Here come da judge — Judge Riley
What an interesting place Australia is. If you read the entire story, you’ll find this isn’t an isolated case.
Abuse of 11-year-old boy not rape, says judge
TWO men and three teenagers who sexually abused an 11-year-old boy at a remote Top End Aboriginal community should not be called rapists, according to a Supreme Court judge.But Northern Territory Supreme Court judge Trevor Riley yesterday questioned whether a suspended sentence would be appropriate for one of the teenagers accused of assaulting the boy at Maningrida, 500km east of Darwin.
[…]
“So it’s absolutely a very, very serious offence but it’s not the same as rape, because in relation to that offence there is no issue as to consent. When this matter is reported, I have no difficulty with it being pointed out just how serious the matters are, but it would quite misleading to use the label rape, because that would suggest that they had pleaded guilty to a different offence under the Criminal Code to the one to which they had pleaded.”
[…]
In the committal hearing earlier this year, Darwin Magistrates Court was told the boy had been bound with shoelaces and drugged before being repeatedly sexually assaulted.
Drugged and bound with shoelaces? Sounds like consent to me. I guess this means that to not be convicted of rape, all you have to do is get the child to consent to sex. Of course, it might take a bit longer if you have to explain the birds and the bees to a five year old.
BTW, in case you think this is an isolated thing, another judge was suspended for calling a 10 year old girl’s gang-rapists, “naughty.”
That judge looks like a pervert to me.
I thought Aussies were all criminals. It’s a remote place, let them destroy each other and the world will get on with itself.
I really can’t stand Aussies. All those long ‘a’ sounds when they talk.
Sounds like a good way to beat the rape rap, would be to threaten the person with death unless they consent. After that, it’s no longer rape! /tongue in cheek
What’s that on his head?
its a wig. holdover from british rule
Does anyone read these things? The Judge is not making any statement as to the guilt or innocence of the parties involved. He is warning the press not to say the men had been convicted of rape. They all pled to lesser charges (Gee..never heard of that before), so, by law, they have not been convicted of rape (possible life sentence), and thus are not guilty of rape. Sounds more to me like he is warning the media that they are opening themselves up to charges of slander by continuing to use the term. One of the defendants pleaded to a charge that opens him up to a 16 year sentence…so to suggest, as this headline does, that people are getting off with hand slaps is at best disingenuous, and more likely just a bit of trolling.
As far as setting the age of “consent”, one might suggest a quick look through your local countries closet. In the US for example, there is no way at 12 you can consent to sex..you just are not aware enough of the consequences (so says the law anyway), but you are clearly aware of the consequences if you make the decision to kill someone, or someone gets killed in your robbery attempt, since everyone knows that anyone involved in a crime that ends in a death is liable for murder (taught in grade school I assume), so you can be tried as an adult, with up to and including death penalty results.
So..let’s review…under 16 or so..no way smart enough to make decisions about sex, but smart enough to not make any other mistakes..like being seduced by your local armed services recruiter and sent of to die a virgin for Halliburton. Makes sense to me. We won’t even discuss that after you come back from you tour of shooting terrorists you still aren’t competent to decide if you want a beer..that’s just evil!!
Not saying that laws protecting minors are bad..just suggesting that maybe the actual cases should be judged on the individual merits and mental capacity of the minor involved..with suggested age guidelines…and I can think of worse people to do it than educated judges of both sexes who have spent huge amounts of time considering the case. They are prone to the same knee-jerk reactions as the general populace, but you have to at least hope that on a case by case basis that their education may be a mitigating factor against that.
#6: Being convicted of a lesser charge isn’t the issue except for reporters accurately reporting what they were convicted of. The issue is should the concept of consent even enter into a case of an 11 year old who was “bound with shoelaces and drugged.”
Whether they were found guilty of the legal term “rape” and plead guilty to or were found guilty of a lesser charge doesn’t preclude others from calling what they did rape. To paraphrase from another issue, we know rape when we see it.
I can see the virtue of the positions of both #6 and #7 on this one, but this isn’t nearly as bad as the headline suggests.
Not surprising since scaling back age of consent, and normalizing pedophilia has become part of an agenda. The American Psychiatric Association did its part by issuing a report than adult child sex doesn’t necessarily traumatize kids.
Everything is an agenda isn’t it. The Republican war-cry…”Don’t confuse us with facts, we know what’s right…and whose naughty or nice too…”. Is it at all possible that the APA reported that is because, upon research, it turns out to be true? Naw…can’t be..doesn’t hold with the results you’ve been fed by your spiritual leaders all these years..(What? They were just keeping all the prime meat for themselves???)
Headline is Incorrect==worse than misleading, as far as I can tell.
The article says consent was not an issue in the trial because “lack of consent” was not plead which is necessary as part of proving rape.
Evidently, the Aussies don’t have statutory rape or age of consent issues–but I’m only inferring that as its not expressly stated one way or the other.
But, yea, its all definitional. Similarly, I’ve never thought a spouse should be chargeable with rape. Assault and battery?==yes, but there is a pre-existing contract and marital duties that should preclude a charge of marital rape.
Headline – Bad
MikeN – true believer
Issue – Accurate reporting vs. sensational money making. Gosh, Rupert, is that your fingerprints here ?
Can the Repugs expect another campaign contribution from you ?
I tend to believe anyone tied up and drugged should have signed off before the party got started.
Actually we DO have laws about statutory-rape and age of consent, but both of these are subject to comparative age, so in the case of the teenagers involved in this case, neither of these factors are necessarily relevant, though I think it should have been relevant for the 2 adults in the case…
That aside, the title of this article is grossly misleading. The context of the judges statement is that media should “exercise care” because the offenders were not charge with (or convicted of) rape, and so should not be referred to as such.
The judge is NOT casting opinions about the case and the parties involved, he is simply indicating that it would be dangerous to use terms that cannot be legally defended based on the outcome of the trial.
#12, DeLeMa
Good points