*sputter* *choke* *gag*

Yeah. According to one source, in another case, this same judge freed a man who molested a six-year-old, suggesting he buy the child a new bicycle.

Check it out.

"Lawyers for the defendants stressed that the sex had been consensual, and was only termed 'rape' because of the framework of law."

yes, because 10 year olds somehow have the right to consent to sex.

Makes you wonder WHY this judge might be so sympathetic to child rapers, doesn't it?

It does indeed Ayla.

So, if the girl had been 16 then this wouldn't have been a rape at all? Because women deserved to be raped for dressing provocatively? Not that it should even fucking be taken into considerations (clothing never should) but if the girl had been wearing a spongbob squarepants outfit would she have "asked for it" then? God this makes me so angry.

How the fuck do two men, one of whom TOOK HER HOME (doesn't that count as kidnapping?) NOT get charged with rape? And the fact that this judge has repeatedly let off child rapists should raise some eyebrows.

I think the idea here is that if she were 16 it would have been OK because 16 is the age of consent in Britain (I think)

So, technically, if she were 16 and met some guys in a park, she could have consented to have sex with them if she wanted to. The defendants claim that (in whatever way a 10 year old can) she went along with things willingly, and if they thought she was 16, then they could have thought everything was OK, legally speaking.

I just have trouble believing that these guys really thought she was 16.

So, if the girl had been 16 then this wouldn't have been a rape at all?

I had the same thought. What the fuck does her looking a different age -- one that is also below the age of consent -- have to do with her actual legal capacity to consent? And it's nice to be warned about how it's open season on 16 year olds there, with them unable to be raped even when they've been kidnapped.

I wonder what a search warrant for this judge's computer would yield in terms of kiddie porn and attempted predation -- he certainly seems unable to see children as anything other than fuckable objects. Makes me ill.

There's a special place in hell for this judge.

Bet he's raped a kid or two in his day.

And it seems that this judge's "moral dilemma" was that he had no way out of finding them guilty because of the time frame. Otherwise he would have been able to let them off altogether. He obvious feels badly that they had to be convicted at all--that's his moral dilemma.

unbelievable

Now I wonder how many public elementary schools are eager to require dressing like the victim did, and to suspend or expel girls who wear more (a la a Boston public school which I heard doesn't let girls wear long trousers), in the name of classroom harmony.

Oh yeah, and assuming the girl were above the age of consent, why would it have been a crime to have sex within 45 minutes of meeting? A bad idea, certainly, but a crime?

I wondered that too, Ayla.

and I really, truly wish that (regardless of age) people would stop judging intentions based on dress. Base intentions on actions, maybe. combination of actions and words? sure.

But seriously... "my short skirt has nothing to do with you."

Also, what is he defining as provocative clothing? parents are dressing their 5-year olds in what has been termed "provocative clothing" nowadays. That's where the term prostitot came from.

oh, christ. i want to have a long talk with this judge.
because in addition to all the brilliant points above, i don't care how 'developed' this child was or wasn't, a girl's body at 10 is a GIRL's body. even if she had breast buds or had sprouted a couple pubic hairs, did these assholes consider that maybe her body was that of a TEN YEAR OLD?
well, yes, i know. no. but jesus christ. 10.

I hope this judge (and judges like him) can live with the fact that they are all going straight to hell.

Do you know what I hate most? I hate that we actually have to distinguish this thread from the previous one about the other judge who gave only a slap on the wrist to some scumbag who raped a ten-year-old for the exact same reason. And look at how similar the situation is: "she looked 16," "she consented," "she was dressed provocatively," "she was in care, disturbed, and needy."

Well, gee, do you think that prior abuse and the need for some kind of "affection," approval, or just attention from adults might possibly be motivating these children to "consent"? Men who take advantage of that need and vulnerability are the scum of the earth.

As I said on, God help us all, the other thread about a man raping a ten-year-old.

"Well, gee, do you think that prior abuse and the need for some kind of "affection," approval, or just attention from adults might possibly be motivating these children to "consent"?"

