Planetarion Forums - 15 year old prosecuted for rape, 11 yr old enjoying pregnancy

milo · 12 May 2006, 13:46

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/4764417.stm

I mean seriously, what the **** is that prosecution going to achieve? If an 11 yr old can have unprotected sex whilst on a night out* and not cry rape why bother ruining the life of a 15yr old boy? I feel desperately sorry for the poor boy.

*I wasn't allowed nights out with my friends till i 17ish

Dante Hicks · 12 May 2006, 13:55

He broke the law, therefore there must be vengenace. His suffering nourishes us all.

acropolis · 12 May 2006, 14:04

i hope the constant manrapings over the next few years show him the error of his ways. and that he then kills himself.

who knows; with a kid like that next thing he probably would have tried weed.

Proteus · 12 May 2006, 14:23

Why has she not been prosecuted too?

She had sex with a fifteen year old boy, and that's illegal as far as I'm aware...

JonnyBGood · 12 May 2006, 14:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Proteus

Why has she not been prosecuted too?

She had sex with a fifteen year old boy, and that's illegal as far as I'm aware...

No penis, remember?

Proteus · 12 May 2006, 14:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

No penis, remember?

She can't be prosecuted for rape, obviously, but there are plenty of other offences that don't require the person committing them to be male.

(I don't see any reason why she's not guilty of sexual activity with a child, ss9 and 13 of the SOA, for instance.)

Androme · 12 May 2006, 14:39

It's for this reason that anyone I have sex with could become pregnant and keep the baby that I have taken up celibacy as of 1 month ago.

Demon Dave · 12 May 2006, 14:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Androme2

It's for this reason that anyone I have sex with could become pregnant and keep the baby that I have taken up celibacy as of 1 month ago.

You could, y'know, use a condom

JonnyBGood · 12 May 2006, 14:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Proteus

She can't be prosecuted for rape, obviously, but there are plenty of other offences that don't require the person committing them to be male.

(I don't see any reason why she's not guilty of sexual activity with a child, ss9 and 13 of the SOA, for instance.)

Yeah but if you read ss10 and 15 of the SOB closely you see that I haven't a bog arsed clue what you're talking about so ****ing paste it for ****s sake.

JonnyBGood · 12 May 2006, 14:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Easy there tiger.

Actually I'm not angry I just couldn't figure out a why to finish that sentence without cursing

Proteus · 12 May 2006, 14:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Yeah but if you read ss10 and 15 of the SOB closely you see that I haven't a bog arsed clue what you're talking about so ****ing paste it for ****s sake.

I linked to it in the other sex-related thread, but here it is again.

meglamaniac · 12 May 2006, 15:03

How many times does have to be pointed out: equal rights doesn't apply to men.

acropolis · 12 May 2006, 15:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Proteus

(I don't see any reason why she's not guilty of sexual activity with a child, ss9 and 13 of the SOA, for instance.)

true, but she could argue that she "reasonably believed him to be 16 or over"

meglamaniac · 12 May 2006, 15:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by horn

is she actually saying he raped her?

She doesn't have to, it's legally defined as rape at that age.

Dante Hicks · 12 May 2006, 15:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

How many times does have to be pointed out: equal rights doesn't apply to men.

Maybe, but I think there's probably some difference between an 11 year old and a 15 year old.

Proteus · 12 May 2006, 15:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by acropolis

true, but she could argue that she "reasonably believed him to be 16 or over"

It was in August last year, so there's a good chance he was actually 14 at the time. And though it's easy for 14-year-old girls to look like they're 21 it's rather harder for 14- and 15-year-old boys to look 16.

Oh, and it has to be "reasonable" belief, as you say, so they'd have to ask questions like "Did you ask him how old he was?" and "Did you not think it slightly odd that you thought he was significantly older than all the other friends you were going out with?". (It's also quite likely they went to the same school, so if she knew which year he was in she's screwed (see, I can do puns in bad taste too).)

Demon Dave · 12 May 2006, 15:26

Does the SOA act deliberatly use the term "he" to mean "only a male", or does it mean "he or she"?

Marilyn Manson · 12 May 2006, 15:41

Chavs eh?

acropolis · 12 May 2006, 15:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demon Dave

Does the SOA act deliberatly use the term "he" to mean "only a male", or does it mean "he or she"?

there is no use of 'she' in the document. even when they use a pronoun to refer to the victim, they use he.

i'd assume it means 'he or she'

MrL_JaKiri · 12 May 2006, 16:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demon Dave

Does the SOA act deliberatly use the term "he" to mean "only a male", or does it mean "he or she"?

