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]

Further, the doctors who'd examined the girl thought she was in her mid-teens.

It's not clear from the BBC article whether the court found that as fact. The article says that the defence claimed it, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's true, and the article doesn't mention whether said doctors testified to that effect.

[venta.livejournal.com]

<re-reads report>

Yup, fair point. I hadn't registered that one.

[cardinalsin.livejournal.com]

Also, even taken at face value "mid-teens" might or might not mean "over the age of consent".

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

Presumably defendant hoped that if a doctor thought her "mid-teens", then defendant's claim that the man on the street (in this case a window-cleaner) could reasonably believe her "over the age of consent" is plausible.

Indeed, the judge's comments indicate that he does think that it was an understandable mistake on the part of the defendant.

[cardinalsin.livejournal.com]

Well, the doctors' views only count as evidence for the reasonableness of view X if they actually held view X. If a vet misidentified a cat as a dog, that doesn't mean it would be reasonable for a layman to think it was a wolf, it just means the cat didn't look very much like a cat.

Wow, that was an odd analogy.

Ahem, anyway - clearly the judge did think his mistake was understandable, but qv my earlier argument that if you think she's on the borderline between legal adulthood and being a minor, you should be a bit more careful in your checking than this guy clearly was.

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

only count as evidence for the reasonableness of view X if they actually held view X

I disagree. For one thing, experts should be expected to make more accurate estimates than laymen, and so a greater error should be expected from a layman than from an expert. I'm assuming of course that these doctors can be considered experts on human development, at least compared with window-cleaners.

The actual middle of the teens, by the way, is 16.5, which is X. But as you say, we don't know whether these doctors really said "mid-teens", and if so what they really meant. So let's assume for a moment that they didn't mean X.

And, since we're doing analogies:

If I have wrongly guessed the height of a 10' tree at 16', and an expert on trees guesses 14' (or, "mid teens of feet"), then that should make you at least consider that my error might be reasonable. 14' (or "mid-teens") is not actually 16' (or "is"), but it's still indicative that this particular tree looks quite tall.

Of course where I have a serious duty to know the height of the tree, this does not excuse me for failing to measure it. But it does excuse my incorrect estimate, and hence lends plausibility to my claim that despite the fact that I was wrong to act on an estimate, I did act in good faith.

If a series of 50 random people off the street all take one look at the tree and say "definitely 10', 11'6" at the most", then my claim of an honest mistake would be rather weaker. A lot of people, in response to this case, are saying "there's no way any 10-year-old could look 16". If they're right, then of course the plausibility of the mitigating factor falls down. I don't know whether an appeal court would have the power to strike down any belief the original court may have had, that the defendant made an honest mistake.

you should be a bit more careful in your checking

I agree with that, as with my drink-driving analogy above. In the case of trees, if I'm going to engage in some activity which requires a 16' tree, then I should be sure to take my tape measure. Anything less is criminally irresponsible.

But I imagine that when roaming parks looking for sex, asking for a photo-ID is considered infra dig.

[venta.livejournal.com]

A lot of people, in response to this case, are saying "there's no way any 10-year-old could look 16".

I find that quite odd. Saying "there's no way most 10-year-olds could pass for 16" is fair enough. I could barely pass for 10 when I was 10, and would never have been mistaken for a consenting adult.

However, people develop at different rates. There will be people way off in the tails of the distribution, both late and early. That, very occasionally, you get a 10 year old who can pass for 16, or a 16 year old who can pass for 10 doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

The youngest known person to give birth was just over five and a half. Weird stuff happens.

[marjory.livejournal.com]

One of my friend's sisters was known as 'The Hormone', being the kid who had gone through puberty at 9 - breasts, hair, menstruation, the lot. This isn't so very uncommon. My take on the experts thinking that she might have been in her mid-teens is that the doctors had a very upset little girl in their hands who couldn't confirm her age at first and just had some uncommon pyhsical development to go on.

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

Presumably, the judge will have known whether she was upset or not, but the press can't freely report on the victim.