Exactly. It's like someone needs to remind the judge that the law about age of consent is supposed to protect impressionable children from being manipulated into "consenting." It doesn't matter if she wanted to consent or not - she can't! Whether she wanted to shouldn't really be taken into account during the trial. If they want to ban words in rape trials so much, "consent" referring to a 10-year old is an acceptable one as far as I'm concerned. 24-year olds, on the other hand, should be responsible enough to check on the age of their sex partners.

The way she was dressed is even more irrelevant. It's like they're trying to combine the "provocative dress equals consent" fallacy with the "her consent is meaningful" fallacy. "Provocatively" is another word I wouldn't mind being banned from rape trials.

this amazes me.

and NOT in a good way. ugh. i feel sick.

Did either of these men ever look at the child's FACE?!? We keep hearing about these 10 year olds dressing provocatively, and I know when my sister was 10 she would wear two piece bathing suits which can be termed "provocative" but if you looked at her FACE it looked 10. Even if you put make up on a 10 year old, she looks like a child, I've never met one that looked a day older than 12 at most. Or, you know, talk to them. They sound 10 too.

As for the pubic hair comment, don't you know all the teens today totally shave or wax? At least, that's what porn tells me. Lack of pubic hair probably doesn't mean anything to these men if they're sick enough to convince themselves that a 10 year old looks 16.

Jesus, I feel sick. I'm not much older than that,and I don't know what would be deemed 'provocative'. It doesn't matter, but for these people, 'provocative' means 'not completely covered up'. I feel so sick. It doesn't matter how she was dressed, what matters is that she is TEN. She has the mind of a ten year old, and the emotional capacity of a ten year old is probably not ready for sex. I'm just sickened. I hope somebody has a special circle of hell for this asshole.

Oh, forgot to mention, it's summer so... I'm betting any and all summer clothing can be deemed "provocative" if it helps a laywer make his case. Shorts and tee shirts you know, VERY provocative stuff there.

I hate everything.

Odd that the fact that she was probably only about four feet tall didn't seem to clue anyone, just what she was wearing.
This kind of argument always reminds me of a documentary I saw back in the eighties, where several convicted paedophiles explained all about how the three year old was coming on to them and seducing them.

Sigh. I posted about this on my blog and just got the most repulsive comment about how she "wanted" it. Everything about this is disgusting.

The more you break it down, the more it breaks your heart, and burns your conscience.

The judge seemed to get his rationalizations confused. So I am walking through this one really slowly, to make sure I don't make a mistake. Cause I am a little slow and all.

On the one hand, if he is saying that "she wanted it" i.e. she was a willing participant, there are two issues. One, it's legally irrelevant if somehow true, that's why the goddamn law was written. Second, not to make assumptions, but is it even conceivable that a 4th-grade girl could be characterized this way? In what universe? If I am wrong about the sexual maturation of 10-year girls please correct me.

On the other hand, if the judge is saying that she may not have been willing but she had it coming anyway because she wore some clothing, the judge should be jailed and penetrated within 45 minutes of making the acquaintance of Hank the Hairy Highlander, under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, which translates as somewhere between "don't start none won't be none" and "the he-bitch must have asked for the jolly roger."

Britans need to push for their own version of Jessica's Law. It's obvious that judges can't be trusted to look out for the interest of the law abiding citizens and especially the children. Mandatory minimum sentences for child predators.

Also, the states in the US that don't have Jessica's Law or a version of it should get it passed. Now.

I find it depressing that half the people here are just reacting emotionally without looking at the facts. Sure (1) it is hard to see how the guy could have misjudged her age so badly, (2) it is an absolute offence if she is under 16. But it was consensual. She was a willing participant. Why all this ranting about rape and kidnap?

jscholes, by saying the sex is consensual, it implies that a 10 year old is psychologically and physically able to consent to sexual intercourse at all. Do you know any 10 year olds who you would trust to consent to sex? Because I don't. At 10, this girl is a CHILD and is unable to make decisions in her own best interest. That's why it's illegal to have sex with her at all, she's unable to consent becuase of her age.

