Father says his raped "sex mad" 11 year old was "fully up for the experience"

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

jungleman wrote: »

Are you saying that I misread Zeffabelli's post?

Oh you read mine easily enough, well done

jungleman

Rosemary Plain Tripod wrote: »

Oh you read mine easily enough, well done

Don't know what all the hostility is about, but whatever floats your boat.

zeffabelli wrote: »

It may be hard to translate culturally.....but I'll try....if you look at all this rape culture talk...and you look at fraternities in the US on campuses with high sports profiles, ritualised hazing, and massive peer pressure on men to be sexually active and they use sports and war metaphor like score, nailed her... etc... of course this is going to produce more pressuure to rape a woman because if you are not scoring then you are a fag... and you are emasculated by your peers.

When you have this culture that has this kind of pressure on men...that they **** anything...whenever....even Allah turns his head on a Thrusday...then that will filter into perceptions of the judiciary...men or women...that a man not wanting sex is a near impossibility or at best a mental disorder.

You know when some monster lets loose with a gun and we all label him a monster....I don't agree with that...well I do a little...he maybe a monster but we all helped to create him.

And I don't think I misread that post.

Saying that an apparent rape culture puts pressure on men to go around raping people is ridiculous. I think my translation was pretty apt.

Also, your point about me bringing in "obvious prejudices" into a conversation about a child being raped? I'd love to hear what these are.

One eyed Jack

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Of course the overall circumstances were different. Nobody said or suggested they were the same. Do you really expect someone to find a case of a male babysitter who has sex with an 11 year old, is a little slow and who used to shag the child's mother? Ffs! I wouldn't mind, but you specifically said you were not look for the exact same circumstances:

I do if they want to claim that if only the genders were reversed, as the only intrinsic element that would be the difference between the two cases, that the perpetrator would have received a much harsher sentence.

That's why I even gave them the scope to present similar cases, such as the adult being a male adult, the victim being a female child, their female parent suggesting their child is sex mad who was well up for the experience, and the judge suggesting that because of the maturity levels of both the victim and the perpetrator that the victim's maturity given their age was a mitigating factor for the perpetrator given their maturity for their age.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

You even admitted yourself that there were similarities:

No doubt you'll argue now that 'similarities' does not mean 'similar circumstances'..

Of course similarities means similar circumstances, and enough similarities between both cases would make them similar, but in the case you presented, the only similar circumstances were the age of the victim, and the immaturity of the perpetrator for their age. There were far more differences between both cases than there were similarities, and that's why overall, the two cases weren't actually similar at all, and it was easy to understand why a harsher sentence was handed down in the case you presented. That case was quite a bit more than a simple gender reversal. Let's look at the parts you didn't quote, from the same article -

A teenager who convicted of raping an 11-year-old girl was today (Monday) locked up for four years at Lincoln Crown Court.

Nathan Collis had denied a charge of rape claiming the incident, which happened in the autumn of 2011, did not happen.

But Collis, described as immature with a low IQ level, was found guilty by a jury following a trial.

Today, Judge John Pini QC, passing sentence, told him “It must have been absolutely obvious that the girl was the sort of age she was and absolutely obvious to you that she was not consenting.”

The Judge told Collis that his time in a young offenders’ institution had been reduced because Collis was himself only 15 when the offence took place and sentencing guidelines required him to give a lesser sentence than would have been imposed on an adult male for the same offence.

Collis, now 19, of Barnack Estate, Burgh le Marsh, denied a charge of rape. He also denied two charges of sexual activity with a child. He claimed the girl was lying but was found guilty by the jury of all three charges.

Andrew Howarth, prosecuting, said that Collis raped the girl and went on to commit further sexual offences against her.

The offences came to light when the girl’s mother discovered information on her daughter’s computer and contacted police.

In a victim impact statement read out in court the victim said she has self-harmed and had nightmares as a result of the offences Collis committed against her.

The girl said she has suffered panic attacks and added “It affected my schooling and my grades dropped dramatically. Before this I was an outgoing fun-loving person. I have started to have serious trust issues and I’m still very wary around people I don’t know.”

