Skip to main content

View Diary: Judge calls a 13-year-old "predatory" after she was raped by a 41 year-old. (278 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You are just really proficient (9+ / 0-)

    at excuse making.  It makes me wonder why (aside from being a contrarian, which can inform a discussion).  In this case, you are really having to do cartwheels and back flips to put distance between this court case and, as you frame it:

    a generalized framework that asserts that because the guy was given a lenient sentence, then it means that society thinks violence against women is acceptable.
    You forgot to add, in your above frame, that this case includes the subtext that violence against women is a little less unacceptable if they are in any way provocative.  Oh, oops. You actually did assert that.  Quoted from your previous comment:
    Given the judge's leniency and the subtext of the case here, it is possible that the girl "seduced" the older man, not by just being young or dressing provocatively or whatever, but by taking affirmative and deliberate steps to get him to have sex with her.

    Now, that's still a crime, don't get me wrong. And it's still child rape, very serious, etc. But in the real world, it's just a different thing than the adult setting out to have sex with an otherwise completely innocent child and manipulating her in the sense that a word like "child predator" would imply.

    Back flip extraordinaire.
    •  Re (0+ / 0-)

      It is perfectly obvious to people who can read what I wrote and why.

      You forgot to add, in your above frame, that this case includes the subtext that violence against women is a little less unacceptable if they are in any way provocative.
      What "violence" are you talking about exactly? This was (possibly) a consensual statutory affair. Like I said, wrong, illegal, etc. But not violent.

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 11:25:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There you go again, making excuses. (5+ / 0-)

        Consensual? Really? Between a 13-year-old girl and a 41-year-old man, who in addition to raping her, made explicit child porn with her?  So, in your learned opinion, if sex between a 13-year-old and a 41-year-old is consensual, where do you draw the line at an age of consent?  Eight, ten, twelve?  The Brits have drawn it at sixteen.  Oh, that's right.  You said previously that she mitigated this as rape because, maybe just maybe, she gave him the come-on.

        •  Can you read (0+ / 0-)

          (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
          Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

          by Sparhawk on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 12:04:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

          There is confusion about the "age of consent."  Generally, in the US anyway, the age of consent is the age at which a victim is deemed to be unable to give consent.  In England, that age is 12.

          Thus, sex with a 13 year-old is not rape if the victim consents.  Instead, the crime is sexual activity with a child.

          According to the Mail,

          The girl, who was dressed in her school uniform, asked if she could change out of it and Wilson left the room. When he returned she had undressed and was sat wearing a T-shirt.

          Wilson claims he asked her to put her clothes on, but she started kissing him before touching his genitals. He said he pushed her away and told her he did not want to see her any more. At no point did they have sex.

          Legally, it isn't rape because she was 13 and consenting;  in addition, it isn't rape because there wasn't penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth.

          Also, the Mail article does not say that the defendant took pictures of her.  The pictures were described as "surreptitiously taken photographs of children in play areas or other safe environments showing either underwear or varying degrees of nakedness."

          So, he's a very creepy sexual offender but not actually a rapist under English law (or at least not a convicted one).

          "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

          by Old Left Good Left on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 05:32:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Statutory means the victim (the girl, in case (0+ / 0-)

        you're still confused) is legally incapable of "consent"...

        We don't know the facts of the case
        An underage girl had sex with a grown man... That's statutory rape.  How many other facts do you need?
        Now, that's still a crime, don't get me wrong. And it's still child rape, very serious, etc. But in the real world, it's just a different thing than the adult setting out to have sex with an otherwise completely innocent child and manipulating her in the sense that a word like "child predator" would imply.
        then it means that society thinks violence against women is acceptable.
        Society DOES think violence against women is acceptable, because the laws and rules continue to be written and reinforced by men.  Witness your continued thinly-veiled apologies for the man's behavior and related obfuscatory comments.

        "There's always room for cello." Yo Yo Ma

        by ceebee7 on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 01:02:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Laws are different in the UK (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sparhawk

          Sex with any individual without consent is rape.  "Statutory rape" is a sex act with an underage person who is deemed to not be able to consent.  In the UK, that age is 12 and under.  Thus, although the "age of consent" is 16, that is not the cut-off for "statutory rape"
           (which is not a term used in English law.

          Instead, sex with a 13 to 15 year-old is rape only if it is non-consensual. If it is consensual, the crime is sexual activity with a child, which is not considered rape under English law.

          A defense to a charge of sexual activity with a child is that the child reasonably appeared to be 16.  That is part of the reason the court focussed on the appearance of the child--i.e., establishing that she did not look 16 forestalled that defense.

          Sentencing guidelines for sexual activity with a child can be found here

          http://www.cps.gov.uk/...

          The offender in this case was subsequently sentenced to two years, which seems in line (and perhaps even a bit harsher) than sentences in similar cases.

          "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

          by Old Left Good Left on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 02:12:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site