As an example: My sister is 11. When she was 10, if we had left the decision up to her, she would be eating nothing but chicken nuggets, bread, and candy, mostly chocolate and drinking only soda. She's a very bright little girl, and knows about fruits, vegetables, and juice, but given the choice, she probably wouldn't eat them. That's why the decision ISN'T up to her, or any 10 year old, to make those kinds of decisions. They can't. Period.

If you think a 10 year old is able to consent to sex (even a "mature" ten year old) I'd suggest you spend some time with 10 year olds. They watch cartoons, they eat neon colored sugary cereal, and if this child was somehow able to process and accept a request for sex, it means that someone in her life has already failed her horribly.

If you think a 10 year old is able to consent to sex (even a "mature" ten year old) I'd suggest you spend some time with 10 year olds.

I'd suggest exactly the opposite.

I find it depressing that half the people here are just reacting emotionally without looking at the facts. Sure (1) it is hard to see how the guy could have misjudged her age so badly, (2) it is an absolute offence if she is under 16. But it was consensual. She was a willing participant. Why all this ranting about rape and kidnap?

I find it depressing that anyone on here isn't upset or outraged by this after looking at the facts. Precisely because (1)it is hard to see how the guy could have misjudged her age so badly, (2)it is an absolute offence if she is under 16. And it can not have been consensual. She is a child. He is an adult. It doesn't matter if she threw herself at him, because it's his fucking responsibility to act like an adult and not take advantage of a child. Thus, all this ranting about rape and kidnap. You know...
Because.
She.
Is.
A.
Child.

justicewalks, I tend to agree with you, actually. And roymacIII, EXACTLY.

genny, and everyone else on that wavelength: yes. it's just so wrong in so many ways, and seems to imply that rape is pretty much not against the law anymore - which would make me scared to go outside if I let it. Just to clear up one point though: the reason they say they thought she was 16 is that 16 is the age of consent here in the UK.

What is it with these fools who don't understand the concepts of statutory rape and age of consent? Don't they realize that they're defending men who rape children? She cannot consent. It doesn't matter how she looked or how she was dressed. Her consent is meaningless. Because she is ten. I know it seems cruel and unusual to expect a 24-year-old man to behave more like an adult than a 10-year-old girl, but that is simply the way it is.

That should read: "I know it's cruel and unusual to expect a 24-year-old man to behave like an adult, but nonetheless I do."

And now I want to revise my earlier statement. The worst part is that once again we're having to explain to someone that' it is wrong to rape a child.

Can we just refer all trolls to the previous thread?

Amazingly, my comment on the previous thread applies here, too, which is pretty horrifying when you consider the subject matter.

Ugh. Stop the world, I wanna get off.

As a British person, of course I was disgusted to hear that this has happened in my country. There has been public outrage regarding the judges decision and ruling, and I doubt it will stand. The MP quoted in the article is someone of quite considerable influence, so hopefully these bastards will get put away for what they have done. I just wanted to respond to Dave's comment that we need to push for an equivalent of Jessica's law over here. Already being done, in response to the kidnap and murder of a young girl called Sarah Payne. However, I do not belive that if we had this law that a) this incident would not have happened or b) it would provide any further protection for children in any case. I have many reasons for this, but my main point is that Jessica's law tells us about people who have been caught. Thats it. Both men in this case have no prior record, so would not have appeared on any register as offenders. Secondly, I don't need to know where paedophiles are. Police do. Social services do. If I knew a paedophile was in my area, knew who he was, I don't know what I'd do but I doubt it would be positive for me or my children. This is why we pay a hell of a lot of money to a hell of a lot of people to take an objective stance on issues which maybe are too personal for us to consider rationally. The fact is, as awful as it is, unless we are going to incarcerate paedophiles forever (which is one option) we have to accept that they have to live somewhere, and I would rather that professional people are keeping an eye on them than some neighbourhood vigilantes. And f the proffesionals aren't doing it right, we push and push until they do. There are no easy answers to problems such as this, but I think driving paedophiles underground through his kind of exposure will only serve to make them even more dangerous than they already are.