Not nearly so similar overall after all, when the only similarities are the age of the victim, and the perpetrator being described as immature.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

You say the boy wasn't even an adult. Yes, that's right, he wasn't but that's a plus for my argument, not yours for heaven sake, as you would expect a court to be more understanding of a child who rapes, than an adult that does, obviously, but the court wasn't, they jailed him for four years and even if there was an EXACT case where the sexes were the intrinsic difference, you would still most likely not take the point and respond with something along the lines of 'Ah well, sure there will always be crazy judges') or some other such nonsense.

That's the second time now you've attempted to suggest what I would likely say, and for the second time, you're wrong. I wouldn't expect anything of anyone until they had considered all the facts of the case, and I expect no understanding or sympathy whatsoever for someone who chooses to commit rape or sexual assault against another person. They knew it was wrong if they have the mental capacity to plead not guilty to the charge of having raped or sexually assaulted a child.

When you say 'the court', the only people that have to show understanding to the defendant is their defence team. The prosecution doesn't have to show understanding, and the judge and jury are supposed to be impartial. In the case you highlighted above, I personally if I were the judge in that case, would have imposed a much harsher sentence. Lucky for the perpetrator then that I'm not the judge.

Lets try this again shall we:

How about a young homeless guy, who had a stoke when he was young and now has the mental age of a teenager as a result of it and finds himself living rough in a tent. We don't even have to go as far as finding a case where the child was only 11, as his crime was having consensual sex with a 15 year old (which of course is just a few months shy of the age of consent in the UK). So: a guy living a "lonely existence" has consensual sex, with a girl that was mere months from the legal age of consent, has severe immaturity issues resulting from a stroke, which the Judge is more than happy to take into consideration. Now, how understanding do you think the courts were with him? Wel, not very, he was jailed for two years and four months.

Again, you're being selective with the details -

A homeless vagrant has been jailed for having sex with a schoolgirl half his age in a public park.

Anthony Rushworth had met the 15-year-old after arranging a meeting which led to the sexual encounter in Phear Park, Exmouth.

The girl had bunked off school and taken cannabis or legal highs.

Rushworth was homeless and unemployed and was living a lonely existence wandering around Britain on his own and sleeping in a tent which he carried with him, Exeter Crown Court was told.

He was said to have the mental maturity of a teenager as a result of a catastrophic stroke when he was 19, which had left him emotionally stranded at that age.

Rushworth, aged 31, of no fixed abode, admitted sexual activity with a child and was jailed for two years and four months by Judge Geoffrey Mercer, QC.

He told him:”I take into account what I have read about the medical problem you suffered when you were 19. You present as a man much younger than 31.

“This was a serious offence. Here you were last October down in Devon, living rough in a tent. You had full sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old girl who you hardly knew.

“You did not reasonably believe she was 16. You had intercourse without contraception.

“She was, from what I am told, a vulnerable young girl. You may not have known that, but it was a fact.

“I sentence on the basis you were contacted by her and you did not supply her with the drugs. If that were the case, the sentence would be significantly longer.

“She was only 15, as you well knew, and you were twice her age and also under the influence of drugs at the time, as you knew she was.

“There was a significant disparity in age but that is limited to some extent by what I have read about you.

“If you had given her drugs it would be very different, but you still took advantage of a child who you hardly knew.”

He ordered Rushworth to sign on the sex offenders register, which means that if he returns to a vagrant life on his release he will have to tell the police of his movements constantly.

Mr Richard Crabb, prosecuting, said Rushworth was living in a tent in the Exmouth area in October last year when he met the girl, who rang him later to arrange a meeting.

Both had taken drugs or legal highs before they met and they went to Phear Park to have unprotected sex.

The police were informed when she told friends what had happened and Rushworth was traced and arrested. He has already served a short sentence for carrying a knife which was found in his rucksack.

Mr Joss Ticehurst, defending, said Rushworth suffered a catastrophic stroke when he was 19, which had halted his emotional maturity and left him isolated from society and wandering the country living in a tent.

He said the real difference in age was far less than appears because of Rushworth’s immaturity, which led him to accept her offer of companionship.

