The judge heard that the most active of the two girls, mentioned in five of the six charges, could not have been trusted by the prosecution as a witness.The whole thing makes very unedifying reading.
She was also being investigated over an unrelated false rape allegation and had a fake age on her Facebook page.
Saturday, 19 March 2011
A Very Unsurprising Paragraph...
This story was one of the few where it seems the judge would have been better off sentencing the 'victims' along with the perpetrators, but one paragraph didn't shock me:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
So in fact, we have six guys convicted of rape, when everybody in the court seems to agree that no rape occurred.
Strange times we live in. Strange times.
Note the ethnic make-up of four of the six defendants (and Dennis De Sousa has an amazingly low hairline).
P@IanB //no rape occurred//
The problem is, that 'the law says' - until her 13th birthday the defences of 'reasonable belief' of age or consent are NOT accepted, and any penetration [with a penis] IS 'rape'(Sexual Offences Act 2003 s5).
As the article said - these lads admitted what they had done, and the prosecution couldn't use the girls' evidence. One is left to wonder if they realised the legal consequences of their admissions?
This story is poorly reported as it tries to suggest the girls were equally responsible, and the boys were equally guilty, which is not how I'm reading it at all.
We have two girls, A and B. A is in contact with the boys and is sending provocative texts. She readily agrees to meet the boys and persuades B to accompany her. When they meet the boys, A proceeds to have sex with each in turn while B is reluctant and has to be persuaded to have sex with one boy.
Girl B was unambiguously raped. She was underage and subjected to substantial peer pressure.
As you say, Julia, If the five boys who only had sex with her are to be punished, then girl A should also be punished. She is above the age of criminal responsibility and has actively encouraged an offense to be be committed. Although I do realise the law doesn't normally see it that way.
"So in fact, we have six guys convicted of rape, when everybody in the court seems to agree that no rape occurred."
As under-age girls, the rape appears to have been of the statutory kind, as Mjolinir points out.
"One is left to wonder if they realised the legal consequences of their admissions?"
Wouldn't their solicitors have pointed that out?
"Girl B was unambiguously raped. She was underage and subjected to substantial peer pressure."
Girl A was also under-age.
"...girl A should also be punished. She is above the age of criminal responsibility and has actively encouraged an offense to be be committed. "
But she won't be.
as we have identified the men have admitted and been convicted under the terms and conditions of law. I'm quite sure they were advised of the consequences of admissions of sexual activity including penetration with a 12 year old. They would probably have been unable to deny this due to forensic evidence. All that was left was to point out that the law does not take into account the actions of the 12 year old and her older friend. It was and still is possible for a judgment to have been passed in this case that would have altered law in terms of 'reasonable belief'.
So we have men convicted of rape, worse still paedophilia. The girls have a lot to answer for but also their parents. In any case where there is evidence that a minor is acting as an agent provocateur or where a conviction is secured on their evidence we should be pursuing their parents or legal guardians for crimes the minor is legally unable to take responsibility for.
Children should be more readily removed from parents unable and/or unwilling to take responsibility for their children’s actions or impressing on them the consequences. The state should also be pursued where these children are in care. Perhaps the parents actively encouraged their kids to have such a cavalier approach to personal responsibility by example.
To classify these men as rapists or paedophiles is morally wrong however they are clearly guilty.
@Julia - //Wouldn't their solicitors have pointed that out?//
Presumably. But I wonder whether their INITIAL 'admissions' were made as part of a formal interview with a lawyer present, or were the spontaneous reactions of teenagers who thought(at least in the cases of 'A') they were having consensual sex with a girl of 'full age' - and have just been told the truth?
[Note what the defence said //if the activities had taken place just four weeks later than they had, when the main girl would have turned 13, none of the defendants would have faced any criminal charges because of the defence provided by her actions.//]
My point was the divergence between what the law says, and this other thing called "reality".
The laws says that having consensual sex with a woman who is drunk, then regrets it, is "rape". But in that other thing, reality, that actually isn't rape either, is it?
I have this crazy idea that the law should reflect reality. I know. Crazy.
If it isn't obvious to look at the girls that they are under 16 then I do think rape convictions are harsh if they both stated that they are 16.
It isn't always clear, although personally I avoid having gang bangs in the park with girls I don't know which is a good way of avoiding this problem.
A classic case of why you never admit ANYTHING to the police. As detailed by the police ex-blogger Nightjack I think.
The courts are supposed to take events on one hand and the law on the other, add wisdom and produce justice. I realise it doesn't always work that way.
I can't help wondering what would happen if an intelligent, articulate and mature fifteen year old girl claimed the age of consent laws infringed her human right to a healthy sex life?
"Note what the defence said //if the activities had taken place just four weeks later than they had, when the main girl would have turned 13, none of the defendants would have faced any criminal charges..."
Well, the line has to be drawn somewhere, I agree. But perhaps fewer strict liability offences and more real judgement would be better in the long run?
"It isn't always clear, although personally I avoid having gang bangs in the park with girls I don't know which is a good way of avoiding this problem."
:D
"I can't help wondering what would happen if an intelligent, articulate and mature fifteen year old girl claimed the age of consent laws infringed her human right to a healthy sex life?"
Intriguing...
Glad you've included this story in your blog Julia. These men are guilty in law and perhaps morally deficient. It seems strong to classify them as rapists or paedophiles however as the law stands they are both.
Including this post in the category of lying about rape is also appropriate in that there is evidence of this.
Why no mention of parents or other legal guardians. If the 'young' girls had committed any other crime where they were not legally responsible for their sctions would the law not pursue the guardians or at least remove them? I had always thought the legal age of responsibility was 4 or 5, which is why criminals employ the very young as murderers, pimps and whores.
Post a Comment