Are you fucking kidding me, jscholes?

Children can't consent to sex. Neither legally or morally. Sure, they can go along with it, but as ADULTS it is our responsibility to protect children and look out for their well-being, no matter what they think they want.

Just because a 10 year old wants candy for dinner every night doesn't mean she should get candy for dinner every night. She's not emotionally, physically or mentally mature enough to know what's best for her. I can't believe I actually have to explain this to you.

In relation to jscholes, can I just repeating my sputtering, choking, and gagging? This is beyond sick and twisted.

Who needs to be told that 10-year-olds can't consent to sex emotionally, psychologically, or legally? My apologies to those who've recently praised my way with words. I do believe it's been shocked out of me.

And people say the rape culture doesn't exist.

The judge was in the headlines in February when he said compensation to a child sex abuse victim could be used to buy a bicycle to cheer her up.

So if I'm reading this correctly this judge is under the impression that a bicycle will cheer up a rape victim. I don't know too many women who would be cheered up if they were given a bike as a consolation for being raped. A child on the other hand may be slightly more enthusiastic about receiving a bike.

This brings out an interesting point about the judge; he clearly acknowledges that a bike will cheer her up, her a child. So he sees her as a child in that regard but not in the sentencing of her attackers?

Isn't it enough that girls and women have to constantly be afraid of being attacked? We shouldn't have to constantly be afraid of the justice system, there supposedly for our protection.

Thank you so much for posting this Jessica. This case has barely been reported around here (I live in Oxford). I'm a member of the local rape crisis centre and we've very quickly begun mobilizing to bring attention to horrible, counter-productive, taking us 50 years back in time, decisions like this.

Link for the bicycle thing:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=433514&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490

"So if I'm reading this correctly this judge is under the impression that a bicycle will cheer up a rape victim. I don't know too many women who would be cheered up if they were given a bike as a consolation for being raped."

Perhaps if the court then permitted her to pick up the bicycle and beat the rapist to death with it, she'd be cheered up a bit.

The worst part is that once again we're having to explain to someone that' it is wrong to rape a child.

Whenever I read a thread like this, where people find themselves defending the apparently controversial notion that rape and molestation of children is a bad thing, I'm reminded of one of my favourite quotations:

By entering into the arena of argument and counterargument, of technical feasibility and tactics, of footnotes and citations, by accepting the presumption of legitimacy of debate on certain issues, one has already lost one's humanity.

By even engaging someone who thinks there's some justification or rationalisation of child rape, the proposition actually becomes debatable.

I posted this over at Cara's blog, but just thought I'd share it over here as well (esp. since Feministing is how I got over there in the first place!):

All of these people making arguments that you can’t possibly not know that a 10-year-old is not 16 — that rule does not apply one hundred percent.

Unfortunately, there *ARE* 10-year-olds who look 16. When I was 10, I had a friend named Lynn. Lynn was 11 and she looked like she was 18-20 years old. I swear to God. She used to model for women’s catalogues. Yes, at 11. She was 5′10″ and her face did not look 11 years old, with or without makeup.

Just because you’ve never known anyone who looked like an adult at an extraordinarily young age does not mean they do not exist. They do. Yes, no matter how a 10- or 11-year-old girl looks, she still has the mind of a 10- or 11-year-old girl. Yes, of course it’s still rape, and of course it’s still really, really wrong. But the situation may not be as clear-cut as you want it to be, at least not in this one respect. Until you’ve seen a picture of the girl, you really don’t know. You just don’t.

She was raped at 10, and it’s JUST as wrong as it would be if she were 30, or 90 — no more, certainly no less. Reserve your judgment for the act, not her age, because you don’t have all the facts.