is both ambiguous and lacking in detail. I'd want to know a lot more before venturing an opinion.

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

The girl was ten years old. What more do you need to know?

Now I guess I'll have to tell 'em
That I got no cerebellum
Gonna get my Ph.D.
I'm a teenage lobotomy

MattBlackBigBoysBMX · June 2007

I thought once over the age of 21 you lost the right to the "I didn't know how old she was" defence?

Wheelies ARE cool.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

The girl was ten years old. What more do you need to know?

Now I guess I'll have to tell 'em
That I got no cerebellum
Gonna get my Ph.D.
I'm a teenage lobotomy

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

+1
amazing really that the legal eagles don't take this fact into account.
who cares if it was consensual or "she looked older" any sane person would have banged him up and, most likely, thrown away the key.

Now think, if it was your 10 year old daughter

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Attorney General Lord Goldsmith is to decide whether the sentence should be appealed against as "unduly lenient"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I just hope he has a daughter.

george

_________________________________
Trip
www.pedalpatagonia.co.uk

2 Bikes
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/imjibi/Bikes

Mark Alexander · June 2007

it's a disgrace

my baby elephant has more memory than my PC

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=3480&id=567849808

Unknown · June 2007

Before everyone gets hysterical, I think the following extract is relevant to the sentence -

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

They said the judge stated that doctors who examined the girl believed she was in her mid-teens and she was treated by most people as older than her actual age."

Nobody ever got laid because they were using Shimano

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

The girl was ten years old. What more do you need to know?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Because the sentencing criteria are different in attack rapes and non attack. Ditto for weapon cases, multiples, groups, drugs, IQ of assailant, repeats and a host of other factors. For that reason, it is usually better that sentencing be carried out by a professional rather than a tabloid journalist.

Unknown · June 2007

there I was thinking tabloid journalists are professional, or should it just be the Guardian or Times journalists?

she was 10.

george

_________________________________
Trip
www.pedalpatagonia.co.uk

2 Bikes
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/imjibi/Bikes

tony bell · June 2007

Weren't two men involved in what was described as 'an attack'?
If the girl was 10, 16, 26 or 36, it doesn't matter if this was the case. She was attacked by two men. And it doesn't matter how old she may have looked.

www.Tony-Bell.co.uk

ankev1 · June 2007

Having just read the article, I don't think anybody can venture a safe opinion on the basis of it. On the one hand she was "attacked", on the other the sex was "consensual". That needs to be cleared up first.

Then there is the matter of her age. Obviously sex with a 10 year old can never be justified and I find it hard to imagine how she could possibly have looked like a sixteen year old. But just supposing she did and had made it clear that she wanted sex, what then?

It seems to me that the reporting is ropey and contradictory. While there is no doubt that a crime has been committed, surely one would wish to have an accurate idea of the circumstances before passing sentence.

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

She was 10.

I am sorry, but there is no excuse, no 'I thought she was 16' that really matters here. Two adult men involved. One 10 year old. I am not interested in their excuses.

It would be rather different if we were talking about consent and a 15 year old with their 17 year-old boyfriend.

But we aren't.

She was 10.

Now I guess I'll have to tell 'em
That I got no cerebellum
Gonna get my Ph.D.
I'm a teenage lobotomy

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

It seems to me that the reporting is ropey and contradictory. While there is no doubt that a crime has been committed, surely one would wish to have an accurate idea of the circumstances before passing sentence.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It may be that on knowing all the facts, I would regard 12 years as the starting point, but, not being a Daily Mail headline writer, I'm not going to rush to judgment without knowing all the facts.

The Endorser · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Smokin Joe"Lawyers for the defendants stressed that the sex had been consensual<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Absolutely mate. It's an irrebutable fact of law that a 10 year old can not consent to a sexual act. End of. Period. Full stop.

In the real world I would also say that a 10 year old is incapable of making such a decision, so it's easy to see why the law is so rigid, clearly defined, and unabiguous. Which makes it doubl galling that some out of touch old judge actually accepts this arument as mitigation when sentencing. WTF???

Who was that judge the other wek that didn't know what the internet was?

Eating baby elephants since 1969

ankev1 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

She was 10.

I am sorry, but there is no excuse, no 'I thought she was 16' that really matters here. Two adult men involved. One 10 year old. I am not interested in their excuses.

It would be rather different if we were talking about consent and a 15 year old with their 17 year-old boyfriend.

But we aren't.

She was 10.

Now I guess I'll have to tell 'em
That I got no cerebellum
Gonna get my Ph.D.
I'm a teenage lobotomy

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

FWIW my instincts on this matter are much the same as yours. I find it amazing that it can be claimed that a 10 year old can look five or six years older. As that seems to be what the defence's case is propping itself up on, I just think it is worth checking out. I actually suspect that it is more likely that on seeing the girl the men probably thought that she was a young girl who was trying to look older i.e. they may well be lying.

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

Even if she did look a bit older and was trying to do so, I have little sympathy for adults who are so low as to be sniffing around the border of legality and illegality, preying on the vulnerable. They know what they are doing and are taking their chances. They deserve to have the book thrown at them...

