Shock as rape conviction, life term overturned!

[SoulTax]

There is no emotion here I assure you now please answer my question:
"Are you honestly attempting to argue that an 11 year old is capable of giving informed consent?"

No they are not, that is why it is considered statutory rape.

 

[JerryMungo]

/Will sleep with one eye open for the rest of the week looking out for the orange glow of the torches and chants from a rabbit mob...

Tell us more about your weakness for children. Unless you were just being emotional.

 

[porchrat]

No they are not, that is why it is considered statutory rape.

Yes thank you LOL I wasn't asking you you weren't the one making the weird comments.

Now if you could let ponder answer that would be much appreciated.

 

[Vrotappel]

I know people react with emotion when it comes to 'rape' but try and remove those emotions for a few seconds and look at the facts from a legal standpoint. This is not a solid case.

There is a difference between rape & statutory rape as well as the sentence that goes with it.

I'm not condoning the fsckers behaviour.

So if a 3 year old says yes, it's statutory rape?

 

[Fudzy]

In addition, the baby’s birth date showed that she most likely conceived during the first incident, rather than the second.

She should have lied about him being not successful the first time.

 

[sparticus]

Erm, so she just volunteered to go with again after knowing full well what happened the first time round?

I think rapist should get their just punishment but in this scenario you can't help but wonder.

She is 11 !!! Dont matter what she volunteered for !

 

[ponder]

"Are you honestly attempting to argue that an 11 year old is capable of giving informed consent?"

Legally no, that's why it's called statutory rape.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape#Rationale_of_statutory_rape_laws

Rationale of statutory rape laws

Statutory rape laws are based on the premise that until a person reaches a certain age, that individual is legally incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse. Thus, the law assumes, even if he or she willingly engages in sexual intercourse, the sex is not consensual.[8] Critics argue that an age limit cannot be used to determine the ability to consent to sex, since a young teenager might possess enough social sense to make informed and mature decisions about sex, while some adults might never develop the ability to make mature choices about sex, as even many mentally healthy individuals remain naive and easily manipulated throughout their lives.[9]

Another rationale comes from the fact that minors are generally economically, socially, and legally unequal to adults. By making it illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor, statutory rape laws aim to give the minor some protection against adults in a position of power over the youth.[2]

Another argument presented in defense of statutory rape laws relates to the difficulty in prosecuting forced rape (against a victim of any age) in the courtroom. Because forced sexual intercourse with a minor is considered to be a particularly heinous form of rape, these laws relieve the prosecution of the burden to prove lack of consent. This makes conviction more frequent in cases involving minors.[9]

She is 11 !!! Dont matter what she volunteered for !

Sorry for you but in the real world the law sees this differently, see above.

The bottom line is the lower courts erred in their judgement.

 

[ponder]

Tell us more about your weakness for children. Unless you were just being emotional.

You can attack me and insinuate horrible things but that does not change the facts of the argument wrt to statutory rape.

Implying I have a weakness for children due to me stating the differences between normal rape & statutory rape just goes to show how much you are swayed by emotion. I would actually like to tell you something else but that would definitely get me an infraction so I'll zip it.

 

[JerryMungo]

You can attack me and insinuate horrible things but that does not change the facts of the argument wrt to statutory rape.

Implying I have a weakness for children due to me stating the differences between normal rape & statutory rape just goes to show how much you are swayed by emotion. I would actually like to tell you something else but that would definitely get me an infraction so I'll zip it.

I did give you an 'out'

Unless you were just being emotional.

You chose not to take it for some reason.

And you missed my point. My comment had to do with your point (in bold) below:

Problem with people is as soon as someone screams 'rape' they get out the pitch forks, shovels & start a bonfire. What actually transpired is irrelevant to them. 11yr old & 53yr old, pregnant, case is obvious, done & dusted deal, burn him.

/Will sleep with one eye open for the rest of the week looking out for the orange glow of the torches and chants from a rabbit mob...

How else am I going to interpret your comment that you will sleep with one eye open for the rest of the week for fear of people want to 'have at' an adult man who saw fit to have sex with an 11 year old girl?

 

[zippy]

Does not matter, she was hanging out with kids older than that for starters. You do realise that there are 11yr olds out there shagging like rabbits?

you are one disgusting piece of ....

 

[ponder]

you are one disgusting piece of ....

Why?

Because I losely quoted the reasons the judge put forward for lessening the charge & sentence? Does this make the judge "one disgusting piece of ...." as well? She's female by the way, so she probably enjoys being raped following your logic.

Look at why statutory rape laws exist in the first place!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape#Rationale_of_statutory_rape_laws

Rationale of statutory rape laws

Statutory rape laws are based on the premise that until a person reaches a certain age, that individual is legally incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse. Thus, the law assumes, even if he or she willingly engages in sexual intercourse, the sex is not consensual.[8] Critics argue that an age limit cannot be used to determine the ability to consent to sex, since a young teenager might possess enough social sense to make informed and mature decisions about sex, while some adults might never develop the ability to make mature choices about sex, as even many mentally healthy individuals remain naive and easily manipulated throughout their lives.[9]

Another rationale comes from the fact that minors are generally economically, socially, and legally unequal to adults. By making it illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor, statutory rape laws aim to give the minor some protection against adults in a position of power over the youth.[2]

Another argument presented in defense of statutory rape laws relates to the difficulty in prosecuting forced rape (against a victim of any age) in the courtroom. Because forced sexual intercourse with a minor is considered to be a particularly heinous form of rape, these laws relieve the prosecution of the burden to prove lack of consent. This makes conviction more frequent in cases involving minors.[9]

 

[Fudzy]

you are one disgusting piece of ....