He said he had not given the girl drugs and did not think she was under the influence of anything, although he knew she had taken a substance of some sort.

I'll just copy and paste what I wrote above then in response to the above case -

When you say 'the court', the only people that have to show understanding to the defendant is their defence team. The prosecution doesn't have to show understanding, and the judge and jury are supposed to be impartial. In the case you highlighted above, I personally if I were the judge in that case, would have imposed a much harsher sentence. Lucky for the perpetrator then that I'm not the judge.

In the case above, the judge practically bent over backwards to try and give due consideration to all the factors of the case in passing sentence, which is why the perpetrator only received a two and a half year sentence.

In my opinion, the sentences in all three cases were ridiculously lenient, which is the point I have made throughout this thread - regardless of the gender of the perpetrator or the victim, sentences for sex crimes are ridiculously lenient.

SeanW

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No they did not, and no amount of inverted commas will make that statement a fact.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you get a suspended sentence, you can walk out of the courtroom, correct?

Yes, it is.

NB showed that judges have been told to treat women criminals more leniently. That's a fact. Where is the "bolloxology?"

zeffabelli

I would like to see someone put this in a wider context of sentencing, comparing other assaults and cross comparing with various jurisdictions.

I know someone who was attacked with a machete, had a bad head injury, mitie stitches and the person who did it got " disturbing the peace." Both were men.

So all this gender **** just looks to me like selective sampling.

One eyed Jack

SeanW wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you get a suspended sentence, you can walk out of the courtroom, correct?

Yes, you can, but if you read the post I was replying to, Nacho was attempting to suggest that you can walk out of the courtroom the same as you would if the judge had determined you had no case to answer for (for example if the jury finds the defendant guilty, the judge may then set aside the verdict of the jury under certain circumstances. It's rare, but it can happen) -

NachoBusiness wrote: »

If they only received a suspended sentence...... then they did "walk free".

SeanW wrote: »

NB showed that judges have been told to treat women criminals more leniently. That's a fact. Where is the "bolloxology?"

The bolloxology is in the fact that judges have been told to treat anyone more leniently on the basis of their gender. That really is a load of bollocks. We were agreed on that much.


.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

jungleman wrote: »

Don't know what all the hostility is about, but whatever floats your boat.



And I don't think I misread that post.

Saying that an apparent rape culture puts pressure on men to go around raping people is ridiculous. I think my translation was pretty apt.

Also, your point about me bringing in "obvious prejudices" into a conversation about a child being raped? I'd love to hear what these are.

Zeffabelli was talking, in the post you lambasted, about how the broad acceptance of a social narrative of men being always up for all sex all the time contributed to a situation wherein a child was badly failed by the justice system when he was raped by a woman.

You read that post as a claim that men actively and explicitly encourage other men to commit rape. People see what they want to see, and sometimes a raped child is just an obstacle in the way of a glorious vista of feminazis vilifying every man ever. I'm pretty OK with the lord and myself that that's an attitude that makes me hostile

coffee_cake

jungleman wrote: »

Don't know what all the hostility is about, but whatever floats your boat.


Saying that an apparent rape culture puts pressure on men to go around raping people is ridiculous. I think my translation was pretty apt.

It means it adds to the nonsense that when a man is raped, he's not taken seriously, because all men MUST be up for it 24/7

One eyed Jack

SeanW wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you get a suspended sentence, you can walk out of the courtroom, correct?

NB showed that judges have been told to treat women criminals more leniently. That's a fact. Where is the "bolloxology?"

Just to add to this - a person can also walk out of the courtroom if they are granted bail and their sentencing is delayed so that they can get married and enjoy their honeymoon -

A pervert who groomed two underage girls for sexual activities has been told his sentencing can been delayed to allow him to get married and enjoy his honeymoon.

David Smith, 30, met his two victims, aged 12 and 13, at a swimming pool which he visited with his young son during the summer of 2013.
Smith, from Bedworth, Warwickshire, pleaded guilty to two counts of meeting a child following sexual grooming during his appearance at Warwick Crown Court on Monday. However, instead of being handed his punishment, his barrister asked the judge if sentencing could delayed for two months while Smith got married and went on a two-week holiday in October.

