• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Sex predator found not guilty

Wait, wait... how does "I thought he was 16" make it any better for a 32 year old? I'm pretty sure it's still WAY outside the range of any "Romeo And Juliet" provisions in any western country.
 
The judge/jury seems to have decided she was not guilty of the crime she admitted to, primarily 'knowingly' hooking up with an underage.
 
HansMustermann said:
Wait, wait... how does "I thought he was 16" make it any better for a 32 year old? I'm pretty sure it's still WAY outside the range of any "Romeo And Juliet" provisions in any western country.
Click to expand...

If he was over AOC, Romeo and Juliet doesn't apply. That only kicks in for say a 15 and 17 yr old. Reprehensible as the 30 something sniffing on an obvious schoolboy is anyway.
 
Thermal said:
If he was over AOC, Romeo and Juliet doesn't apply. That only kicks in for say a 15 and 17 yr old. Reprehensible as the 30 something sniffing on an obvious schoolboy is anyway.
Click to expand...

Hence my saying it's way outside any such provisions. So I'm still at a loss as to exactly why that was not statutory rape.
 
HansMustermann said:
Hence my saying it's way outside any such provisions. So I'm still at a loss as to exactly why that was not statutory rape.
Click to expand...

Because the age of consent is 16 unlike in germany where the sex with the 14 year old would be legal

See german law.

"The age of consent in Germany is 14, as long as a person over the age of 21 does not exploit a 14- to 15-year-old person's lack of capacity for sexual self-determination, in which case a conviction of an individual over the age of 21 requires a complaint from the younger individual; being over 21 and engaging in sexual relations with a minor of that age does not constitute an offense by itself. Otherwise the age of consent is 16, although provisions protecting minors against abuse apply until the age of 18 (under Section 182(1): it is illegal to engage in sexual activity with a person under 18 "by taking advantage of an exploitative situation"[34]).

This is specified by Sections 176 (Sexual abuse of children) and 182 (Sexual abuse of youths) of the Penal Code, which read:

§ 176: "(1) Whoever commits sexual acts on a person under fourteen (14) years of age (a child) or allows them to be committed on themself by the child, shall be punished by imprisonment from six months to ten years [...]"

§ 180: "(1) Whoever abets the commission of sexual acts of a person under sixteen years of age on or in front of a third person or sexual acts of a third person on a person under sixteen years of age":

by acting as an intermediary; or
by furnishing or creating an opportunity,
shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine. [...]"

§ 182: "(2) A person over twenty-one years of age who abuses a person under sixteen years of age, in that he: 1. commits sexual acts on the person or allows them to be committed on himself by the person; or 2. induces the person to commit sexual acts on a third person or to allow them to be committed on the person by a third person, and thereby exploits the victim's lack of capacity for sexual self-determination, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine. [...] The act shall only be prosecuted upon complaint, unless the prosecuting authority considers ex officio that it is required to enter the case because of the special public interest therein. [...] The court may dispense with punishment pursuant to these provisions if, in consideration of the conduct of the person against whom the act was directed, the wrongfulness of the act is slight."[35]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#Germany
 
HansMustermann said:
Hence my saying it's way outside any such provisions. So I'm still at a loss as to exactly why that was not statutory rape.
Click to expand...

Yeah, AOC is weird. It allows adult sex with a minor, as obviously 'statutory rapey' as that seems right off the bat.

I'd personally like to see AOC at 16, but over 21 can't get busy with under 18.
 
Darat said:
32 year old cleared after admitting initiated sex with 14 year old.

The Sun: Woman, 32, weeps uncontrollably as she’s CLEARED of having sex with a boy, 14.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13372603/woman-cleared-sex-with-teen-boy-14/

I'm hoping to find a better source as I just cannot understand this verdict, especially giving she admitted to enticement.
Click to expand...

What are the actual terms of the law? She claims she didn't know he was under 16. In the U.S. that wouldn't usually be a defense. Is it in the UK?
 
Sorry, but I find it damn hard to see the 14-year old boy as a victim in this. I wouldn't be happy if I were his father, but I doubt I'd want the woman locked up for this either. I don't consider this a crime.