Now I guess I'll have to tell 'em
That I got no cerebellum
Gonna get my Ph.D.
I'm a teenage lobotomy

Unkraut · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

She was 10.

It would be rather different if we were talking about consent and a 15 year old with their 17 year-old boyfriend.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
In one sense I get your point, but strictly speaking it wouldn't be any different. The age of consent is still 16, so underage sex is still unlawful, consent or no consent, and regardless of whether you think it immoral or not. One of the problems is that the establishment has been sending out the wrong message on this, especially in schools, so it is little wonder that the idea of waiting for sex is largely ignored. Society is reaping what it has sown in more ways than one.

I also think the question needs to be asked why the girl was dressing provocatively. This kind of irresponsibility in no way justifies the crime, but does need addressing. It lies at the other extreme of the full veiling thing, and how girls dress is not irrelevant to how they will be viewed (and in some cases treated) by men.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

They deserve to have the book thrown at them...

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So, what would your sentence be?

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Unkraut
In one sense I get your point, but strictly speaking it wouldn't be any different. The age of consent is still 16, so underage sex is still unlawful, consent or no consent, and regardless of whether you think it immoral or not.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Actually, the courts do not generally agree with you and nor should they. In most northern European countries, consent is treated like this. In the Netherlands for example, there is a kind of buffer zone in the teens, where what teens do with each other is considered consensual, but the same does not apply to adults and teens. This works legally and makes sense morally - the two things need not be incompatible. Of course, it also requires full, explicit and realistic sex education in schools that enables teens to make proper choices and know about all the risks. This is one reason why the Netherlands has much lower rates of teen pregnancy and STDs whereas in the UK we have worryingly high rates of both.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
I also think the question needs to be asked why the girl was dressing provocatively. This kind of irresponsibility in no way justifies the crime, but does need addressing.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yes, it does. It's highly likely there was some other kind of exploitation or abuse or damage in involved - we don't know. But that certainly needs to be investigated.

However this cannot excuse the men involved. If, for example, a child is working as a prostitute, it does not make it somehow more acceptable for adults to take advantage of this. This story may seem vague and strange and shocking to some people, and I suspect there is far more too it (perhaps even along these lines). In any case, the exploitation of children in this way is far more common than most people like to think, and the men who are involved are not recognisable 'paedoes' (if there is such a thing), but ordinary, respectable 'family men'... a decade ago Nick Davies' 'Dark Heart' explored this dark underside of British society, and it still has not been addressed. I think there are a lot of men with very guitly secrets out there...

Now I guess I'll have to tell 'em
That I got no cerebellum
Gonna get my Ph.D.
I'm a teenage lobotomy

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

They deserve to have the book thrown at them...

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So, what would your sentence be?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I don't know - as a lawyer, you tell me what my options would be.

Now I guess I'll have to tell 'em
That I got no cerebellum
Gonna get my Ph.D.
I'm a teenage lobotomy

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

They deserve to have the book thrown at them...

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So, what would your sentence be?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I don't know - as a lawyer, you tell me what my options would be.

Now I guess I'll have to tell 'em
That I got no cerebellum
Gonna get my Ph.D.
I'm a teenage lobotomy

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

They range (in theory) from an absolute discharge to a life sentence with a whole of life direction. You've read the report and formed the view that the book should be thrown at him. It's your call. What's the sentence?

I'll give you a clue - it's rarely the one demanded by the Daily Mail.

ankev1 · June 2007

I didn't want to raise the matter of how the girl was dressed as it can be misconstrued as somehow suggesting that the men were provoked, but since Unkraut has raised it sensibly: if the kid was somehow looking a lot older, what on earth has she got for a mother? Surely all parents must see that a ten year old is nothing but a child and should dress accordingly.

This case touches on a lot of other issues and one is the fact that little children are the targets of a lot of advertising and marketing and if they have censored parents they will effectively end up being deprived of their childhoods. There's also the general moral background that a couple of men can even contemplate going up to a young woman (obviously not the case here) who is a complete stranger and think it's on the cards to have sex in a park.

FM, you mention "other kinds of exploitation ... etc". Is that your supposition or have other details of the case been emerging?

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens
They range (in theory) from an absolute discharge to a life sentence with a whole of life direction. You've read the report and formed the view that the book should be thrown at him. It's your call. What's the sentence?

I'll give you a clue - it's rarely the one demanded by the Daily Mail.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'm not exactly a Daily Mail reader, nor am I a great fan of prison. I'd look at the evidence and make up my own mind.

However, I don't have a lot of sympathy for adults on the lookout for vulnerable youngsters, whether they 'consented' or 'encouraged' them or not. Let's assume for a second, that we are dealing with the case of sexual predators of children (and that includes those who pay for sex with children) here: I do think that prison (or a secure treatment centre) is exactly the place for them - according to the research I've seen, they appear to be one of the most unreformable groups, and one of the most likely to reoffend. There is very little that can compensate for the destruction of the life of a child.

If we are dealing with genuinely confused men of low intelligence, the sentence might be different. But I refer you to my previous posting - there is a serious social problem here and rather stronger messages need to be sent in order to aid a transformation in attitudes. That should be however part of a rather more pro-active set of measures from education upwards. There is no one 'right' answer...

