Wtf..

[R_D]

Was just reading the herald sun and came acroos one article. " Child Rapist Free".
One of the judges in UK pretty much let off child rapists and saying the the 10 year old woman was provactive in the way she dressed He says the girl looked more like 16 than 10...a big WTF ?... so What still doesn't give that **** right to go and rape her.
He's let off few pedophiles with minimum sentence as well before from the report... thats just ****ing crazy.
Looks like this wacko judge is from the same school of thought as the Sheik ulukapatha in Aus.

 

[Jamee999]

Was just reading the herald sun and came acroos one article. " Child Rapist Free".
One of the judges in UK pretty much let off child rapists and saying the the 10 year old woman was provactive in the way she dressed He says the girl looked more like 16 than 10...a big WTF ?... so What still doesn't give that **** right to go and rape her.
He's let off few pedophiles with minimum sentence as well before from the report... thats just fuking crazy.
Looks like this wacko judge is from the same school of thought as the Sheik ulukapatha in Aus.

Don't avoid the filter, it's there for a reason.

We'll give this thread a chance I think, but like all threads of this subject, it'll be monitored (don't).

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

The first question (as I can't see the article your talking about) is was the case one of rape or one of statutory rape. I.e. if the 10 year old concented, then it is statutory rape and thus whether she looked 16 does matter. If it was rape, then I can't see how whether she looked 16 or not is of any relevance whatsoever.

 

[16 tins of Spam]

Was just reading the herald sun and came acroos one article. " Child Rapist Free".

One thing I learned while living in Melbourne is that it's a grave error to take anything printed in the Herald Sun seriously.

 

[Richard]

The first question (as I can't see the article your talking about) is was the case one of rape or one of statutory rape. I.e. if the 10 year old concented, then it is statutory rape and thus whether she looked 16 does matter. If it was rape, then I can't see how whether she looked 16 or not is of any relevance whatsoever.

There's actually 2 separate issues, really - and it's pretty foolish the way people have (in all the coverage I've seen which has admittedly not been extensive) actually taken most note of the paedophilia issue when the thing actually stated has been the rape one.

Either way, it's a pretty horrific incident IMO.

 

[Dasa]

One thing I learned while living in Melbourne is that it's a grave error to take anything printed in the Herald Sun seriously.

True that.

 

[PY]

Any sex with a minor under the age of 13 is automatically thrown into the rape category so it wasn't actually unconsenting sex but in the eyes of the law, someone <13 is unable to give consent so it falls under rape.

The story has some disturbing under-currents to it IMO, I fundamentally agree with R_D's sentiments as it does seem a bit sick from the offender and the judge's response.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Once again, the question to me is whether the guy actually knew the girl was under age. Sure, we might call him insanely stupid for not being able to spot that the girl is under 13 (or under 16 or whatever) but there is a chance, no matter how small that chance is, that he did not actually know he was committing rape - statutory or otherwise.

This is what really annoys me with those people who would readily hang any convicted paedophile. It does happen that there are those one or two cases where things are not 100% clear (plus there's always the chance of a flawed conviction, which is another reason not to have the death penalty).

I have to say that without knowing the facts of the case, it is impossible to wholeheartedly condemn the offender, no matter how unsavoury the offence may seem to the rest of us.

 

[Richard]

Absolutely. Sexual crimes are rarely black-and-white cases.

Be they paedophilia or rape. Both, of course, are fundamentally despicable but, as HDS says, some people go OTT in their over-righteousness.

 

[R_D]

One thing I learned while living in Melbourne is that it's a grave error to take anything printed in the Herald Sun seriously.

After reading few more versions of the story.. i'd have to say you were spot on.
****ing herald sun..... it got me upset the way the story was written in Herald sun where's i got much better picture of things by reading other articles on the net.

 

[thierry henry]

Sex crime hysteria is a symptom of our insane post-feminist society. Oh yes it is. Violence doesn't matter these days unless it involves an orifice. If you're getting the crap beaten out of you and want some justice, you better demand to be penetrated.

 

[thierry henry]

approximately 50% of females in New Zealand lose their virginity in a situation that is legally statutory rape, colloquially known as "paedophilia". There is a massive problem with social values when the sexual norm and the crime of the moment are interchangeable.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Jeez... Is that stat anywhere near right?? 50%?? Jeez..

Or is that one of those '71% of statistics are made' up thing again???

 

[thierry henry]

well put it this way Heath

Age of consent- 16
average age of loss of virginity- 16 (males AND females, and obviously females would be younger, I haven't even taken that into account)

therefore, 50% before 16, 50% after

I think that's fairly common knowledge. Jeez, make it 30% if you want, 40%. I don't think it's any mystery that (a) prolly half of our females (as in many/most countries) lose it before 16, and (b) most females lose it with a guy who is older than them (and that's all that is required for the crime)

Right? We don't even needs stats, it's just obvious

 

[thierry henry]

...btw, the reason I am concentrating on females only is because all sex crimes in NZ have a specific gender assigned to them

There is no crime relating to statutory rape of a male by a female, so it's not illegal for a woman to have sex with a boy of any age she wants

 

[Richard]

Strictly speaking, a girl can't really rape a guy, can she?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Right? We don't even needs stats, it's just obvious

Well, if this is anywhere near the case, then how much of a scapegoat are some of these 'paedophiles' being made out to be for the disintegration of the social fabric. Alternatively, are modern 'ideals' no longer compatible with modern society. Let's not forget that only a couple of hundred years ago, there was no such thing as 'under age' and young girls - rightly or wrongly - often married in their early teens.

Has anyone ever watched a BBC series called 'Monkey Dust' - it had very 'high' - i.e. risky - satire on the media outrage over paedophilia - sending up Vincent Price's "Witchfinder General" as the "Paedofinder General" - burning paediatricians at the stake etc.... Probably on you tube.

 

[thierry henry]

I'm talking about consensual sex with someone underaged

Also, molesting or sexually abusing a boy

In NZ a woman could molest a 4 year old boy, and the only crime for it is "common assault", the lowest form of assault

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

There is no crime relating to statutory rape of a male by a female, so it's not illegal for a woman to have sex with a boy of any age she wants

Strictly speaking, a girl can't really rape a guy, can she?

That's just bollocks isn't it. Without getting too technical, a female could force herself on an underage, or even an 'overage' man. Rare it may be, but impossible it is not.

 

[thierry henry]

Well, if this is anywhere near the case, then how much of a scapegoat are some of these 'paedophiles' being made out to be for the disintegration of the social fabric. Alternatively, are modern 'ideals' no longer compatible with modern society. Let's not forget that only a couple of hundred years ago, there was no such thing as 'under age' and young girls - rightly or wrongly - often married in their early teens.

Has anyone ever watched a BBC series called 'Monkey Dust' - it had very 'high' - i.e. risky - satire on the media outrage over paedophilia - sending up Vincent Price's "Witchfinder General" as the "Paedofinder General" - burning paediatricians at the stake etc.... Probably on you tube.

lol no, but I've made the exact same comparison before

Heath, I'm surprised you're asking me for proof

Are you not aware/in agreeance that most teens "lose it" while they're at high school? Many before 16, many after, with that 15/16/17 period being the most common??

Obviously there are hordes of 14 and 15 year old girls who have had sex with older boyfriends. And if a girl who is 15 and 300 days does it with a guy who is 15 and 301 days, under the (NZ) law that's a serious sex crime