Yeah, yeah, I'm a dinosaur not in tune with modern "enlightened" thought that would lock up a 32-year old woman for having sex with a 14 year-old boy and ruin her life. Sorry, but I don't think criminal charges are the way to deal with this.

I'm not interested enough to look up the details. If she was his teacher, fire her. That ought to be more than enough.
 
Bob001 said:
What are the actual terms of the law? She claims she didn't know he was under 16. In the U.S. that wouldn't usually be a defense. Is it in the UK?
Click to expand...

"Section 9: Sexual activity with a child,

"(1)A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if— (a)he intentionally touches another person (B), (b)the touching is sexual, and (c)either— (i)B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or (ii)B is under 13."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#England_and_Wales

So yes over 13 and reasonably believing over 16 is legal hence the decision in this case. Reasonable belief is not always a defense but it isn't one I object too.
 
Perp: "He told me he was over 16."

Victim: "What? No, I never said that..."

Jury: "Clearly he is lying because kids always wish they were older"

???
 
Bob001 said:
What are the actual terms of the law? She claims she didn't know he was under 16. In the U.S. that wouldn't usually be a defense. Is it in the UK?
Click to expand...

The law refers to 'knowingly' dropping your mojo on a kid. This kid had his Facebook age indicated as 16 going on 17, and she evidently believed his representation. So it was not 'knowingly' from her POV.

Eta: although I'm not clear on how she vetted his Facebook page during their whirlwind courtship
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
"Section 9: Sexual activity with a child,

"(1)A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if— (a)he intentionally touches another person (B), (b)the touching is sexual, and (c)either— (i)B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or (ii)B is under 13."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#England_and_Wales

So yes over 13 and reasonably believing over 16 is legal hence the decision in this case. Reasonable belief is not always a defense but it isn't one I object too.
Click to expand...
It seems it was reasonable to believe he was over 16 because his Facebook profile, which she hadn't seen, had a made up birthday to enable him to get sn account.

I am now off to wash. Can't believe I read The Sun, even a virtual copy. Darat, you should be ashamed bringing such muck in here.
 
Checkmite said:
Perp: "He told me he was over 16."

Victim: "What? No, I never said that..."

Jury: "Clearly he is lying because kids always wish they were older"

???
Click to expand...

That's apparently not the testimony in this particular case.


But:
The verdict came after the court heard the boy had given a false date of birth on his Facebook profile.

A screenshot was showed of the teen's profile, with his date of birth set as 2000 - making him appear much older than his actual age.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the jury went with reasonable doubt.
 
Thermal said:
If he was over AOC, Romeo and Juliet doesn't apply. That only kicks in for say a 15 and 17 yr old. Reprehensible as the 30 something sniffing on an obvious schoolboy is anyway.
Click to expand...

It took me a moment. I usually see AOC as a different set of initials, but also involving someone younger than usual for a particular activity. It took me a bit to parse what you meant.


As for this case, I would just wonder about UK law. Is "I didn't know she was 14" a legitimate defense? Is it only a crime to have sex with an underage person if you know that they are underage? I assume it is symmetrical for boys and girls, i.e. the age of consent is the same, and the penalties are the same.

If "knowingly" is part of the crime definition, and if age misrepresentation makes it not a crime, then I don't see the problem. The boy misrepresented his age elsewhere. The jury must have believed that he misrepresented his age in this case as well.

As for the morality of the situation, well, we seem to have decided, collectively that as long as there is consent, anything goes. A minor isn't allowed to give consent, but that's where the question of law comes in. Is it not a crime if you believe the person to be old enough to consent? I doubt that the kid will be traumatized for life by the experience.

ETA: I just saw PT's post. Apparently, the "reasonably believed" is part of the law. The jury decided her belief was reasonable. Not guilty. Call the next defendant.
 
Last edited:
Ron Obvious said:
Sorry, but I find it damn hard to see the 14-year old boy as a victim in this. I wouldn't be happy if I were his father, but I doubt I'd want the woman locked up for this either. I don't consider this a crime.

