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

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

There is some genuine problem with application of the term "rape", since clearly there is a difference between having sex with someone who has not consented, and forcing someone to have sex against their will. Rape generally conjures thoughts of the latter.

I vaguely remember that one judge has commented that, in his reading of the Sex Offences Act, it is rape to have sex with someone who is drunk. Doesn't matter whether they have given prior consent, or how much they want to have sex, SOA 2003 says that if they're drunk, then legally they are no more capable of consent than a 10-year-old. The application is obvious - that if a rapist takes advantage of someone too drunk to object, then no matter what she says to him in her drunkenness, he has no defence against rape.

The problem, as I vaguely remember that judge commenting, is that by this standard he personally had (prior to the Act coming into force, one assumes, since I guess it isn't wise for a judge to admit a crime in a summing-up) raped his wife with her full co-operation.

I wonder whether, had the Act been in force, this also means she would have been an accomplice to that crime, since being drunk not a defence against committing or assisting rape...

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

This interpretation would seem to be storing up trouble, as presumably a history of intra-marital rape is pretty good grounds for a with-fault divorce.

How drunk is too drunk to give consent, does anyone know?

[venta.livejournal.com]

Presumably you can still consent if you're under the limit for driving :)

[kauket.livejournal.com]

There was a recent case (r -v- bree) which looked at the sexual offences act and drunken consent. I understand, although may have misinterpreted, the judgment as that being drunk does not automatically mean that you do not consent. which is was the Sexual Offences Act seems to suggest. Instead the court should look at whether they did consent, not simply assume that the person could not have consented because they were drunk.

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

That's fairly comforting, although I didn't think it was really in serious doubt that the courts would do something at least vaguely sensible with that dodgy legislation. If nothing else, surely they could cite some human rights reason why the ability to consent when drunk can't be absolutely withheld from an adult.

The point is, though, that being just the wrong side of legal line regarding ambiguous consent, isn't the same as forcing sex when there is very clear non-consent. But they're both called "rape", despite "rape" meaning to most people the more despicable crime.

Not that this case was "just the wrong side" of a legal line, since 10 is quite unambiguously too young. But still venta is quite right to point out that it appears a rather different situation from some guy grabbing a child in a park, raping her, and then turning her over to "an accomplice" to abduct and sexually assault. And that some people who think the sentence as too light, might do so just because that is what they think when the word "rape" was used.

[kauket.livejournal.com]

i pretty much agree. I also have, as I'm sure you are aware, quite strong opinions on the media representation of sentencing decisions, and given that I understand some of how the sentencing decisions work, am frequently quite frustrated at the way such decisions are reported. Anyway...lets not get me all over-excited and ranty :)