Aussies Appalled By Ghastly Judge Verdict

Remove all ads!

This is terrible, please take a few minutes to read.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7136269.stm

 

Perhaps our Aussie posters can elaborate more on the case. The article is quite lacking in information.

 

I like how the judge gets blamed even though they were the sentences sought by the prosecution. Oh well.

 

The fact that several of them are minors would warrant reduced sentences for them. I also think we're not getting the full story. That having been said, I'm not sure "ghastly" is the term that I would use here. It's definitely shocking, surprising, appalling, and maybe even unjust (although it is what the presecution sought), but I don't see how it's ghastly.

 

you think maybe the fact the rapists where from wealthy familes and the victim was from the poorer side of town didnt have anything to do with the verdicts? and how in the he!! can a judge say a 10 year old girl asked them to rape her?!?! even if she did the age of consent has not been reached so any approval would be void anyway

 

Not that I'm defending the verdict, but this isn't entirely accurate. Having consensual sex with a minor isn't rape. It's statutory rape...and there's a difference.

 

Six of the seven offenders were minors at the time of the incident. Statutory rape is consensual sex between an adult and a minor -- consensual sex between minors is not an offense. I personally do not see statutory rape being any less of a crime than rape. There may be a difference, but to me the two are of the same magnitude.

 

@T2: Minors can be charged with statutory rape, too. It happened to a friend of mine in high school (She was 14. He was 16.). If the age gap is wide enough, they will charge minors. At least the would in Virginia back in '94.

 

I must disagree with you there, T2Bruno. Willingness - or its lack - is imo a big issue here, if not for the bodily consequences (though these are also likely to be lighter if the victim is cooperating) then at least for the psychological ones. As imo it is the psychological implications that make rape such a heinous crime, it seems to me that statutory rape is imo a much lighter crime.

Anyway, what strikes me as odd is that there is such a big public outcry, yet the prosecution itself requested the punishment. Is there a racial or social bias in the judicial system, or is the issue being spun by pundits?

 

Well, obviously this has been all over the news here lately and I STILL don't know all the facts, surely though a judge has it within their power (and free will) to ignore the sentencing requests of any lawyer, be they prosecution or defence, if the requested sentencing is ridiculous? Otherwise what would stop this from happening to anyone, anywhere? That said, the judge's comments about the girl probably agreeing to the offenders doing this to her may suggest thast she's somewhat of an idiot. It's just f****** disgusting that something like this happen in ANY case letalone one involving a 10 year old girl

 

The girl was 10, and under Australian law unable to give consent at all (the age for that being 12), so it's not something that should legally be considered statuatory rape. (That's what I've picked up from the media ****storm over the last couple of days, anyway)

I'd say that there's almost certainly a racial bias here, or at least a bias of some variety. It's just not a sentence you would think up if you weren't influenced by something other than the law/common sense.

 

Personally, I would like to hear the merits of the case before I start crying 'racism' onr 'injustice'. So far all I know is that the girl was 10 and poor and the guys were young and wealthy. There are SOOO many ways that could turn into a rape case, and not all of them end with the guys being guilty of anything other than poor decision making abilities. On the other hand, many leave me with the deep desire to castrate them. The fact that the prosecution asked for these sentences, however, makes me lean toward the former rather than the latter. That brings up the issue, though, of why they were convicted of rape in the first place.

Additionally, in America at least, you must b found guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. If consent is the issue, and the is reasonable doubt as to whether or not she game consent, shouldn't they be found not guilty of rape? Statutory rape may still be an issue, though. I realize this is Australia, not the US, but I thought they had a pretty similar legal system. Please correct me if not.

 

from T2Bruno:

I'll give it a shot

from Aikanaro:

I'm quite sure it's 16.

definitely - The editor of my local paper said if it happened to a little caucasian blonde girl in a leafy suburb, 1/2 the offenders would get life. There is indeed a social problem in this country with how we treat the Aboriginal population and this goes back to white settlement. Young aboriginals are statistically more likely to be involved in criminal activities and the legal system has in many ways failed them.

The boys were from an 'influential' aboriginal family, but I don't believe they were particularly wealthy. The girl has fetal alcohol syndrome and operates at the level of a 5-6 year old, was removed from her family because of sexual abuse and has been in and out of foster care for a number of years. She is very difficult to control and has never really been in a stable home for very long. Her psychologist said that she had been gang raped a number of times prior to this incident (when she was 7 she was admitted to hospital for severe genital trauma) and used sexual activity as a means of getting attention (so perhaps the judges "she probably wanted it" statement made some sort of sense in context). She has been prescribed a number of behavior altering drugs over the years though "none have benefited her".

from NOG:

Yeah, they're fairly similar though I generally perceive it to be more equitable (i.e. wealth is less likely to have an impact - read OJ) and less petty (you won't be sued for throwing a snow ball or anything similarly ridiculous) - I am Aussie though so I'm probably biased. This case is I believe unique and the shame/outrage expressed by the media and the public is indescribable by mere words.

I was just wondering if anyone actually heard about this outside this thread? Our media is kind of suggesting its been making "international headlines", but I somewhat doubt that considering the relevance of individual Australian cases.

 

I found it in The USA Today and The Chicago Tribune, which are both read throughout the entire country. I also found it in 3 of the 4 more local papers that I read. (Yes, yes, Drew reads 6 papers a day. Sue me, I have a lot of downtime at work.) I didn't see any coverage on TV, but I hardly ever watch the news.

 

You're confusing a criminal offence with a civil tort or even a civil law contract. Rape is not "sex without a valid contract", it's the crime of obtaining sexual satisfaction by force, threat or fraud. Consensual sex with a minor is not rape. It can be, and in pretty much every country it is, made into a separate offence - sexual conduct with a minor, in the US referred to as "statutory rape", which is a misnomer.

Nonetheless, to want to be raped would be internally inconsistent. The inconsistency may lie with the person who so wants, or it may lie with the beholder who makes such a conclusion about that person. At any rate, where consent is, there is no rape. A sick person may want for his lack of consent to be overriden, violated, ignored, whatever - but in a healthy mind that's not possible. Therefore if the judge alleges the girl wanted to be raped, rather than wanted consensual sex, the judge should think twice and then twice again before accepting that line of thought in the judgement.

Some of my comments:

• "Probably" is not acceptable in evidence summary unless it refers to some form of defence by the defendant, since he's not obliged to prove his innocence. At any rate, doubts should be explained or means of explaining them should be exhausted - whichever comes first. The judge in this case should have established with more certainty whether there was consent or not.
• Moreover, if, "probably agreed to have sex with all of you," holds true, then the judge should have acquitted all of them - if you have a number of suspects of whom only some are guilty, or even some are innocent but most are guilty, if you can't establish who's guilty and who's innocent, you have to free all of them. It is not acceptable to render any form of "just in case you're guilty" verdict and criminal trials are not decided on the balance of probabilities.

More:

Then there was no rape. You can't rape with consent. If she wasn't forced into sex, there was no rape. Also, minors do not commit a criminal offence by having sex with other minors. So why declare them de facto innocent but still assign penalties as if they were guilty?

The sentence needs overturning and the judge needs a review of her logic. You can't have a cake and eat it.

 

Stu:
Yeah, the age of consent is 16. But from what I've read about this it seems like the really-really age of consent is 12, and under that is goes from statuatory rape to just straight rape.
Of course, this is gleaned from the media, and both it and I have been wrong many a time in the past