Yeah, yeah, I'm a dinosaur not in tune with modern "enlightened" thought that would lock up a 32-year old woman for having sex with a 14 year-old boy and ruin her life. Sorry, but I don't think criminal charges are the way to deal with this.
....
Click to expand...


Why? Is this the "little boy got lucky" defense? Suppose it was an adult man and a 14-year-old girl? Or the 14-year-old boy and an adult man? Would they be okay, too? Do you think a boy couldn't be intimidated or coerced or just confused by a predatory woman? Her defense is that she didn't know he was 14, and that may be why she wasn't convicted. But taking advantage of a child sure as hell should be treated as a crime, at least in most peoples' minds.
 
Bob001 said:
Why? Is this the "little boy got lucky" defense? Suppose it was an adult man and a 14-year-old girl? Or the 14-year-old boy and an adult man? Would they be okay, too? Do you think a boy couldn't be intimidated or coerced or just confused by a predatory woman? Her defense is that she didn't know he was 14, and that may be why she wasn't convicted. But taking advantage of a child sure as hell should be treated as a crime, at least in most peoples' minds.
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, we're supposed to all pretend that it's exactly the same as a 32-year old man and a 14 year old girl.

In the real world, it just isn't. I hope most adults know that and that nobody is served by her locking her up and ruining her life. That's just the old morality puritan police in new, more politically-correct jackboots.
 
Meadmaker said:
It took me a moment. I usually see AOC as a different set of initials, but also involving someone younger than usual for a particular activity. It took me a bit to parse what you meant.
Click to expand...

If he was over that AOC, it would be the similar crime. Except the GOP would spontaneously combust
 
Ron Obvious said:
Yeah, yeah, we're supposed to all pretend that it's exactly the same as a 32-year old man and a 14 year old girl.

In the real world, it just isn't. I hope most adults know that and that nobody is served by her locking her up and ruining her life. That's just the old morality puritan police in new, more politically-correct jackboots.
Click to expand...

It might not be exactly the same. But it's certainly the old prejudice to imagine that an adult woman can't abuse or take advantage of a young boy. If you don't know enough about psychology to understand that, then I'm not the person to explain it to you.
 
Meadmaker said:
It took me a moment. I usually see AOC as a different set of initials, but also involving someone younger than usual for a particular activity. It took me a bit to parse what you meant.


As for this case, I would just wonder about UK law. Is "I didn't know she was 14" a legitimate defense? Is it only a crime to have sex with an underage person if you know that they are underage? I assume it is symmetrical for boys and girls, i.e. the age of consent is the same, and the penalties are the same.

If "knowingly" is part of the crime definition, and if age misrepresentation makes it not a crime, then I don't see the problem. The boy misrepresented his age elsewhere. The jury must have believed that he misrepresented his age in this case as well.

As for the morality of the situation, well, we seem to have decided, collectively that as long as there is consent, anything goes. A minor isn't allowed to give consent, but that's where the question of law comes in. Is it not a crime if you believe the person to be old enough to consent? I doubt that the kid will be traumatized for life by the experience.

ETA: I just saw PT's post. Apparently, the "reasonably believed" is part of the law. The jury decided her belief was reasonable. Not guilty. Call the next defendant.
Click to expand...

Yes and reasonable belief does not hold for 13 or younger.
 
All of which amounts to: if you have to cross your fingers and hope that what you are doing isn't child rape, maybe you shouldn't be doing it at all.
 
Ron Obvious said:
Yeah, yeah, we're supposed to all pretend that it's exactly the same as a 32-year old man and a 14 year old girl.



In the real world, it just isn't. I hope most adults know that and that nobody is served by her locking her up and ruining her life. That's just the old morality puritan police in new, more politically-correct jackboots.
Click to expand...

Almost certainly he will have incredible difficulty forming healthy romantic relationships.

Her selfish behavior will result in his ongoing struggles.

So she deserves to be criminally punished.

But thanks for riding in on your white stallion to protect the woman from all of us "ruining her life."
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Almost certainly he will have incredible difficulty forming healthy romantic relationships.
Click to expand...

