Skip to main content

View Diary: Judge calls a 13-year-old "predatory" after she was raped by a 41 year-old. (278 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  A better link (9+ / 0-)

    I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night, alive as you and me.

    by plankbob on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 01:25:30 AM PST

    •  Re (15+ / 0-)

      Here is the Guardian link. The Daily Mail is sensationalist nonsense, like a British Fox News.

      Speaking about Mr Colover's remarks, a CPS spokesman said: "The language used by prosecution counsel was inappropriate.

      "The transgressor in this case was the defendant and he bears responsibility for his criminal acts."

      Alan Wardle, from the NSPCC, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The age of consent in this country is 16, before that a child cannot consent. As a society we have drawn a line in the sand on that.

      "In this case, the child was 13 and the man was 41 - it's pretty clear who the predator was."

      However, Carl Gardner, a former government legal adviser, warned that most people commenting on the case did not know the full facts.

      "The use of this word 'predatory' and the other remarks, it sounds bad to me, but we don't know how that word introduced itself into the court," he said.

      I will point out that this is still true in this diary. We do not know the full facts of this case.

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 05:33:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes,this is a better link. Still sounds bad, but (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tommymet, Sylv, Jyrki, wader, MichaelNY

        those were not the words of the judge. The judge's name is Nigel Peters.

        "Hate speech is a form of vandalism. It defaces the environment, and like a broken window, if left untended, signals to other hoodlums that the coast is clear to do more damage." -- Gregory Rodriguez

        by Naniboujou on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 06:00:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

          It was the proseutor who called the victim predatory and sexually experienced.

          The quote above attributed to Alan Wardle is wrong.  Although the age of consent is 16, the age at which a child is deemed to not be able to consent to sex is actually 12.  Thus, sex with a consenting 13 year-old is not considered rape under English law;  it is the lesser offense of sexual activity with a child.

          In sentencing, the judge is supposed to take into account certain factors, among which are the "culpability of the offender" and the "vulnerability of the victim."  Since the prosecutor said that the victim was predatory and sexually experienced, the judge would have taken those into account.

          Ultimately, the offender was resentenced to two years, which is in line with the prevailing sentencing guidelines.

          "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

          by Old Left Good Left on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 03:58:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  We may not know (18+ / 0-)

        how the word predatory "introduced itself into the court", but if it is fact that a 13-year-old and 41-year-old had sex there is no doubt that the 41-year-old should receive the harshest of sentences.  I don't care if the 13-year old stripped naked and threw herself on top of the guy, as the adult, it is his responsibility to stop the act, not to take advantage.  I would feel the same way if the genders were reversed, or the same, btw.

        •  Nice to know DKos is populated with... (0+ / 0-)

          ...law and order conservatives.

          (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
          Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

          by Sparhawk on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 11:18:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Actually, (8+ / 0-)

            it would probably be the law and order conservatives who would make excuses for this 41-year-old rapist along with the judge and prosecutor.  But you knew that because you've been making excuses for them though out these comments.

          •  No. The law and order here was to say (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ceebee7, churchylafemme

            fuck you to the girl and send a message to every girl and every woman that their bodies are not their own. Sane laws exist to preserve a healthy society. There's no way in hell that protecting women and girls and justice are conservative values. How dare you suggest that I don't deserve protection of my own bodily independence?

          •  You're kidding, right? (10+ / 0-)

            The only appropriate response to a 13 year old stripping naked in front of a 42 year old adult in this sort of situation is to toss a blanket over him/her and calling his/her parents. If calling parents isn't an option, calling 911 and asking for a same sex officer to respond, preferably with CPS, is the next step.

            Conservative? Whatever. Toss around whatever labels you want.  Kids need protection. If a child is acting out like this, he/she needs intervention. It's a progressive value not to blame children when they act out inappropriately, not to take advantage of them, but to get them the help they need asap.

            © grover


            So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

            by grover on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 12:36:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No one is arguing that his actions aren't illegal (0+ / 0-)

              The grandparent poster argued that "the harshest of all penalties" should be applied to any activity of this sort. We agree the guy is guilty and must be punished: now, what should the penalties be?

              To the poster I was responding to, there can never be a mitigating circumstance and every instance of sexual behavior involving an underage teenager is exactly the same thing and should all be treated with the harshest possible penalties.

              Whether any actual physical or psychological harm ever came to the child or not, whether the child initiated it or was pursued by the adult, whether the adult even knew the child's age, whether there was force or violence involved or not, none of this is relevant to this poster during sentencing. Throw the book at the offender. 20 years in prison, minimum! Hell, that's the American way!

              That's the definition of a law-and-order conservative.

              (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
              Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

              by Sparhawk on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 08:35:22 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  there is something very wrong with you (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FarWestGirl

            Adults take care of and protect children. They are not supposed to have sex with them. Why do you refuse to accept this?

            "...i also also want a legally binding apology." -George Rockwell

            by thankgodforairamerica on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 05:39:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Thinking a grown man shouldn't have sex (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            churchylafemme, Calfacon

            with a little girl makes one a "law and order conservative"? What the hell is wrong with you?

            "The Democrats are the lesser evil and that has to count for something. Good and evil aren't binary states. All of us are both good and evil. Being less evil is the trajectory of morality." --SC

            by tb92 on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 10:22:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  WTF? n/t (0+ / 0-)

            -approaching Curmudgeonry with pleasure

            by Calfacon on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:30:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  So this Wilson character is now "of New York"? (0+ / 0-)

      How does it happen that, having been convicted in August, 2013 and put on probation and under some kind of law enforcement supervision, he has been permitted to immigrate to New York?  Did our immigration authorities miss something? Has the NYPD been told of his presence?  How do you suppose the probation and supervision are going?

      Yikes!

      The good we secure for ourselves is precarious and uncertain, is floating in mid-air, until it is secured for all of us and incorporated into our common life. Jane Addams

      by Alice Olson on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 10:11:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I believe that he is "of York" (0+ / 0-)

        which is a lovely city in England.

        And, since he was actually sentenced to two years confinement, he is presumably safely locked up in one of Her Majesty's prisons.

        "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

        by Old Left Good Left on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 04:00:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site