His solicitor Simon Hunka made the request after asking for the case to be adjourned for a pre-sentence report. He told the court: 'He was 30 last week, and much in his life has changed. 'Mr Smith is due to be married on the 31st of October, and has a honeymoon booked for two weeks. 'It is an unusual request, but I ask for the matter to be returned for sentence on the 16th of November.' Recorder Adrian Redgrave QC agreed to the request, which means Smith will now be able to wed his fiancee Kel While before enjoying a two-week holiday.

Announcing his decision, the judge told Smith: 'These offences are two years old at the moment. 'I can see no pressing reason why he should not be allowed to keep the date of his wedding and honeymoon.'

Smith had previously denied causing or inciting a 13-year-old girl to engage in sexual activity. He also pleaded not guilty to sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl in July or August 2013 and was due to go on trial this week. It was alleged he had forced the older girl to perform a sex act on him and had kissed the younger girl on the lips.

But on the day of his trial, prosecutor Graeme Simpson said there were 'evidential difficulties' in relation to those two charges - and asked for two alternative charges to be added to the indictment.

Smith then pleaded guilty to those two charges – one in relation to each of the girls - of meeting a child following sexual grooming, not believing she was over 16. The charges outline that he did so 'intending to do something which, if done, would involve the commission of a child sex offence.'

The court heard at how at the time of meeting the girls, Smith was at a swimming baths with his own seven-year-old son, 'who he has not seen since as a consequence.'

Smith was granted bail with conditions that he does not have unsupervised contact with any child under the age of 16 and does not go to any public swimming baths. He was also ordered to register as a sex offender. Recorder Redgrave told him: 'I have no doubt it has been explained to you that these are serious offences.'

The sentencing guidelines for meeting a child following sexual grooming lay down a starting point after a trial of two years custody if the child is under 13, and 18 months if she is 13 or over but under 16.

Source: Daily Mail

Paddy Cow

I've read this whole thread and it seems like it has gone off track with people arguing blah blah blah. FFS a 20 year old woman had sex with an eleven year old child. That is disgusting. I don't know how the judge can make the excuse that she was "immature". If she was too immature to know that sex with an eleven year old is wrong, then why didn't he have an issue with the father sleeping with her?

The whole case is wrong on so many levels and I cannot believe the father saying the son was "up for it". Most kids are up for eating ice cream for breakfast everyday but they usually have parents who know what is best for them in the long run.

I've babysat kids with a smaller age gap ie me being 16/17 and them being about 11 and the thought of having sex with them turns my stomach. The fact that she had a relationship with the father only makes it worse. She would've known the kids age (despite claiming she thought he was 15) and she was in a position of trust.

We can side track the issue with legal/gender blah blah blah arguments but how may AHers would actually have sex with an eleven year old? It's not normal and it's worrying that someone who does this doesn't get a custodial sentence.

NachoBusiness

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Let's look at the parts you didn't quote, from the same article -

What are you prattling on about? I linked to the article, I didn't quote it, so quit trying to suggest I was hiding something.

Not nearly so similar overall after all, when the only similarities are the age of the victim, and the perpetrator being described as immature.

I never said they were, you're waffling, and as a result missing the point, as usual.

When you say 'the court', the only people that have to show understanding to the defendant is their defence team.

Jesus H Christ, dude. The judge at the centre of this case let a woman walk free after she raped an 11 year old she was babysitting. His reasoning for that was that she was immature. Here we have a chap that was also immature for his age, had sex with a girl months away from the legal age of consent (not anywhere near an 11 year old) and his immaturity was NOT enough to keep from being jailed. Can you not see the contradiction there? Do you even take the point or are you just going to go on and on about further differing circumstances between the cases? You initially said you weren't looking for "exact cases" but it's quite clear since then that nothing else will satisfy you.

The prosecution doesn't have to show understanding, and the judge and jury are supposed to be impartial.

Aye, but when it comes to women, that seems to fly out the window whenever they are in the dock for raping children. That's the point.

