Judge questions why ‘only the boy’ is charged in underage sex case - Polidicks

[url]http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/judge-questions-why-only-the-boy-is-charged-in-underage-sex-case/story-fni6uo1m-1226934612872[/url] A DISTRICT Court judge has said he “always wondered why only the boy is charged” with having sex under the age of consent. Judge Paul Muscat made the comment while presiding over sentencing submissions for a teen charged with two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 17. Judge Muscat said the case involved a girl who was 15 and a boy under the age of 18 when they commenced a boyfriend and girlfriend relationship. He said there was consensual sexual activity before the boy broke up with her “and she clearly became upset at that”. He said eventually the girl’s mother found out and the police were informed. The boy’s lawyer told the court his instructions were the boy was under 18 when they had sex. “If it did then she is as guilty as he is for engaging in those accounts of intercourse with him,” Judge Muscat said. “If that was so, if he was 17 and she was 15 and this actively was brought to the attention of the police, in her own statement of what happened ... she would have to be charged along with him. “I have never seen that in the youth court and I always wondered why only the boy is charged, but there I go.” Judge Muscat said if the girl gave evidence she would have to be cautioned that anything she said on oath could be used against her in youth court charges. He said it was not unusual for people of that age to have sex with each other but unusual that that in a case like this, where there was obvious consent, there would be the issues he mentioned if the girl were to give evidence. “She would have to accept responsibilities for her own actions whilst he was under the age of 18,” he said. Judge Muscat said it seemed to be a “pretty obvious case of boyfriend/girlfriend situation which he eventually calls off and she’s upset by it and one thing leads to another”. “Before one knows it he’s charged with these crimes and these crimes have now devastated her whole life,” he said. “It’s the sort of thing that, with all due respect, he is really not the form of criminal courts should be dealing with.” Judge Muscat said he did not think a custodial term was warranted for “this type of offending in these cases”. “Quite often that’s the only sentence that a court can impose for an adult having sex with a child but the factual circumstances here are quite different and I would be thinking about it and it’s one of those cases where I think I can exercise my discretion to discharge him with a simple bond without a conviction,” he said. Judge Muscat will hear further submissions next month.

Women suffered enough under the patriarchy, they shouldn't be charged for crimes.

Or maybe we just shouldn't punish kids for "sexual offenses" as long as they don't rape somebody half their age and/or forcibly, period?

That's pretty fucked up, why should anyone be charged at all? It's not going to help anyone and it's not going to stop teens from fucking.

If they have a penis, it's their fault There's no way a female can experience a sex drive, right?

Why is this even a crime?

[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;44934111]Why is this even a crime?[/QUOTE] Apparently they're too young to properly consent to fucking each other.

[QUOTE=Coffee;44934211]Apparently they're too young to properly consent to fucking each other.[/QUOTE] Yes. Both of them are raping each other simultaneously.

[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;44934225]Yes. Both of them are raping each other simultaneously.[/QUOTE] Truly this is a foul rape culture we live in.

[QUOTE=Coffee;44934211]Apparently they're too young to properly consent to fucking each other.[/QUOTE] Does that law help even a little? Back in high school around here you were basically shamed if you were still a virgin past 14-15.

18 as age of consent just leads to unnecessary problems like this. 16 seems like a "reasonable" age.

[QUOTE=Karmah;44934085]If they have a penis, it's their fault There's no way a female can experience a sex drive, right?[/QUOTE] It's obvious that all PIV sex is rape, even if there's clear consent from both parties. Rape is rape.

[QUOTE=booster;44934378]18 as age of consent just leads to unnecessary problems like this. 16 seems like a "reasonable" age.[/QUOTE] 16 is legal in my US state so long as you're within a few years of age of your partner.

[QUOTE=Riutet;44934361]Truly this is a foul rape culture we live in.[/QUOTE] foal* bronies are behind it all

Ship them both to guantanamo, they're a threat to society, both them rapists. [QUOTE=thelurker1234;44935887]bronies are behind it all[/QUOTE] Please don't.

