The media reports seems extremely confused over whether it is a case of rape (as in she did not consent) or statutory rape (as in she couldn't legally give consent because of her age). Either way it's a mess and she needs help not blame and the judge should be forced out of work ASAP. Possibly with a blunt instrument.
I'd like to see the judgement and the evidence. Like it or not, an honest belief that someone is over 16 *is* a defence against statutory rape.
So, the questions are:
1) Is it really possible that a 10-year old can be mistaken for an over-16-year-old? (Instinctively I'd say no)
2) Did the accused really believe she was over 16?
3) Was it consensual?
If the answers to (1), (2) and (3) are all yes, then what should happen? The papers had expanded versions of the story with varying slants. Seems the judge has form in being lenient in other sex cases, which is a bad sign. However it's also claimed the accused was absolutely distraught when he found out what age the girl was.
Leaving aside the issue of looks and dress for a moment, another burning question that springs to mind is: If the facts of the case are as stated, then what the Hell has happened to that poor child that she was going out looking to have sex?
If only underwear labels *were* a guide. I know you're being facetious, but...
As I said, 10 is pushing the boundaries of belief. If she were 14, I'd have no trouble believing that the perp honestly thought she was 16. And of course, he'd be just as wrong.
Question: At what age do you think I looked 16? When I was 10, my underwear probably read "middle aged fat guy". How about ccooke?
It was more of a dig at the "sexy underwear for infants" trade. It's *easy* to teach tiny girls that their value is all in sex. I suspect it might even be easy to do by accident.
I tried to find something nice for my new honorary niece yesterday. I failed miserably. Worst one so far "I know I'm pretty" on front, "but you should see my mummy" on back. Closely seconded by "when I grow up I want to be as pretty as mummy".
.. specifically of 'rape of a child under 13', s5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The maximum penalty is life, and there's no provision for it to be tried in a magistrates court where the maximum penalty is six months,
As to (1): to be fair, several of the girls (10 and 11) at my son's school are taller than several of the mothers. If one of them were dressed in some of the stuff I've seen around, were made up with a mildly experienced hand and enough foundation, blusher etc that you couldn't see the skin tone, and said "I'm 16" it would be very easy to believe her. When my cousin was ten (11 years ago) her mother said "I can't find a bra to fit - she's too small to have tits like that!"
Without all the facts to hand, I'll take a leap and guess that the rape in this instance was having sex with a minor rather than actually forcing sex - in which case the age does make a difference - doesn't make it not be distasteful, but if she was 16 then she'd have been able to consent whereas being younger she legally can't.
I hope to hell that's the case. The alternative is that the judge wants to be flogged into at least the late 20th century.
what i have heard of the case from bbc r4 is that it was statutory rape, no dispute of this; that there was definitely the possibility that he believed she was of age to give meaningful - and legal - consent, and not only had done so, but was actively enthusiastic about consummation of sex with him. if all of this is so, it would explain why the judge stated this was the most difficult judgement of his career, and why he decided as he did, given the guy has already spent quite some time in custody.
it's very easy to create shock, horror salacious tabloid headlines & articles in such a case - and such don't half sell "newspapers" of a certain variety - but they may very well not be a fair representation of what actually occurred, and why: i think it's right that the entire case, including the sentence, be reviewed, and i'd rather reserve my own judgement until i can read the review, once it is completed.
I don't care if she begged for sex on her knees - saying it was her fault for dressing provocatively is entirely out of order. No matter how much context you retro-fit to that quote, it's bad.
indeed, saying "it was her fault for dressing provocatively" would have been out of order - however, i do not know the judge said this.
you (& others) may be privy to the full transcript of the trial, or the complete speech he made in giving judgement, or even just the full sentence in which he used the phrase that he's actually reported as having used - but i am not.
as i said, i think it's entirely right that the whole case be reviewed; i don't know what the result of the review will be; as i don't know the full facts, i don't know what it should be, and i hope that when the results of the review are made known, the reasons and the reasoning for these and whatever decisions are taken in consequence are made clear, plainly and in public.