Really? Is there scientific evidence to support this? Is this true for casual sex among 14 year old boys, or just specifically for people whose first partners were much older?

ETA: Those are meant as serious questions, by the way. I just am not aware of any data to support it, not that I have looked for such data. Intuitively, though, it doesn't seem to me like it would cause a problem, at least no more so than any other casual sexual experience.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
That's apparently not the testimony in this particular case.


But:


Sounds like the jury went with reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

Uhhh....she never claimed to have seen his Facebook profile, so it should've been irrelevant. And he gave a perfectly cromulent explanation for that, being that he made the profile when he was under 13 and Facebook requires users to be 13 or older.

The notion that a kid fudging his date of birth in order to create an account on a website creates "reasonable doubt" as to whether he is telling the truth when he says under oath he didn't tell a neighbor face-to-face that he was over 16 is absurd on its face, quite frankly.
 
Ron Obvious said:
I sincerely doubt it.
Click to expand...

I think all guys like to think we would have willingly tapped that, or virtually anything that moved/ didn't resist when we were that age. But it comes down to maturity and the individual. Societally, we need to put some lines down so that we do not have to run every case through the mill trying to determine if a kid was abused or was ready.

I mean, is keeping adults out of children's pants really such a high moral bar?
 
HansMustermann said:
Wait, wait... how does "I thought he was 16" make it any better for a 32 year old? I'm pretty sure it's still WAY outside the range of any "Romeo And Juliet" provisions in any western country.
Click to expand...

There are European countries where 32 year olds can legally have sex with 14 year olds.
 
Checkmite said:
Uhhh....she never claimed to have seen his Facebook profile, so it should've been irrelevant. And he gave a perfectly cromulent explanation for that, being that he made the profile when he was under 13 and Facebook requires users to be 13 or older.

The notion that a kid fudging his date of birth in order to create an account on a website creates "reasonable doubt" as to whether he is telling the truth when he says under oath he didn't tell a neighbor face-to-face that he was over 16 is absurd on its face, quite frankly.
Click to expand...


As I understand it, the issue isn't whether he told her he was over 16. The issue is whether he told her -- or she should otherwise have known -- that he was under 16. There doesn't seem to be any testimony that he said "Hey, I'm under age, hands off!" The Facebook thing is irrelevant except as evidence that he is willing to lie about his age when it suits him. She said he looked older and the jury believed her.
 
Last edited:
I hate when crap like this happens, because it really does give the angry-type MRAs legitimate ammo. A lot of judges and juries go easier on women in these situations, and I wish they wouldn't. "She misrepresented her age!" never saves the men caught with their hands in similar cookie jars, so it shouldn't save this lady either. Men have gone to jail for schtupping women they met in bars who had fake IDs. Maybe their lawyers sucked or something, but still.

I think it comes down to a difference in the way the sex act is viewed on a gut level. A penis penetrates someone, so it seems more forceful somehow, more "damaging." Also, men are stereotyped as always being hungry for sex, so many people may find it harder to see them as victims, even when they are literally children. It's gross, and it's one of my all-time bugaboos. The boy's age is what matters here, not his sex. The lady, the adult in the situation, is a sick **** (lack of penis notwithstanding). That's what matters.

I hope there is some hidden mitigating factor of which we're just not aware yet. Because otherwise, this is just more bull **** sexism, and haven't we all had enough of that.
 
Thermal said:
All of which amounts to: if you have to cross your fingers and hope that what you are doing isn't child rape, maybe you shouldn't be doing it at all.
Click to expand...

That tends to be where the law draws the line between a non-criminal accident and a reckless crime.
 
Checkmite said:
The burden isn't on the victim to volunteer the fact that they are underage.
Click to expand...

Apparently, in the UK, unlike most of the U.S., it is a legitimate defense for the defendant to claim she didn't know he was under age.
 
Thermal said:
There are other countries that you can stone homosexuals to death, too. Laws can be abhorrently wrong.
Click to expand...

Meh. If they are old enough to be held legally responsible for any criminal acts they may commit I don't see why it's such big leap to deem them old enough to take responsibility for their own sexual autonomy and decisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom