More to show how pathetic the justice system is

[blazey]

Originally Posted by ***Mr D***

Exactly.



Rape is Rape. Consensual sex is not rape.

Underage sex (As in the first thred) is totally wrong, when there is a 10 year old girl and two adult males, one 24 and the other 34, the later having sex within 45 mins of meeting her. My word he did his homework didnt he made sure that she was of consentual age or just wanted in because his mate told him how gullable she was.

Surely they knew the truth.



Mistake, I still cant beliveve it.

Happen they should send her out let see how many places would of sold her a lottery ticked/Scratch card or even sold her cigaretts.

Mistake doesnt require the mistake to be reasonable. I don't know if they'd accept the defence of mistake in this case. I know there is a case i've studied along the same lines but I cant remember what the decision was. It was likely very similar though. If you search for the name of the defendant on the times law pages you may be able to find it out and see the ratio decidendi for the case officially, then u can know the exact reason for the 'slack' decision.

I have revision to do right now but I might have a search later if i remember

[garinda]

No matter what she was wearing, or how developed she was, a ten year old child's body cannot be confused with that of someone who is sixteen, or over.

Simple.

The judge should be locked up, along with this child's 'care' workers.

[blazey]

Originally Posted by garinda

No matter what she was wearing, or how developed she was, a ten year old child's body cannot be confused with that of someone who is sixteen, or over.

Simple.

The judge should be locked up, along with this child's 'care' workers.

The judge has to follow guidelines that are set, he doesn't just make it all up himself.

Chances are he was a very conservative judge though, whom generally dislike making amendments to law and prefer to leave it to parliament to fix.

Its the governments fault that bad decisions are made. If their was no such thing as the parliament act 1911 chances are mistakes like that wouldnt be made, as gaps in the law would be filled before theyre past. Unfortunatly the goverment would rather rush bills through the system now rather than ensure theyre fool-proof.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by blazey

Chances are he was a very conservative judge

As opposed to those young, trendy, liberal judges, who have actually heard of The Beatles?

[Tin Monkey]

Even the prosecution agreed that she looked 16, so she must have been convincing.

I don't think any of us are in a position to make a judgment in this case, as we don't have the correct level of information. It's easy to talk about soft judges and ineffective sentencing, but without the facts it counts for nothing.

Virtually everyone is saying that there is alot more to this story than we are hearing about. Who's to say that the judge made a bad decision? We, as a society, allow these individuals to make the decisions for us. Sometimes they are tough decisions to make, especially when they have to be made within some very stringent guidlines.

[blazey]

Originally Posted by garinda

As opposed to those young, trendy, liberal judges, who have actually heard of The Beatles?

the opposite are actually liberal judges but they arent young unfortunatly.

[panther]

im sorry but how can a 10 year old look like a sixteen year old?

this is baffling me!

[davo69]

i cant beleive any 10 year old girl could make me think she was sixteen not in looks or her mannerisms

[blazey]

I think its hard to understand how a ten yr old could look like a 16yr old but i'm sure a full jury and judge aren't stupid. Obviously they had some doubt over how reasonable the mistake was otherwise they could've easily given an even lighter sentence.

There were girs when I started high school that had decently developed breasts and with the right type of clothes and makeup, could've passed as alot older. Some girls hit puberty at 9 and if they developed at quite a speed, I dont see why they couldn't have had some formation that may have made them look like a petite adult rather than a child.

[panther]

Originally Posted by blazey

I think its hard to understand how a ten yr old could look like a 16yr old but i'm sure a full jury and judge aren't stupid. Obviously they had some doubt over how reasonable the mistake was otherwise they could've easily given an even lighter sentence.

There were girs when I started high school that had decently developed breasts and with the right type of clothes and makeup, could've passed as alot older. Some girls hit puberty at 9 and if they developed at quite a speed, I dont see why they couldn't have had some formation that may have made them look like a petite adult rather than a child.

you only have to look at a 10 year old to know shes not 16!!
its a big difference, no 10 year old, no matter how much makeup they put on..etc will not pass for 16, for one they are too inmature to even act like one

[blazey]

Originally Posted by panther

you only have to look at a 10 year old to know shes not 16!!
its a big difference, no 10 year old, no matter how much makeup they put on..etc will not pass for 16, for one they are too inmature to even act like one

This isn't the first case where this type of situation has happened. A ten year old can be very mature aswell dependant on their pasts and upbringing.

One day you'll likely have to be on a jury and you might have to make a tough decision. If you see its an obvious mistake do you make sure justice is served or do you make sure he's sent down with those who have intentionally committed sex offences?

16yr olds can be very immature aswell not just 10yr olds, and in some cases their can be very little difference dependant on upbringing.
Theres a 21yr old lad in my history class that thinks its still funny to shout 'eggs' every lesson. I would class that behaviour of a ten yr old, so if it can work one way im sure it can work the other.

[Tombraider]

But wont a 10 year old still have the little girlish voice

[panther]

exactly, plus a baby face!

[***Mr D***]

Totally agree, they knew she wasnt 16, not likey they are going to admit that though are they.

10 Years old, still at primary School, Im dam sure I would not mistake ANY Primary School Child as possibly being 16.

They two men in question are old enough to know better, they should of had doubts even if they thought she was 16, it obvious that they where not bothered and only after sex, the older of the two had sex within 45 minutes of meeting the girl.

[blazey]

Many men and women go out for the sole intention of 'pulling'.

I don't think was a very serious case compared to many and whilst its easy enough to just make your own assumptions, you aren't meant to make assumptions in the court room like that, your meant to make decisions based on fact.

Judges have a very difficult job and they can't please everyone. There are worse decisions than this one.