I find it hard to see how the judge could have used the word "provocatively" in a way I would consider acceptable in a case like this, but if it turns out that that is what happened, I shall accept your point.
i don't know that it is what happened, either - but i do know that it's possible; that's why, given the little i've heard & been able to read of this particular case, i'd sooner reserve judgement until after the review. if he used those words intending them to mean this was a part of why the guy believed she was of age, then this is quite possibly reasonable: but if they were intended to mean that this shifted part of the responsibility for actual rape - for the forcing of someone, anyone - then they were utterly out of order, and not only should this be made very clear by the attorney general, but the judge should face significant disciplinary action (quite what, may depend inter alia upon his previous record - of which i'm completely unaware.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-25 03:43 pm (UTC)what happened to punishing crime???
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-25 03:49 pm (UTC)Some disagree.
I want to do nasty stuff to mister judge guy.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-25 04:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-25 04:09 pm (UTC)So, the questions are:
1) Is it really possible that a 10-year old can be mistaken for an over-16-year-old? (Instinctively I'd say no)
2) Did the accused really believe she was over 16?
3) Was it consensual?
If the answers to (1), (2) and (3) are all yes, then what should happen? The papers had expanded versions of the story with varying slants. Seems the judge has form in being lenient in other sex cases, which is a bad sign. However it's also claimed the accused was absolutely distraught when he found out what age the girl was.
Leaving aside the issue of looks and dress for a moment, another burning question that springs to mind is: If the facts of the case are as stated, then what the Hell has happened to that poor child that she was going out looking to have sex?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-25 04:36 pm (UTC)In care since age 4 is some of it.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-25 07:14 pm (UTC)As I said, 10 is pushing the boundaries of belief. If she were 14, I'd have no trouble believing that the perp honestly thought she was 16. And of course, he'd be just as wrong.
Question: At what age do you think I looked 16? When I was 10, my underwear probably read "middle aged fat guy". How about ccooke?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-25 08:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-26 11:39 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-25 09:08 pm (UTC)Now even if they show you a passport, and a letter signed in blood by the Pope swearing that they're 16+, if they're U13, you're guilty.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-25 10:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-26 08:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-25 04:07 pm (UTC)I hope to hell that's the case. The alternative is that the judge wants to be flogged into at least the late 20th century.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-25 04:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-25 04:27 pm (UTC)Not intentional in any way.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-25 03:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-25 03:59 pm (UTC)N.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-26 12:57 am (UTC)if all of this is so, it would explain why the judge stated this was the most difficult judgement of his career, and why he decided as he did, given the guy has already spent quite some time in custody.
it's very easy to create shock, horror salacious tabloid headlines & articles in such a case - and such don't half sell "newspapers" of a certain variety - but they may very well not be a fair representation of what actually occurred, and why: i think it's right that the entire case, including the sentence, be reviewed, and i'd rather reserve my own judgement until i can read the review, once it is completed.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-26 01:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-26 09:19 pm (UTC)indeed, saying "it was her fault for dressing provocatively" would have been out of order - however, i do not know the judge said this.
you (& others) may be privy to the full transcript of the trial, or the complete speech he made in giving judgement, or even just the full sentence in which he used the phrase that he's actually reported as having used - but i am not.
as i said, i think it's entirely right that the whole case be reviewed; i don't know what the result of the review will be; as i don't know the full facts, i don't know what it should be, and i hope that when the results of the review are made known, the reasons and the reasoning for these and whatever decisions are taken in consequence are made clear, plainly and in public.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-26 10:01 pm (UTC)Judge Hall said in sentencing he faced a moral dilemma as the fact they had sex within 45 minutes of meeting was an absolute crime.
But he said the girl had dressed provocatively and looked as though she was 16.
I mean, unless the BBC report is out-and-out misquoting the judge, that looks pretty damning to me.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-26 11:06 pm (UTC)it is possible to totally misrepresent someone, whilst quoting nothing but words they have used.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-26 11:12 pm (UTC)I find it hard to see how the judge could have used the word "provocatively" in a way I would consider acceptable in a case like this, but if it turns out that that is what happened, I shall accept your point.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-27 10:11 pm (UTC)at the moment, i just know that i don't know.