wow. there are times that I think public hangings need to come back
I'm just so angry.
I think he should be sent to life in prison, and I think that he should have to wear a shirt saying what it is that he did and how old the victim was that he did it too.
And that there should be conjugal visits, for all other inmates that want to spend some quality time with him in a soundproof room with no guards, at all, and no time limit for the other prisoners to do as they please with him.
I feel this way for sexual offenders in general, but especially those that abuse children.
As a rule other prisoners aren't big fans of child molesters as I undersand it.
2007-07-05 11:55 am (UTC)
that enrages me.
Me too. Speread it around. This really needs to be more widely reported, and this cocksucker has to get what's coming to him.
So, is the judge saying that its ok to rape someone OVER 16 then? God!! That makes me angry too.
I live in Oxford. If I see that Judge I'll give him a piece of my mind.
You really should. I'm so pissed,
And apparently if you're sexually provocative there's no such thing as rape.
You're always asking for it.
What I don't understand is why, if she was in local authority since the age of four, she wasn't being better supervised?! Why was she allowed to be meeting men in the park at 10 years old--ALONE?
The whole thing is sick.
makes my blood boil that there are Judges out there who still believe its the girls fault, makes me sick.
I know. They should be disbarred.
Blegh. People are assholes.
From the BBC story
"Lawyers for the defendants stressed that the sex had been consensual, and was only termed 'rape' because of the framework of law.
They said the judge stated that doctors who examined the girl believed she was in her mid-teens and she was treated by most people as older than her actual age"
This means that the defendants had a reasonable belief that she was over 16 and therefore legally competent to consent. The offence was rape due to the girl being incompetent to consent due to age, so her consent was invalid. Prior to 2003 the offence committed on these facts would have been unlawful intercourse with a girl under the age of thirteen.
There's no such thing as consent at ten.
She was raped.
Oh. Of course. I forgot. Rape is legal if you dress like a whore. Kidnapping and sexual assault is ok if the victim looks older. No 10 year old EVER looks 16, I call bullshit.
This is why I fucking hate humans.
Regardless if she did look 16. Jesus Christ, This is why I never reported shit that went down with me. This is why most girls I know that have had a sexual assault don't tell the fucking cops.
So mad. So mad. So mad.
Urge to kill.
And I'm a fucking pacifist goddamnit.
"sexually precocious child" ??!!?!!!?
And that's -awful-. Child molesters are the one type of people that just piss me off horribly. GRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!
So, the judge says "You can rape people all you want, as long as they're 16 or older"?
That's what the Judge says.
I wonder how many sexual assaults he's had under his belt. Argh.
And yeah, doesn't that phrase give you the heebie-jeebies?
I hope we see some vigilante justice in this case!
That makes me ill...
Why do some people/judges always make it the victim's fault?
Throw that guy in for life and throw the judge in with him.
I just want to hurt them... and I am not a violent person, normally, but where a child is concerned.
That child should have been better cared for.
oh my god. that's terrible. god.
That sentence would be pathetic if the girl had been 28. Will no one ever learn that it is NEVER the victim's fault, the rapist is ALWAYS wrong, no matter what the age of the victim, and ESPECIALLY if the victim is so young.
The girl has obviously had a hard life, living under the care of the government, and now she has basically been told by the government that the rape she suffered was just peachy, and the man only deserved a slap on the wrist.
I know I agree %100. So angry.