If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
No prison, because 11 year old "welcomed sex"
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
That's the judgement of Judge Robert Atherton. This is despite the fact that the man continued to persue the girl who he met in an adult chatroom even after she said she was only 12 years old (she was actually 11).
I could just about accept that case a while ago with the 10 year old who the judge claimed looked unusually old for her age (not because she was "dressed provocatively" as the Mail claims), because the man hadn't actually gone out of his way to have sex with a girl he knew was under 16. He just met a girl and brought her back to his place, neglecting to check her age. But even that bloke got 2 years. This man actually knew she was under 13, and still proceeded. The fact that he met her in a chat room for adults is irrelevant. He knew she was a child long before he did anything, and a 3 year community order is fucking ridiculous.
It's a rare thing that I agree with the Daily Mail, but there should be an appeal against this sentence, and I'd happily see this judge suspended for such a pathetic decision.
The Mirror's take on the story. The judge stated that he was not predatory, but was "immature and needed help." I have sympathy with that, but I think that protection of children should always come first in this situation, and any help he gets should be in a place where he's removed from society.
I could just about accept that case a while ago with the 10 year old who the judge claimed looked unusually old for her age (not because she was "dressed provocatively" as the Mail claims), because the man hadn't actually gone out of his way to have sex with a girl he knew was under 16. He just met a girl and brought her back to his place, neglecting to check her age. But even that bloke got 2 years. This man actually knew she was under 13, and still proceeded. The fact that he met her in a chat room for adults is irrelevant. He knew she was a child long before he did anything, and a 3 year community order is fucking ridiculous.
It's a rare thing that I agree with the Daily Mail, but there should be an appeal against this sentence, and I'd happily see this judge suspended for such a pathetic decision.
The Mirror's take on the story. The judge stated that he was not predatory, but was "immature and needed help." I have sympathy with that, but I think that protection of children should always come first in this situation, and any help he gets should be in a place where he's removed from society.
0
Comments
So a psychologist first said he wasn't a risk to children (according to the article), then the judge agreed with that verdict based on whatever evidence he saw. He's still on the sex offenders register and he still has to serve a 3 year community order (isn't that what people want? rather than locking people up and turning them into hardened criminals, make them work for their crimes?).
I completely agree that children need to be protected but there were so many instances where things went wrong here that it makes you wonder. She was in an adult only chat room, she was exchanging flirty text messages and pornographic images, she went to meet him in her lunch break twice.. I mean, surely someone in authority should have stopped her? If she can't be held responsible for her own actions as a minor then surely the school and her parents should be held responsible for allowing her to get into these situations.
The man no doubt was completely stupid and needs some form of punishment but has received some. If it was the case where a young girl had dressed up and gone out, been sexually active and came home, should he still have been punished for sexually assaulting a child? I mean, where do you draw the line? If he is punished severely then where is the disincentive to go the whole hog and actually target and attack young children?
Although my own thoughts, based on my own experience is that regrettably a lot of young teenage girls (although I don't know any as young as 11) are sexually active and 'consent' to a lot of what is going on, even if in many cases they don't understand it. Or maybe they just grow up fast?
It's also interesting that the it came to the attention of the police through one of her friends parents. There's no implication anywhere that the girl (or her family) felt a criminal act had occured.
Prison doesn't mean maximum security, it can mean open prisons. Psychologically speaking, something like 80% of child abusers aren't paedophiles, and I suspect this man isn't either. That doesn't mean he's not a danger. He won't actively go out committing crimes, but that doesn't mean that if the opportunity occurs again, he won't neglect to take responsibility again. Incidentally, I think your argument on prison turning people into hardened criminals is only applicable to people who have become involved in crime as the result of their social situation.
To some degree. But that's dangerously close to blaming someone other than the rapist for the rape. She may have neglectful or even abusive parents (it wouldn't be a huge leap of faith to speculate that a girl who "has the sexual awareness of a 20 year old" hasn't exactly had a normal upbringing). But none of this should be relevant to the case, in the same way that how many previous partners a woman has had shouldn't be relevant in an adult rape case. He arranged to meet and had sex with a girl he knew was under age by a long way. You don't get more black and white than that.
Yes. As men always are, and almost always with a custodial sentence for a girl this young. Sorry, but again you're referring to what the girl is wearing as if it's relevant. Men usually recieve a custodial sentence for not checking the age of a girl. A man recently had sex with a 10 year old girl he met outside of a bar. Even though the judge and the jury agreed that she easily looked 16, he was sent to prison anyway for being stupid enough not the check. I disagreed with that decision, but this man checked the age of the girl, and then still arranged to meet up with her and had sex. I have no sympathy for someone who does that.
