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?

[chrisvenus]

I think if I was asked to comment in terms of "it was consensual, he thought she was older" then my comment would be what the hell kind of upbringing must this girl have had that she is in a park looking for sex at the age of 10? And indeed if she was happy to have sex at the age of 10 in that situation it seems clear to me it probably wasn't the first time (though I may be wrong) so how old was she when she started?

Its not about whether she was dressed provocatively but whether she was being provocative.

I feel sorry for the guy really in that case. Obviously (and I should disclaim here) if it was non-consensual then what he did was awful however I have seen girls look older than their age and although I don't think there would be many 10 year olds who can get away with it I am sure that you could find a 10 year old and a 16 year old and give them make up and clothes and the like to make the younger appear to be the older.

As for the judge's comment I think he probably didn't mean it in the context of breaking the law when he said it was an absolute crime, I suspect he meant it more in the "it shouldn't happen" kind of morallistic way. "its a crime" as a figure of speech rather than as a professional comment. THough if that is the case then somebody in that position really should choose their words better.

[al-fruitbat.livejournal.com]

If the 10 year old looks like a 15 year old, and wants to have sex, of course there's a clear defence for 'raping' her.

[stompyboots.livejournal.com]

I look back on this now (at 25) and cringe, but I was always very physically mature growing up.

Living in the States, I was buying fags for 16/17-year-olds when I was 12. I was clubbing and drinking much earlier than the law allowed, and when I met blokes in nightclubs I never disabused them of the notion that I was old enough to be in there.

In hindsight, there are a number of men who could have been done for statutory rape for having sex with me when I was the one lying about my age. The 25-year-old me sees it as morally reprehensible, but the 15-year-old me saw it as part and parcel of growing up - and something I was *lucky* to be able to do because of my appearance.

It's a very difficult case to judge, and awful for all involved.

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

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.

And, indeed, paediatrics in general! I'm horrified!

As far as the case goes, I tend to find my own views on the morality of such things don't match well with the law anyway. If the guy was 40, I don't care if he thought she looked 16 or not. If he was 16 himself, it's a completely different issue in my eyes.

[secretrebel.livejournal.com]

I do wonder how the story would have been received by the media had it been accompanied by a photo of the girl.

There would be a vox pops interview on all the news channels with random members of the public and a phone line emblazoned across the front page of the Mail. "Looks 16 or not - you decide, text 'yes' to this number of you think she looks legal, text 'no' if you think she looks underage."

All in all, I'm glad they didn't publish a photo - nit just because of the obvious invasion of privacy it would denote.

[condign.livejournal.com]

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.

Well, if they're shagging in a park, it's probably some form of indecent exposure, so in a literal sense that might be the meaning. Kind of hard to tell without context.

If they're shagging someone they met 45 minutes ago, but not in a park, then the statement is probably more of rhetorical than legal effect.

[cardinalsin.livejournal.com]

We're talking about a 24-year-old who had sex with someone who he is presumably claiming he believed to be 16, 45 minutes after meeting her, in a park. Putting aside the slightly sordid-sounding circumstances, assuming our man isn't claiming to have believed the girl was 24, he certainly knew she was *close to* being under-age. Under such circumstances, it is his responsibility to be sure of her age before having sex with her.

The reason we have a law that says it is unqualifiedly illegal to have sex with a minor is because it is so very easy to claim you didn't know their age, that they consented, etc etc. The onus is on the "rapist" to identify the age of the "victim" (in quotes to avoid implication that the sex was necessarily not "consensual"[*]).

It's difficult to have sympathy with someone who has sex with a minor, just over half their age, and then claims to be completely innocent. The press have sensationalised it, but certainly an appeal is justified in this case.

[*] in quotes to avoid implication that minors can give consent, which legally speaking they "can't". (I just put the last quotes in for fun)

[maviscruet.livejournal.com]

Can I ask another question - what if the girl approached him for sex? Better or worse?

It's an odd one. I mean we say that a child can not give legal consent - but a 15 year old boy or girl can consent to sex and know what it means..... The age boundry is arbitary. Sure it has to be there but we need to know it for what it is.....

[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.