"He" is the standard pronoun for an unknown gender in english. It's a whole 50% shorter than the frankly unwieldy "they".

Demon Dave · 12 May 2006, 17:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

"He" is the standard pronoun for an unknown gender in english. It's a whole 50% shorter than the frankly unwieldy "they".

Thank you, I thought (hoped) that would be the case

Proteus · 12 May 2006, 17:13

s6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 provides that "in any Act, unless the contrary intention appears, words importing the masculine gender include the feminine; words importing the feminine gender include the masculine; words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular."

(Plus if it had meant to exclude women it would obviously have started "a man" rather than "a person".)

Cannon_Fodder · 12 May 2006, 17:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Yeah but if you read ss10 and 15 of the SOB closely you see that I haven't a bog arsed clue what you're talking about so ****ing paste it for ****s sake.

You made me giggle like a school girl.

That's possibly the wrong thing to say on the wrong thread though.

roadrunner_0 · 12 May 2006, 17:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Chavs eh?

Kurashima · 12 May 2006, 18:16

Oh i think it can get even worse

NEWSBOT3 · 12 May 2006, 18:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurashima

Oh i think it can get even worse

girl victim, aged 3

Proteus · 12 May 2006, 18:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurashima

Oh i think it can get even worse

I would like to nominate this for best line in a newspaper report ever:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Daily Record

The accused boy still visits his 53-year-old sex-beast father.

roadrunner_0 · 12 May 2006, 18:46

whoever wrote that has a big future in the tabloids! in fact, he is probably being headhunter as we speak

Demon Dave · 12 May 2006, 18:47

That site looked fairly tabloid-ish to me

acropolis · 12 May 2006, 18:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurashima

Oh i think it can get even worse

"That bitch said she was 16!!"

MrL_JaKiri · 12 May 2006, 18:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

whoever wrote that has a big future in the tabloids! in fact, he is probably being headhunter as we speak

It's the Daily Record. It's already a tabloid.

Nodrog · 12 May 2006, 18:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurashima

Oh i think it can get even worse

The most annoying thing about that report is that it doesnt give you the specfic facts about the case which would make a rational evaluation possible. For instance, it would be quite different if the boy actually violently raped her, than it would be if he was just touching her in a "but I didnt know there was anything wrong with this because I'm only 9 and havent yet learned how society views sexual behavior" way. Most tabloid articles are bad because they are clouded by an arrational interpretation of the facts, but this one is worse becuase it doesnt even mention the facts themselves. Its a horrible, horrible piece of journalism which is designed to hit people on the emotional level, while denying them the opportunity of moving beyond this.

Ste · 12 May 2006, 19:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by acropolis

"That bitch said she was 16!!"

she was dressed provocatively

Paisley · 12 May 2006, 19:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by milo

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/4764417.stm

I mean seriously, what the **** is that prosecution going to achieve? If an 11 yr old can have unprotected sex whilst on a night out* and not cry rape why bother ruining the life of a 15yr old boy? I feel desperately sorry for the poor boy.

*I wasn't allowed nights out with my friends till i 17ish

Hows the CSA gonna get money out of a school boy?

Should be interesting

Yahwe · 12 May 2006, 19:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Yeah but if you read ss10 and 15 of the SOB closely you see that I haven't a bog arsed clue what you're talking about so ****ing paste it for ****s sake.

http://pirate.planetarion.com/showth...ighlight=yahwe

why exactly do I bother you piss-headed potatoe eating traitor?

Kurashima · 12 May 2006, 19:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

The most annoying thing about that report is that it doesnt give you the specfic facts about the case which would make a rational evaluation possible. For instance, it would be quite different if the boy actually violently raped her, than it would be if he was just touching her in a "but I didnt know there was anything wrong with this because I'm only 9 and havent yet learned how society views sexual behavior" way. Most tabloid articles are bad because they are clouded by an arrational interpretation of the facts, but this one is worse becuase it doesnt even mention the facts themselves. Its a horrible, horrible piece of journalism which is designed to hit people on the emotional level, while denying them the opportunity of moving beyond this.

So, youre familiar then with how the Tabloids work.

Good stuff. Now, moving on .....

Paisley · 12 May 2006, 19:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

He broke the law, therefore there must be vengenace. His suffering nourishes us all.