One eyed Jack

NachoBusiness wrote: »

What are you prattling on about? I linked to the article, I didn't quote it, so quit trying to suggest I was hiding something.

I wasn't suggesting you were trying to hide anything, I was pointing out that you were ignoring much of the context in both cases in order to try and claim they were similar, and that the only difference between them being that in one case the perpetrator was a woman, and in the case you linked to the perpetrator was a man, and that's why he received a much harsher sentence, or as you say - wasn't shown the same understanding by the Court. It's obvious when you read the case you linked to why he received a much harsher sentence than the woman in this case. The victims parent didn't plead for leniency for the perpetrator either.

I never said they were, you're waffling, and as a result missing the point, as usual.

Hold on a minute. I asked for similar cases, you presented a case as though it was similar, and now you're trying to say you didn't claim they were similar?

If I'm to take a stab at your point then, it was that men aren't given the same understanding by the Courts as women are, and therefore receive much harsher sentences, while women are shown much more understanding by the courts, and receive much more lenient sentences, for the same crimes?

That's clearly untrue. Look at the case I linked to above where a 30 year old man grooms two underage girls, is given bail and his sentencing is delayed so he can go and get married and enjoy his honeymoon. Not much regard is given to the victims there, and apparently we're supposed to show understanding because he hasn't had access to his seven year old son since the incident.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't feel any sympathy for the man who now has no access to his child because of his own actions, but then he'll show up in the statistics somewhere else as another father who is denied access to his child and we can all say this is evidence that must be discrimination against men in the judicial system because the statistics say so and it's all women's fault!

Jesus H Christ, dude. The judge at the centre of this case let a woman walk free after she raped an 11 year old she was babysitting. His reasoning for that was that she was immature. Here we have a chap that was also immature for his age, had sex with a girl months away from the legal age of consent (not anywhere near an 11 year old) and his immaturity was NOT enough to keep from being jailed. Can you not see the contradiction there? Do you even take the point or are you just going to go on and on about further differing circumstances between the cases?

Yes, of course I can see your point on the basis of the way you present it. Can you see my point that it is only on the on the factors you consider relevant that you're able to make that point, while you're ignoring a huge amount of other factors in order to make your point?

Upon closer examination and comparison of both cases, your point simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

You initially said you weren't looking for "exact cases" but it's quite clear since then that nothing else will satisfy you.

Well if you want to compare apples and oranges and tell me they're the same thing because they're both spherical fruits, you can surely understand why I would want to draw your attention to the fact that in making that claim, you're ignoring the many factors that make it obvious why apples and oranges aren't the same thing at all.

Aye, but when it comes to women, that seems to fly out the window whenever they are in the dock for raping children. That's the point.

Yes, 'seems to', being the operative phrase there while you're limiting the parameters of your perception to solely focus on the lenient treatment of female sex offenders, ignoring the equally lenient treatment of male sex offenders to make your point.


EDIT: I'd also like to hear your opinion on both these cases, in which the perpetrator received a suspended sentence -


Man given suspended sentence for attempted rape in 2012

Freeman was originally charged with two rape offences but towards the end of his trial, he offered to plead guilty to the lesser offence of attempted rape.

At his sentence hearing today, Mr. Justice Barry White criticised the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for accepting such a plea, which he said was "unsupported and irreconcilable" with evidence put before the jury.

The victim, who does not want to be named herself, said she had no objection to the accused being identified.

Freeman has already been placed on the sex offenders register. Today he was handed a five year prison sentence which was suspended in full.

Man given suspended sentence for raping partner while she slept

The full extent of the offences only emerged after Magnus Meyer Hustveit, 25, wrote to his former partner and told her he had been using her "body for my gratification" for nearly a year.

The Norwegian pleaded guilty at the Central Criminal Court to one count of rape and one count of sexual assault of a 28-year-old Irish woman between 2011 and 2012.

Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy said it was a very exceptional case.

He said he had to consider the fact that there would be no rational case but for the confessions of the accused.

"In truth this case comes here today out of his own mouth," he said before suspending the sentence.

The solicitor for Director of Public Prosecutions told the court that the victim wished to waive her right to anonymity to allow Hustveit to be named.