Well I'm glad you brought the disincentive up. Because if you don't punish people who do this, then what's the disincentive to have sex with any teenage girl that happens to come on to you? There are plenty of people who wouldn't actively go out looking for an underage girl, but who might have the opportunity to have sex because their social situation puts them in contact with them. This sentence sends the message that you can get away with fucking teenage and pre-teenage girls you know, provided that they're the one that makes the first move. And from what I remember from school, girls that age aren't exactly shy about sex. Of course the idea of death and life sentences for rape is ridiculous. If ever there was an incentive to kill someone you've raped, then no increase in sentence is it.
Which is why there's the clear difference between girls under 16 and girls under 13. And why a 16 year old male would be treated differently to a 20 year old.
a) my intention wasn't to blame the someone other than the rapist for the rape, that would be completely wrong. But our judicial system allows for judiciary discretion in sentencing, depending on severity. I would argue the meeting at a bar scenario should not be punished severely as say a huge abuse of trust (i.e. incest) or physical coercion, because the crime is not as... bad? That's a poor way to put it but I am having trouble with my words
b) The thing is, men can fall into a honey trap with underage girls, because both parties would 'consent' but it later turns out the girl was in no position to consent. It is the same the other way around, although I think it's societies perception that teenage girls are unable to make decisions for themselves / are inheritly vulnerable / any kind of act must be coerced rather than free will.
I will call this man stupid, and for not taking into account the girls potential inability to make sensible decisions (which, meeting strangers off the internet for one thing seems to indicate is true..), but I would not sentence him in the same way as a sexual predator, who has used a position of authority, trust, physical dominance, intimidation or any other factor to manipulate someone into sexual acts.
edit: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1938653/Paedophile-freed-after-judge-says-victim,-11,-%27welcomed-sex%27.html
Judge's sentence:
The fact she was in an adult chatroom is irrelevant.
The fact she invited him for sex is IRRELEVANT.
She was 11 years old for fuck sake. I imagine little concept of right or wrong, little concept of the risks she was taking, and little concept that what she was doing is meant for someone older. SHE WAS 11.
The guy knew that, and he pursued her anyway, and for doing so at least deserves prison and ideally deserves to have his dick cut off.
When my male friends are bored of doing coursework and decided to rot their brain by watching American talk shows where the audience guess whether someone's a man or woman, and they find that someone they were attracted to was actually a man, they very quickly change their mind and are disgusted with themselves, yet when they find that someone they are attracted to is just under 16 they don't care. They probably wouldn't do anything about unless the age gap is less than 2 or 3 years, but it's seen as acceptable. The only way children will be protected is if adults have to take responsibilty and people can control their actions even if they are "tempted" by a child dressed "provocatively".
Why should they? We're designed to find teenage girls attractive, and where you happen to place the arbitrary hand of the law isn't going to change that. There's a difference between that and actually acting on it, but why should they suddenly deny finding her attractive, or be ashamed of themselves somehow, just because she happens to be under the age at which our society says we're allowed to engage in sexual activity? And would it be entirely acceptable for them to find the same girl attractive if they saw her in France, or some other country where the age of consent is lower?
Because they've proved they can make the attraction they have suddenly go away when they've gained certain knowledge about the person they're attracted to!
The girl was in an adult chatroom, posing as a 20-year-old girl. The defendant was a 20-year-old man. The girl clearly wanted the sexual attention and consented fully to the attention. There was no abuse of power and the defendant did not "groom" the girl. The girl fully welcomed the sexual attention and clearly fully consented.
There were psychologist reports saying that the man did not pose a future risk and that this was an error of judgement. Equally, there's no mention of the defendant's mental age or intellectual capacity (which I read was on the lower side of normal in another article).
All in all, I don't really see that much wrong with the decision. If it had been a 12-year-old boy and an older woman the result would have been community service, after all.
Although I fully admit that I partially think that because that fuck-for-brains rent-a-gob from Kidscape says the opposite. She could say Hitler was a nasty man and I'd find it hard to agree with that douchebag.
They've proved they can lie about it to keep up social appearances, I'll give you that. The visual indicators of attractiveness are exactly the same though, and so they find them exactly as attractive as they did before, it's just the idea of actually acting on it changes (in exactly the same way as it should when you find out a girl is underage).
I've noticed I do that too, I argue with the daily mail whatever it prints!
If we're going to consider facts then consider the fact that the girl informed the man she was only 12 BEFORE they had sex, and he still went ahead with it anyway. Hence, he is a sick bastard.
I think it would be really sad if everybody believed children should be very careful to protect adults.
An 11 year old girl knows she shouldn't pretend to be 20 in a chatroom, 11 year olds do a lot of things that they know they shouldn't do. It's the responsibility of adults to not take part, especially if it means breaking the law and putting the child in danger.