Go to "Juve" and play with playstations and watch sky TV all day.
What a result.

........ next

Phang · 12 May 2006, 19:38

i'll let my avatar do the talking.

Marilyn Manson · 12 May 2006, 19:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paisley

Hows the CSA gonna get money out of a school boy?

Probably the same way they deal with everyone else uner the sun: ineffectually.

furball · 12 May 2006, 22:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Proteus

(I don't see any reason why she's not guilty of sexual activity with a child, ss9 and 13 of the SOA, for instance.)

You can't be a victim of a crime committed against you. I think the different grades of offence make her the victim as opposed to them being equal victims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurashima

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/news/tm_objectid=17061371%26method=full%26siteid=66633-name_page.html

This is totally ridiculous. The age of criminal responsibility in England is the age of 10, so unless the law differs in Scotland then this is totally retarded reporting.

Yahwe · 12 May 2006, 23:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

You can't be a victim of a crime committed against you.

yes you can be.

furball · 12 May 2006, 23:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

yes you can be.

Helpfully corrected. No idea where I got that from then.

JonnyBGood · 12 May 2006, 23:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

http://pirate.planetarion.com/showth...ighlight=yahwe

why exactly do I bother you piss-headed potatoe eating traitor?

I thought it was to pick up impressionable young men on the internet

PS Scotland has a criminal responsibility age of eight. Once they're that old the sex beasts get them

Proteus · 13 May 2006, 00:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

Helpfully corrected. No idea where I got that from then.

You can't be a secondary party to an offence against you (so she couldn't be convicted of aiding/abetting/counselling/procuring the rape against her if she encouraged him to do it or what not), but there's no reason why just because someone's committing an offence against you you can't also be committing a different offence against them.

(Plus you said "You can't be a victim of a crime committed against you", which doesn't make any sense - if a crime's committed against you you are by definition the victim of it. I assume you meant to say "You can't be a party to a crime committed against you".)

Proteus · 13 May 2006, 00:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

PS Scotland has a criminal responsibility age of eight.

As the article points out. (Although I suppose I can't blame anyone for not being able to read past the sex-beast line.)

Yahwe · 13 May 2006, 00:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Proteus

You can't be a secondary party to an offence against you (so she couldn't be convicted of aiding/abetting/counselling/procuring the rape against her if she encouraged him to do it or what not),

that's an interesting one.

but your argument is surely more to do with the nature of inchoate offences.

So what about this scenario:
A & B plan together to stab C. They each buy knives and wait in ambush. They spring the ambush. In the tussle A accidentally stabs B instead of C. C escapes unharmed.

Then A is guilty of GBH on B, attempted GBH on C and conspiracy to commit GBH.
But surely B (the victim) is also guilty of attempted GBH on C and conspiracy to commit GBH?

Proteus · 13 May 2006, 01:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

that's an interesting one.

but your argument is surely more to do with the nature of inchoate offences.

Well, it's not really my argument, I'm just applying Tyrrell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

So what about this scenario:
A & B plan together to stab C. They each buy knives and wait in ambush. They spring the ambush. In the tussle A accidentally stabs B instead of C. C escapes unharmed.

Then A is guilty of GBH on B, attempted GBH on C and conspiracy to commit GBH.
But surely B (the victim) is also guilty of attempted GBH on C and conspiracy to commit GBH?

Well, yes, but he's not the victim of those crimes. (And Tyrrell specifically concerned a sexual offence, so I'm not sure whether it can just be applied across the board.)

Yahwe · 13 May 2006, 01:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Proteus

Well, it's not really my argument, I'm just applying Tyrrell.

Well, yes, but he's not the victim of those crimes. (And Tyrrell specifically concerned a sexual offence, so I'm not sure whether it can just be applied across the board.)

they were just fluffing it.

let's go back to basic principles. (otherwise we'd go cross eyed with precedent)

B is certainly the victim of the GBH and yet he is guilty of attempt and conspiracy of that GBH, surely?

Cannon_Fodder · 13 May 2006, 01:38

A would be double screwed, for attempted on C, and actual on B?

Nodrog · 13 May 2006, 01:40

If a girl got an abortion illegally (is there a minimum age for these things, without parental consent?) or got a tattoo while underage or whatever, woudlnt she be complicit in a crime committed against her?

edit: similarly for a person involved in assissted suicide before the 1961 Act?