BBC article here.
The girl looked 16, pretended she was 16, and deceived everyone.
It’s a horrible case, but I think justice has been served. The discharge will remain on the man’s file for the rest of his life.
It seems to me that if anyone is to blame it is her parents: what is a 12 year old doing out at 04:00?
It may be she has neglectful parents, or she may just be really devious and they had good reason to believe she was somewhere safe, or maybe she was in care. We will probably never know as those sorts of details should remain confidential to protect the girl.
Did he rape her?
It’s absolutely sex with a minor, but based on the excerpt you posted it sounds consensual.
Was she even sober enough to give consent?
In the US, at least, a 12 year old’s consent is meaningless. Thus, “sex with a [12 year old] minor” = “rape.”
The article says that the sex was indeed consensual. But rape of a 12 yo is a statutory offence.
Sure, but the question is: should intent be a required element? She said she was of age, she deceived the guy, so should he be punished for having consensual sex with somebody he reasonably believed was capable of consenting?
In most of the U.S., the law has ruled it doesn’t matter, and intent is not an element; statutory rape is a strict liability crime. In some other jurisdictions, it matters.
I’m curious, what do those who are opposed to this verdict think the accused should have done? Ask for I.D? She looked older than her age, why would the man even suspect she was lying?
From the article, it seems it’s also a strict liability crime in the UK. But apparently the judge could put aside this strict liability, which makes it a weird kind of strict liability.
Indeed, I don’t really see what the guy was guilty of. He was 19, thinking he was sleeping with a 16 yo, and everybody who saw her or talked with her including police officers and the judge himself thought she wasn’t looking anywhere near 12. The man had no way to even suspect he was commiting a crime.
I’m totally opposed to all criminal laws mandating a sentence : strict liability, mandatory minimal sentence, “three strikes and you’re out”, etc… This always result at some point in absurd court decisions.
And I don’t think he should be called a “rapist”(in the thread title). He had no nefarious intent, it wasn’t a rape as in “non consensual sex” and it apparently wasn’t even a rape in the legal sense.
I’m more than 40 years removed from caring much one way or another but these days, with the news I see on a regular basis, I would assume everyone was underage until I had some proof of some kind. One local guy damn near ended up on the offenders registration and the girl he hooked up with was getting served in a bar using a fake ID when they met. Common sense often goes out the door once something gets to the arrest stage.
I have lived in New York, and in Indiana. In New York, having reason to think someone is of the age of consent when they are not, is not a defense to statutory rape. In Indiana, it is.
I’m not sure what I think; possibly, that it isn’t enough for an underage person (not just girl) to appear to be older, but there must be a good reason to think that, like meeting her in a bar. If a fifteen-year-old has a really convincing ID, and can get past the doorman, and the waitress, who have a lot at stake, then first, one can say she objectively does appear older, and second, it is bright and clear that she deceived.
I know some people get their feathers ruffled about victim-blaming, but I’m not saying she shouldn’t have been out that late, or wearing that skirt, and I am definitely not saying that deceit about age is a defense to forcible rape-- only statutory rape.
And sometimes, you can blame the victim a little. Go into the 7-11, and leave your car unlocked and running, and it got stolen, and you insurance doesn’t want to cover your loss? Well, your bad decision did contribute to the loss. Maybe a judge should rule that there was partial contributory negligence, and you should get 50%, but I get the insurance company’s point.
I’m really glad it’s not up to me, because I’m not sure where to draw the line. I’m not sure that it’s enough for the victim the have stated that she (or he) is of age-- maybe it should require some objective measure. If there’s a jury trial, the jury can see for itself whether the victim looks 16, or 18, but it’s certainly helpful if the victim, say, bought cigarettes the same week without getting carded, or showed a fake ID at some point.
I dunno. Is there a poll?
“Absolute discharge” is a sentence you can only get when guilty, but it means no conviction recorded. It would be nice if it also means he’s not on a sex-offender list, but often inane sex-offender-list things have independent definitions, so who knows?
I don’t see the big deal. If you look of age how in the hell is someone suppose to know? Read the person’s mind like a psychic? Sometimes biology and law are imperfectly matched.
And what benefit is it to society to give someone a huge stigma when the person had no intent?
I believe every court case, the minute details need to be closely examined. Although this didn’t take place in my country I’ll give my opinion that of what can be ascertained from reading the article, it sounds like this guy really had no clue about her age and didn’t intend to commit any crime, and give how the situation unfolded, I think the outcome was reasonable.
OK, thank you.
Summary of “absolute discharge” in Scottish law:
Full copy of the judge’s reasons for sentence: Man guilty of raping 12-year-old girl given absolute discharge in exceptional case
That falls in the category of “statutory rape”, which is often ignored in almost every country. I’ve personally known of cases in the USA in which there was a judicial proceeding, and no doubt about technical “guilt”, but no criminal penalties imposed.
Imagine what our prisons would look like if they were full of every guy (or woman) who ever had sex with a person below the legal age of consent. Which in some US states is the highest in the world.
Not only that but according to the sentencing explanation linked by Northern Piper, had she been a few months’ older (13) not only would he have been *able *to offer misrepresentation of her age as a defense but in the opinion of the Court the prosecution might not have even happened.
Melbourne, according to that same link, the Court ruled there was no need to impose “notification” under the Sex Crimes Act, which I interpret to mean he does not go into Scotland’s equivalent of the offenders registry.
OK and I’ve just done two statutory rape-related replies in succession. Let me not visit another thread on it for a bit… :o
Thank you, that’s interesting, and Good: I’m glad there is room for some discression.