Walk on thin ice

[venta]

Yesterday, at the jobcentre, I had all my journalistic stereotypes confirmed.

First waiting area: Oxford Mail, tabloid, all pictures and giant text on the front page. Pages 1-n dedicated to the distressingly lenient sentence handed out to a Blackbird Leys man who raped a ten year old girl.
Second waiting area: Oxford Times, broadsheet, dense text on front page. Page 1 dedicated to the interaction of Seera, the local government, and various cabinet members over the problems of new-build housing in Oxfordshire.

I read the story about the rapist and thought that yes, 18 months for raping a child is pretty short. And the judge's comments that she dressed provocatively and "older than her age" were shockingly out of order.

Having checked up on the letter of the law (Sexual Offences Act 2003) any sexual intercourse with an under-13 is rape. Further hunting about in news stories online revealed that yes, the sex had been "consensual" and it was the above Act that made it rape. Further, the doctors who'd examined the girl thought she was in her mid-teens.

So, there are two stories here:
Man attacks and rapes child in park, child blamed for dressing provocatively.
Man has what he believes to be consensual sex with someone he believes to be of consenting age, but turns out to be wrong.

Both of these describe criminal offences. But it my mind they are rather different crimes, even though the offence with which the man will be charged is the same. So hey, tabloid reports sensationalist version of story, no surprises there.

News reports come complete with a series of outraged statements from local MPs, children's charity spokesmen, local mothers and critics of the judicial system, all along the lines of "there's no excuse for raping a ten year old, however she dresses". Which is, of course, the sort of statement it's impossible to disagree with. There is no excuse for raping a ten year old (or anyone of any other age).

What I have begun to wonder is whether it is impossible to avoid the sensationalism. I can't think of anyone who, if asked by a newspaper for comment, would be willing to say anything other than how dreadful it is. Even writing this I've been wondering whether it'll trigger a stream of comments from people who think that I'm excusing child rape.

In general, what a rape victim is wearing when attacked should be completely immaterial. However when an important issue is the perceived age of the victim, then dressing "older than her age" is actually relevant. It isn't simply a bigoted judge blaming the victim. It doesn't prevent a crime from having been committed; it might (and I presume it did) affect the sentencing.

I do wonder how the story would have been received by the media had it been accompanied by a photo of the girl. I'm genuinely curious to know whether a claim to have mistaken her for 16 is actually reasonable, whether people might have been more sympathetic towards the defendant. I appreciate that this can't be done without compromising the victim's rights, which take precedence.

I'll wait with interest to see whether the Attorney General does indeed conclude that the sentence was "unduly lenient" - and how many people will call for his resignation if he does not.

On a separate note, I was also somewhat baffled by comments from the BBC's report: "Judge Hall said in sentencing he faced a moral dilemma as the fact they had sex within 45 minutes of meeting was an absolute crime."

You what?

Surely, in such a case, either the girl is underage and it's a crime regardless of how long ago they met, or the girl is of age and it's their own damn business how long ago they met. Shagging people you met three quarters of an hour ago in a park may well be inadvisable, but I don't see how it can possibly be criminal. Does anyone actually understand what the judge might have meant there?

Comments

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how convincingly a ten-year-old can look over 16, no matter how they're dressed.

There's something called 'the young man's mistake' which comes into play in statutory rape cases when it's the man's first offence, he's not significantly older then the girl, and he believes the girl to be older than she is (either because he's been told so, or she looks older than her age and has neglected to tell him otherwise). In these sorts of cases the man usually gets no more than a slap on the wrist.

However, this doesn't apply if the child is under 13. It may be that this law is outdated - girls are reaching puberty earlier and could look sexually mature at that age.

The problem is, because she's below the age of consent it is classified as rape. Rape is sex without consent; statutory rape is sex where meaningful consent could not have been given. Maybe we need another word for it?

[venta.livejournal.com]

Rape is sex without consent; statutory rape is sex where meaningful consent could not have been given. Maybe we need another word for it?

Does the phrase "statutory rape" apply in this country ? I thought it was a US-ism.

I agree with your point, though.

[taimatsu]

Usage on this page at BBC NEws suggests it is a correct term here too.

[elethiomel.livejournal.com]

It's a cultural appropriation but, post SOA '03 is, I suppose, appropriate. Prior to that there was no 'statutory' rape - sex with someone under the age of 13 was the offence of "sexual intercourse with a person under 13". It was, essentially the same offence, but was not described as "rape".

It's another example of the creeping Americanisation of our legislation and culture.

[maviscruet.livejournal.com]

I remember a friend of mines sister got pregenent at 15 (gave birth post 16) - and her boyfriend almost got charged with what was described as 'statutory rape' and that's 15/16 years ago Actually closer to 20 now I think - owwww - that kids now old enough to have her own kids. Makes me feel old......

So if it is creeping Americinisation - it's a long established Americanisation.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

I find it a poor term, because to me it carries the implication "not really rape, but we're going to treat it as though it were".

It seems to me that the difference between "sex with person who could have given consent but didn't" and "sex with person whom the law judges incapable of giving consent" is sufficient that they should be given different names, not names that suggest one is a variation on the other.

[chrisvenus]

Maybe we need another word for it?

I'm not sure what the term is for the crime of having consensual sex with a 15 year old - probably something like sex with a minor but that might be an americanism - but I'm not sure why the same term couldn't be applied. Sentencing could be different but I'd say it was nearer to that crime than rape.

I mean even "sex without legal consent" would be better since that gives the idea that there are other kinds of consent that may well have been given.

I dunno though. I just think its a damn shame that 10 year olds are willing and possibly eager to have sex with men twice their age.

[venta.livejournal.com]

I think it's Secual activity with a child (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30042--b.htm#9), though 1(c)(i) seems to allow a little wiggle room in that you only have to reasonably believe that the child is over 16.

[condign.livejournal.com]

Chris:

"Rape" pretty much means "sex without legal consent" already. The term is already supposed to cover situations where sex is obtained without actual consent (i.e. by violence) or legal consent. (Not yet a lawyer in the U.S., by the way, and certainly not a UK lawyer, but there are other ways that a person may be disabled from giving legal consent besides minority.)

At least in the U.S., I can't think of a statutory rape case where actual consent (albeit legally invalid) wasn't part of the facts. In general, if a defendant has used violence or coercion, the "statutory" bit falls out, and he's charged with rape.

Now, it would be nice if tabloids made that clear. But somehow I doubt that were the names to be shifted around such that the name of the crime charged were clear (and according to venta, it already is) the red-tops would report it properly.

[venta.livejournal.com]

But somehow I doubt that were the names to be shifted around such that the name of the crime charged were clear (and according to venta, it already is) the red-tops would report it properly.

Did I make something clear ? I didn't think so...

As far as I'm aware, if you have what you believe to be consensual sex with a 10 year old, or if you physically attack and violently rape a 10 year old, the crime is just "rape" in both cases. My reading of the Sexual Offenders Act doesn't imply any differentiation, anyway.

[condign.livejournal.com]

My mistake: I thought you were implying that the conduct described was "sexual activity with a child," not "rape of a child under 13." That conduct is described as rape, and doesn't have the modifier. The differentiation arises from the actual activities included in the statute.

I couldn't really tell from the article exactly what had happened, and thought you were being more specific.