It's the truth though, sadly kids are getting promiscuous at a younger age, I blame Spong Bob & Teletubbies. It still doesn't excuse the dad's actions not to mention the attempted murder charges too.

 

[killadoob]

There is no emotion here I assure you now please answer my question:
"Are you honestly attempting to argue that an 11 year old is capable of giving informed consent?"

He is arguing that the girl was not raped, there is a big difference between raping someone and having sex with a willing party.

He was in the wrong to have sex with her but is it right for him to go down for rape when he never forced himself on her? There is a big difference between statutory rape and rape. Remove yourself from the emotional side and look at the facts.

 

[porchrat]

He is arguing that the girl was not raped, there is a big difference between raping someone and having sex with a willing party.

He isn't at all arguing that it isn't rape. I thought he made it clear when he called it statutory rape.

He was in the wrong to have sex with her but is it right for him to go down for rape when he never forced himself on her? There is a big difference between statutory rape and rape. Remove yourself from the emotional side and look at the facts.

Not really the difference is pretty superficial. They are both non consensual sex from a legal standpoint. That is my understanding anyway.

Again, no emotion here. Please don't try to pretend that there is.

 

[STS]

What the heck does this have to do with an adult breaking the law. The girl was not supposed to be on trial, he is. What kind of person gets involved with an 11 year old girl is what we should be asking. We're not talking about a piece of fruit that can be had just because it looks ripe. This is about breaking the law and the law setting a precedent.

i think what he is trying to say that although this is wrong, it doesn't sound like forced rape and was consentual. still wrong, but not worthy of life imprisonment.

some people have the mentality that when they see the word "rape" they get turned into frenzied monsters uncapable of any reason. women and girls have been known to lie, and even in a case like this where there was actual sex, many people lie about rape and the sex completely.

it makes no sense for him to trust him a second time and to not tell anyone after the first time

“The complainant gave very scant evidence of how she was raped the second time, relying on the detail she gave for the first incident as applying also to the second,” said Allie.

i don't know what is in it for her, but we can't bash the judge for having looked at the evidence and come to a different conclusion

 

[porchrat]

Legally no, that's why it's called statutory rape.

It seems to me as though you are trying to imply that she shares some of the blame here. Why say that but on the other hand say she cannot provide informed consent at the age of 11?

 

[STS]

You can attack me and insinuate horrible things but that does not change the facts of the argument wrt to statutory rape.

Implying I have a weakness for children due to me stating the differences between normal rape & statutory rape just goes to show how much you are swayed by emotion. I would actually like to tell you something else but that would definitely get me an infraction so I'll zip it.

ah, there is the frenzied monster i was mentioning

i work around kids and i have one of my own, and i know what they're capable of at 11. why was she hanging around people a lot older than she was? and not to defend the man but many lower educated people literally don't think about the consequences or the situation at hand.

it's still rape, just the severity has changed.

 

[STS]

oops, my opinion has changed, read the full article now, he has his own daughter and is not some uneducated twit. the fact that he tried to hurt his wife should be enough to give him life imprisonment. lock the ****er up for good

 

[ponder]

It seems to me as though you are trying to imply that she shares some of the blame here. Why say that but on the other hand say she cannot provide informed consent at the age of 11?

Because that is how our (& other coutries) laws are. It is what it is, you disagreeing with it will not change the facts.

There are many cases of girls (of all ages, 'legal' or not) having sex (without being forced) with older guys, when they get pregnant or get caught out they scream 'rape' as it now absolves them of guilt/complicity and all the blame shifts to the male and he is made out to be the monster. It's the easy way out for them & they now become victims. There are also many reported cases currently in the media about school girls shagging their teachers or sugar daddies for better marks, cell phones & nice clothes etc. They know full well what they are doing so you can't absolve them from all complicity.

Yes the males taking advantage of the situation is completely wrong and abhorrent but I don't believe they should carry 100% of the blame and the girls get off scot free. The message to them is they can carry on with their behaviour with the next dude and nothing will ever happen to them as the blame will always fall elsewhere.

Now some people will argue that she's only 11 but as we all know different people have different maturity levels hence the "She also questioned the girl’s testimony, saying it needed to be considered with due regard to her age and life experience."

If the lower court found this guy guilty on the lower charge of statutory rape and imposed the maximum sentence for crime the first time round I doubt the media would even have reported on the case and there would have been no uproar. I agree with the higher courts judgement but personally I reckon the sentence is to lenient. If it was my kid he would not even have seen the inside of a court room but that would be my emotions getting the better of me and would also be wrong.

I don't for a second think the judge reviewed the appeal over her lunch break and just made a willy nilly decision. She has way more information (& years of experience) at hand to review the case on then what you will generally find reported in the media.

 

[OzzieCapie]

The main reason the judges came down with this decision in South Africa, is because your society has not kept up with civilised standards as evidenced by the excuses given here, and therefore the judges merely reflect that.

An adult having 'consensual' sex with a 15 yo that passed herself off as an 18 yo will be regarded as stat rape.

If he 'knew' that she was 15 and even if she consented, then he would also be regarded as a paedophile. He would not only serve punishment but also be permamanemtly on the sexual offenders list even if there was no sexual penetration.


An adult who decides to have sex with an 11 yo whome he clearly knew was 11 yo and therefore could not give informed consent is a rapist.

You guys are trying to make out as if he was 'entrapped'.

Do you know why crime is high in SA? Because life is not respected and valued.