Jules rape case fury

BBSA

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
30,173
Reaction score
28,726
Location
People's Republic of South Africa
The National Prosecuting Authority's decision to charge with statutory rape all three of the pupils filmed having sex at a Johannesburg high school was taken to make an "example of them", a source close to the investigation said yesterday.

The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told The Times that the decision was not in the best interests of the children, and that it had been made because of mounting public pressure and a desire to use more "forceful tactics" to deal with a "national epidemic [of underage sex]" at schools.

The 15-year-old girl, who had claimed that she had been drugged and raped by two boys, aged 14 and 16, on the sports grounds of Jules High School on November 4, appeared with the boys in the same courtroom at the Johannesburg Magistrate's Court yesterday.

The national director of public prosecutions, Menzi Simelane, authorised the prosecution of all three pupils on charges of engaging in "consensual sexual penetration" with a child [statutory rape].

In terms of the Sexual Offences Act, any person who sexually penetrates a child of 16 or younger, even with their consent, is guilty of an offence.

Sources who spoke to The Times said blood tests had confirmed that drugs had not been involved in the alleged rape.

Read more @ http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article768998.ece/Jules-rape-case-fury

I have mixed feelings on this one. I do not think they must criminalise underage sex but if the girl lied about being drugged then she should be held accountable.
 
Hasn't underage sex always been a crime? ( Statutory Rape ) ? But if she lied, then they should charge her with purgery. It can still be rape ( non consensual ) but by lying she loses credibility quickly.
 
Goddammit I read it as Jules Malema.

I agree with you on the consensual underage sex thing.
 
Hasn't underage sex always been a crime? ( Statutory Rape ) ? But if she lied, then they should charge her with purgery. It can still be rape ( non consensual ) but by lying she loses credibility quickly.

Yes, but she had sex with a 14 year old boy, the age for consent is 18 for males. So strictly speaking if she was awake and consenting she was raping him.
 
Hasn't underage sex always been a crime? ( Statutory Rape ) ? But if she lied, then they should charge her with purgery. It can still be rape ( non consensual ) but by lying she loses credibility quickly.

Yes, consensual underage sex is illegal but this will be the first time that they will prosecute it.
 
Yes, consensual underage sex is illegal but this will be the first time that they will prosecute it.

I'm familiar with someone who also was charged with statutory rape even though it was consensual. However they had a child and were married and stayed married for a long time. There was no prison time involved then as far as I know, although the state refused to give the person citizenship unless they wrote a public apology to the family. This was after being married for over 20 years btw. I think consensual stat rape requires counseling more than anything else.
 
Read more @ http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article768998.ece/Jules-rape-case-fury

I have mixed feelings on this one. I do not think they must criminalise underage sex but if the girl lied about being drugged then she should be held accountable.

Agree with you on both counts but the underage sex laws are flawed to start with.

If a thirteen year old is considered old enough in law to get an abortion without the knowledge or consent of her parents the the system should treat her as being old enough to have consensual sex.

Personally I think that thirteen is far too young.

The Nat government showed the same hypocrisy in the race classification laws with certain Asian countries being given the status of honorary whites.
 
I'm familiar with someone who also was charged with statutory rape even though it was consensual. However they had a child and were married and stayed married for a long time. There was no prison time involved then as far as I know, although the state refused to give the person citizenship unless they wrote a public apology to the family. This was after being married for over 20 years btw. I think consensual stat rape requires counseling more than anything else.

Were both of them under aged?

I agree on the counseling, clogging up the courts with children who have sex is not the way to solve the problem.
 
If the drugs were infact a lie and it was consensual then this is a very very interesting case! Who gets charged with stat rape? for example in the case of the 14yr old boy will he get charged or will she(15yr) get charged? Or does the definition not provide for a female to be charged as it speaks of "penetration"

Anyone with some proper law background want to try and comment?
 
If the drugs were infact a lie and it was consensual then this is a very very interesting case! Who gets charged with stat rape? for example in the case of the 14yr old boy will he get charged or will she(15yr) get charged? Or does the definition not provide for a female to be charged as it speaks of "penetration"

Anyone with some proper law background want to try and comment?
Well thats the point.... they are charging all of them with statutory rape now
 
Well thats the point.... they are charging all of them with statutory rape now
O sorry about that i must have misread! I have no words...
But if the definition calls for "penetration" how can a female be charged at all?
 
O sorry about that i must have misread! I have no words...
But if the definition calls for "penetration" how can a female be charged at all?

There have been cases of females raping males..
 
O sorry about that i must have misread! I have no words...
But if the definition calls for "penetration" how can a female be charged at all?

I think statutory rape is defined as "a sex act with a minor" so that you can be nailed for pretty much anything you do to a kid.

However in this situation I think logic and the law are heading in two separate directions.

I think that anyone who filmed this should be put in jail though...
 
I think statutory rape is defined as "a sex act with a minor" so that you can be nailed for pretty much anything you do to a kid.
However in this situation I think logic and the law are heading in two separate directions.
I think that anyone who filmed this should be put in jail though...
Yes that makes more sense...
 
charge the lot of them... then kids might think a little more before having sex... just like drinking, they drink lock them up. they drive lock them up... throw away the key for everyone and cancel tv and movies... and burn the raunchy books...
 
Any convictions? How can you convict someone of a crime if the definition of the crime doesn't fit the case?

I can find cases in the states, but not in SA...will keep looking..
 
I find it disturbing in a way that it has to be public pressure that forces the NPA to actually follow the law and prosecute these children....
 
I can find cases in the states, but not in SA...will keep looking..

I know two cases but both were dropped.

1: My English teacher was a lawyer and he had a 17 year old male client that was caught by his girfriend's father having sex with the (17 year old) girlfriend. The father chased him home naked and then pressed charges of statutory rape. The boys parents then laid charges of rape on the girl.... the law actually favors the boy in this case.

2: A friend of mine (girl aged 14) was caught having sex with a prefect in a classroom. They were both kicked out the school and the prefect lost all his "honors", his parents wanted to sue my friend for luring him in to having sex.... she then pressed charges of statutory rape.

The second one is not strictly rape but I mean WTF... how does a 14 year old girl lure you in to having sex.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X