Neo

Paedophile freed after judge says victim, 11, 'welcomed sex' - Telegraph

Mum weeps as abuser walks free | Metro.co.uk

Paedophile walks free because his "victim" was "innappropriately aware of sex" and even "welcomed" it.

This girl consented to sex, even lead the way, and despite the deliberate decision of the paedo to have sex with her even though he knew she was underage - what about her role? She prowled an adult dating site looking for men.

What is "consent?" How far is the law useful or flawed on this issue? What would be a more measured approach to address this issue?

__________________

Malone

That's pretty fucked up. I might, in the furthest stretches of my imagination, go so far as to say that maybe if he had just hung out with her and kissed her a few times the sentence would be fitting, but since he tried to fuck her and couldn't even get in...well, that says a lot. Even if she approached him, she's a stupid 11 year old. He's a grown up. I knew all kind of dirty stuff when I was 11 too, but that didn't make me qualified to make life altering decisions.

Modest Me

Who the crap cares what she knows?? The point is shes not mature enough to make good decisions yet- its a physical fact that her brain isn't developed enough to fully understand consequences of things like this. Whats the point of having laws to protect young children if they're not going to uphold them? That judge needs a slap in the face. That man is disgusting. I hope that judge can sleep at night in a few weeks when another child is molested by him.

__________________
Warning: Will talk about religion at the drop of a hat.

** http://theoddvillepress.com/ **

alanmt

This decision would have been different in my jurisdiction. But without knowing the law and jurisprudence of the jurisdiction in question, modest, you probably should temper your remarks a bit. Being a judge is very difficult; and sometimes you have to do things you don't want to because the law requires it.

__________________
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum europe vincendarum

Modest Me

ah, i was mad when i posted that (i tend to get emotional when it comes to children)..
youre probably right about that Alan.. Well, i mean, youd know more than i would

Gosh, it sucks when loopholes let an obviously guilty man go free... i guess it would be the hard thing about working in that field

__________________
Warning: Will talk about religion at the drop of a hat.

** http://theoddvillepress.com/ **

Non Serviam

I don't see a story about this on the BBC.

The Telegraph is slightly further right wing than Heinrich Himmler, and I tend to believe it about as much as I believe Fox News--while the Metro is about as truthful as Derek Acorah. Show me the BBC article, or failing that, the Times one.

__________________
Thoughtcrime does not entail death. Thoughtcrime IS death.

buyjupiter03

*Snorts diet soda up the nose* I'm glad to see I'm not the only one with that impression of the Telegraph. I was not impressed with what I read from them online several years back when I was researching a school project. After a couple of their articles I looked at the Times, the Economist (good overview), and BBC exclusively. It sucks when you have to go to UK media, because they're the only ones who won't talk about what the candidate's wife was wearing. (Polysci paper on the primaries.)

__________________
Dennis: Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp

papertears

I wasn't going to even comment on this simply because of the source. I didn't live in the UK for long enough (the rest of my life, oh pretty please!) to be an expert. But I would prefer a better source before I even read the article, which looks very sensationalized not to mention upsetting for one like me, who can end up becoming an "emotional sponge" if I don't have my cognitive therapy set to high.

Neo

Point is, this girl had as much culpability as he did. Which is why the question of actual consent, versus legal consent, needs answering.

__________________

alanmt

It's okay, modest, I've certainly been there too!

I serve as a guardian ad litem for abused children in parenting proceedings, and I was furious at a judge once. The child had been taken away from its father (the parents lived apart), and the judge simply placed the child with the mother who lived in another city and dismissed the case, against my advice and the advice of the social worker, because our separate investigations revealed that the mother was unfit. But the judge reasoned (in a technically correct way) that there were no abuse charges against the mother, and therefore no conduct on which to base an order to make her go through a parenting treatment plan.

The poor child had been with the mother only two weeks when someone called child protective services, and the social worker pulled the child out of the home in the midst of a wild party. The home was littered with beer bottles and used condoms.

It does suck when obviously guilty people go free.

But I am a firm believer that it is better to have 10 guilt people go free than 1 innocent person be incarcerated. I also believe that a truly just society must apply the rules fairly to everyone; that the bill of rights are not mere technicalities, but important rights which only work when applied to all, even thouse we despise. So when a judge throws out a case because the police didn't follow the rules when getting a confession, I am angry at the criminal for the crime, angry at the police for screwing up the conviction, but respect the judge for doing what he/she had to do.

The case in the OP does seem screwy. That girl seems so messed up that frankly an investigation into her parents' parenting seems in order to me.

I used to be on the Board for the local children's rescue home here, and it truly is shocking what goes on even in small communities. I have seen oversexualized children of age 3 and below.

edit: hahaha @ Derek Acorah!

__________________
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum europe vincendarum

RomanticRose

If an eleven year old is "inappropriately aware" of tequila and begs you to do a couple of shots with her does that make getting her drunk acceptable?

Children at that age cannot think through the consequences of their actions. Hence, they should be protected from their instincts with things like ages of legal consent.

__________________

lin

Says who? YOU?

Whereas YOU, and anybody over 18 is capable of making good, clear decisions that don't lead to diaster for others?

This whole bit of policing the world and deciding that people aren't really responsible enough to want what they think they want is bullshit.

__________________

Modest Me

I saw this doctor on tv talking about how kids in puberty, their brains are undergoing so much change that they literally cannot understand to the full extent the consequences of their actions.

Thats from a Dr. Frank Lawless, a clinical psychologist.

__________________
Warning: Will talk about religion at the drop of a hat.

** http://theoddvillepress.com/ **

Ungood

I have to agree with Lin here.

Ungood.

__________________

Non Serviam

You don't agree with age of consent legislation?

I agree that someone's calendar age isn't necessarily an indicator of psychosocial maturity; and I agree that some people are capable of giving informed consent to sexual intercourse long before others.

But I think we've got to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

__________________
Thoughtcrime does not entail death. Thoughtcrime IS death.