Now I guess I'll have to tell 'em
That I got no cerebellum
Gonna get my Ph.D.
I'm a teenage lobotomy

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1
FM, you mention "other kinds of exploitation ... etc". Is that your supposition or have other details of the case been emerging?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No, I was just imagining what kind of situation could have resulted in a 10-year old girl ending up like this. None of the options are very pleasant.

Now I guess I'll have to tell 'em
That I got no cerebellum
Gonna get my Ph.D.
I'm a teenage lobotomy

Unknown · June 2007

An M.P. has raised the matter about "a pathetically lenient sentence for the rape of a 10-year-old child."
from the report in the Oxford Mail
http://murl.se/26027

and the CPS
The Crown Prosecution Service has called on the Government to review an "unduly lenient" sentence given to an Oxford man who raped a 10-year-old girl.

The CPS, which is responsible for prosecuting criminal cases investigated by the police in England and Wales, said it was referring the case of Keith Fenn, a window cleaner from Starwort Place, Blackbird Leys, to the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith.
report from the Oxford Mail
http://murl.se/26028
george

_________________________________
Trip
www.pedalpatagonia.co.uk

2 Bikes
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/imjibi/Bikes

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens
They range (in theory) from an absolute discharge to a life sentence with a whole of life direction. You've read the report and formed the view that the book should be thrown at him. It's your call. What's the sentence?

I'll give you a clue - it's rarely the one demanded by the Daily Mail.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'm not exactly a Daily Mail reader, nor am I a great fan of prison. I'd look at the evidence and make up my own mind.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Which is precisely why I'm not rushing to judgement here. By way of example, one of the key sentencing factors (the mental age of the rapist) is not mentioned in the newspaper report. Please also bear in mind that any form of oral sex also constitutes rape. Without knowing the full details it is impossible to form a judgement.

In a study carried out a few years ago, a panel was given newspaper stories of "low" sentences, and then asked what sentences they'd impose. They gave higher ones in every case. They were then given the full details of the case and the judge's reasoning for the sentence. In nearly every case the panel decided that the original sentence was correct.

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

But on the other hand, Patrick. I don't think that what panels decide means that the decisions made are ethically correct, even if they are legally correct. Lawyers do have a tendency to confuse the two. [;)] Ethics and law can go together, but I think British law remains rather ethically dubious in the area of rape and sexual assault. And, whatever the circumstances, the underlying fact is still that the girl was 10 and there is no way one can possibly use consent or mistaking her as older as a mitigating factor - the precedent set would just be dreadful...

That's the only judgement I am making. And that stands whether the girl was attacked, being made to work as a prostitute, was just naive, innocent or whatever... the big problem is in fact those who think that this makes a difference to the culpability of the men involved. Ethically I don't see that it can.

Now I guess I'll have to tell 'em
That I got no cerebellum
Gonna get my Ph.D.
I'm a teenage lobotomy

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

But on the other hand, Patrick. I don't think that what panels decide means that the decisions made are ethically correct, even if they are legally correct. Lawyers do have a tendency to confuse the two. [;)] <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Au contraire - we're normally very good at separating them out. Otherwise, how can you justify the doctrine of strict liability?

Unkraut · June 2007

FM going back to the age of consent a minute, I still think this should either be enforced, or changed. The British problem is that is it being ignored. Surely courts could take circumstances such as age and maturity into account in a case of teenage back-of-the-car activities, which is not on the same level as the case in this thread.

Putting my ex-pat hat on, comparing Britain with the continent does give you the impression that on the one hand, the British are very prudish about sex (No sex please, we're British), but on the other are extremely promiscuous (try suggesting abstinence education to reduce teenage pregnancies and see the horrified response), with all the consequences you alluded to above.

There is a case currently in Turkey where a German teenager has already spent 70 days in an adult prison awaiting trial for 'carrying on' with a 13 year old British girl. It is not certain quite how far he went with her, but the prosecution are trying to get a trial for rape which would attract an 8 year sentence. This is at the other extreme to the apparently lenient sentencing in the British case, where justice doesn't seem to be being done.

oldwelshman · June 2007

Sentance is simple, irrspective of whether the girl was 10, 20 or what she was wearing, rape is rape.
Save the prisons for more worthwhile criminals and for these cut their balls off to prevent re offence and save money by not sentancing them to prison. They cannot re offend without the tools!!

Feel free to browse and donate:
http://www.justgiving.com/davidbethanmills
My winter and summer bike pics

http://oldwelshman.myphotoalbum.com

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by oldwelshman

Sentance is simple, irrspective of whether the girl was 10, 20 or what she was wearing, rape is rape.
Save the prisons for more worthwhile criminals and for these cut their balls off to prevent re offence and save money by not sentancing them to prison. They cannot re offend without the tools!!

Feel free to browse and donate:
http://www.justgiving.com/davidbethanmills
My winter and summer bike pics

http://oldwelshman.myphotoalbum.com

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

As rape now includes oral sex, do you cut the tongue off as well?

Rape and Judges

Posts