Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    From a legal perspective I think this may be an area where perhaps the law hasn't caught up with current morality.

    The rationale for the state of the law is that conceptually you must be able to think of an age where sex with someone of that age will always be wrong. Even if you don't think it should be 13, I would hope you'd agree that if you lower it down to 7, or 5 or 3 it would clearly be unacceptable in all circumstances. The law sets the boundary at 13. You can definitely argue this is too high, but where would you draw the line?

    The reason it's set at 13 is that this is presumed to be around the age people start to be sexually mature - that they have sexual desires and motives. The law says that if they are younger it must be rape, because the child doesn't have the capacity to consent to sex. Perhaps you disagree.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i sooo didnt wanna read this, now i have this awful feeling in my stomach...............
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TKC)

    Yeah but...this is just one sad injustice, imagine if that were an actual defence.
    The "seriously lads, I thought she was 16" defence.
    Of course I agree, but there must be room for exception in law, otherwise it becomes arbitrary.

    Clealry all evidence points to one of these girls inviting 5 men over for one explicit reason. And I fully believe that the footballers thought they were of age. I can't see 6 random footballers deciding to risk it with 12 year olds for crying out loud. If there was doubt in the lads mind then maybe they could have checked harder, but really? Both the girls admitted to lieing about their age, and their actions speak for themselves.

    At the end of the day, these lads lives have been ruined. By the little tarts, and by their own honesty. They didn't have to come forward, but they did when they realised the gravity of their actions. They should have had a slap on the wrist, not custodial sentences and a reputation besmerched for a lifetime!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    unbelievable.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    True, the judge called them reckless, but reckless for what? Simply breaking the law. Nobody was harmed, if the parents hadn't realised they were missing nobody would have been the wiser and life would have gone on.
    Yeah, I just thought the judge would have to tell them specifically why he's convicting them, not just imply why he's convicting them. It is quite an important thing lol.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anti-duck)
    Yeah, I just thought the judge would have to tell them specifically why he's convicting them, not just imply why he's convicting them. It is quite an important thing lol.
    The law says that if you have sex with someone under 13 you have committed rape and there is no defence to this.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry but no one here can realistically give two ****s about this unless they were directly involved...

    Group one - consenting but under age girls lying about their ages

    Group two - meat head footballers on a barely legal gang bang mission

    If your going to have sex with a 16 year old, make sure she/he is 16, if not then you could be a pedophile or just someone with a barely legal fetish in the wrong place.. if your going to lie about being older than you are then that is nothing short of fraud and if your at the age where your trying to get sex then you will be treated like an adult because this is an adult situation.

    Someone tell me what im missing please.. I mean, as a human being this is the only conclusion i can draw from this which would struggle to make a page 54 short ad in my local paper.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The West Wing)
    The law says that if you have sex with someone under 13 you have committed rape and there is no defence to this.
    Do you agree with the law?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anti-duck)
    Yeah, I just thought the judge would have to tell them specifically why he's convicting them, not just imply why he's convicting them. It is quite an important thing lol.
    I think he has to convict them simply because it's on the law books, the judge doesn't really have a choice whether the law is pointless or not.

    You don't convict someone because they have done something bad, you convict someone because they have broken a law, it's just the judge has failed to rationalise why breaking this crime was so bad.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    Do you agree with the law?
    Personally, I think there should be a minimum but 13 is too high. 12 year olds can clearly want sex (as demonstrated here).
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Maybe the girls are racist? Black men NEVER rape women, they are clean living people decent people.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The West Wing)
    The law says that if you have sex with someone under 13 you have committed rape and there is no defence to this.
    Erm... yeah, that's what I said in my first post in the thread, but the law exists to make things as black and white as possible and can't assume that defendants have legal knowledge.

    The judge could have easily told the defendants what you just wrote and added 'and that's why I'm convicting you' or something along those lines, instead, in his summing up he basically said a load of rubbish; none of which directly pointed out anything illegal. I just find it funny that a judge can convict someone and basically leave them to figure out for themselves why they're being convicted.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    I think he has to convict them simply because it's on the law books, the judge doesn't really have a choice whether the law is pointless or not.

    You don't convict someone because they have done something bad, you convict someone because they have broken a law, it's just the judge has failed to rationalise why breaking this crime was so bad.
    Yeah, exactly what I was saying See my last post in this thread. I guess I just didn't get the point across
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anti-duck)
    Erm... yeah, that's what I said in my first post in the thread, but the law exists to make things as black and white as possible and can't assume that defendants have legal knowledge.

    The judge could have easily told the defendants what you just wrote and added 'and that's why I'm convicting you' or something along those lines, instead, in his summing up he basically said a load of rubbish; none of which directly pointed out anything illegal. I just find it funny that a judge can convict someone and basically leave them to figure out for themselves why they're being convicted.
    He is explaining the rationale behind the sentence - although he doesn't have to justify the conviction (as it's strict liability), he has to provide justification for the sentence: that they behaved recklessly in the way they treated them and had twisted views of sex.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The West Wing)
    He is explaining the rationale behind the sentence - although he doesn't have to justify the conviction (as it's strict liability), he has to provide justification for the sentence: that they behaved recklessly in the way they treated them and had twisted views of sex.
    I just find it funny... that's ALL. I don't require a legal essay, but thanks
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anti-duck)
    Yeah, exactly what I was saying See my last post in this thread. I guess I just didn't get the point across
    Didn't spot that!

    (Original post by The West Wing)
    He is explaining the rationale behind the sentence - although he doesn't have to justify the conviction (as it's strict liability), he has to provide justification for the sentence: that they behaved recklessly in the way they treated them and had twisted views of sex.
    That's just the judges ignorant opinion however, there is no such thing as "twisted views" on consensual sex, and it's certainly nowhere in the law. He probably thinks unless you have sex in marriage in the marital bed over the age of 30 with a white Christian and full parental permission it's twisted :lol:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    That's just the judges ignorant opinion however, there is no such thing as "twisted views" on consensual sex, and it's certainly nowhere in the law. He probably thinks unless you have sex in marriage in the marital bed over the age of 30 with a white Christian and full parental permission it's twisted :lol:
    I agree, and this is one of the problems with having an almost entirely upper class, male, elderly judiciary. What does he really know about the sex lives of 12 year olds?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Laws need to be changed! Statutory rape age should be lowered to 12, perhaps even 11. ****s are obviously getting younger these days. Also, they need to start naming and shaming people whatever their age. It really pisses me off when you are constantly hearing in the news about some young teenager who has stabbed/shot someone, and yet their name and picture can't be shown in the media because they are under 16. People need to see pictures of this dirty **** (I imagine the one who slept with 5 men pressurised her friend into it) so that she doesn't do it again!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pippa90)
    Laws need to be changed! Statutory rape age should be lowered to 12, perhaps even 11. ****s are obviously getting younger these days. Also, they need to start naming and shaming people whatever their age. It really pisses me off when you are constantly hearing in the news about some young teenager who has stabbed/shot someone, and yet their name and picture can't be shown in the media because they are under 16. People need to see pictures of this dirty **** (I imagine the one who slept with 5 men pressurised her friend into it) so that she doesn't do it again!
    I agreed with you until you started ranting about "dirty" ****s.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    I agreed with you until you started ranting about "dirty" ****s.
    Well they probably did get dirty doing it in a park Come on, 12 years old, having sex with 5 grown men in a park. How is that not dirty?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.