The age of consent in Australia is 18?

[QUOTE=JohnnyOnFlame;44935919]Ship them both to guantanamo, they're a threat to society, both them rapists. Please don't.[/QUOTE] Don't what? By the way, OP, you should only quote part of the article, not the whole thing.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;44935961]The age of consent in Australia is 18?[/QUOTE] It's 16 Australia-wide. But the states all have slightly different laws for everything else sex-related. For example, in NSW this wouldn't be much more than your everyday aggrevated sexual assault (because she was 15 and he was over 16) and we don't have a closeness of age defence. SA have a weird law that once you hit 17 you both have to be 17 - hence the charge.

-snip lol-

[QUOTE=Soret;44936416]14 here in my country, lol, plus I did have sex under that age when I was 11, did I commit a crime? lol[/QUOTE] fucking wow

It's 16 in Australia but I've known people who've done it younger but I've always wondered this because girls get off scot-free I honestly don't see the crime in a 2-3 year age difference tbh [editline]29th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;44935961]The age of consent in Australia is 18?[/QUOTE] According to Commonwealth law the age of consent is 16 and posting pictures of yourself is also 16 (which I only found out a few months ago) I don't think states can change this or else it conflicts with commonwealth law therefore making it invalid

If you think about it, this is degrading to women, in that the law is making an assumption that women are always the victim.

It's just kinda degrading in general to both parties

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;44936636] According to Commonwealth law the age of consent is 16 and posting pictures of yourself is also 16 (which I only found out a few months ago) I don't think states can change this or else it conflicts with commonwealth law therefore making it invalid[/QUOTE] They can't, which is why they do things like this (where 16 year olds can only fuck 16/17 year olds) to get around it. Effectively making the age of consent in SA 17 without actually adjusting the age of consent.

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;44934062]Women suffered enough under the patriarchy, they shouldn't be charged for crimes.[/QUOTE] women not being taken seriously enough to be tried for rape crimes is a part of the patriarchy i mean in this case individuals under the age of consent shouldn't be tried in the first place unless there's a significant element of coercion but whatever

It's 15 here. But you've gotta be over 18 if you want to watch porn :v:

As far as the age of consent goes, I kind of like the scaling system we have here that allows teenage minors to have sex with people who are only a year a two older or younger than them. [QUOTE=BrickInHead;44938833]women not being taken seriously enough to be tried for rape crimes is a part of the patriarchy[/QUOTE] We should really change this terminology. We don't need this implied Men vs Women stuff.

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;44938833]women not being taken seriously enough to be tried for rape crimes is a part of the patriarchy i mean in this case individuals under the age of consent shouldn't be tried in the first place unless there's a significant element of coercion but whatever[/QUOTE] You're really stretching the definition of the patriarchy there, to the point it's a meaningless catchall for any gender difference. It's a stupid loophole in state laws which usually gets a light sentence anyway, same as underage people sexting legally counts as production of child pornography. Just musing over the fact that not only is it frivolous, they can't even get it exact to the letter of the law and it's used more often by the girl's parents in some strange retribution. At least the courts can give light sentences and throw cases out, good luck getting legislators to decriminalise it when sensationalist headlines would read about them legalising teenager porn and letting the precious children fuck like rabbits.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;44936636]It's 16 in Australia but I've known people who've done it younger but I've always wondered this because girls get off scot-free I honestly don't see the crime in a 2-3 year age difference tbh [editline]29th May 2014[/editline] According to Commonwealth law the age of consent is 16 and posting pictures of yourself is also 16 (which I only found out a few months ago) I don't think states can change this or else it conflicts with commonwealth law therefore making it invalid[/QUOTE] they can have a different age of consent for specific acts tho like here in qld bunghole plundering is 18+ only, while vaginal, oral, handjobs, footjobs, armpit sex, knee fucking and really anything else you can think of that doesn't involve anything going into a bum is 16+ [url]http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s208.html[/url]

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;44935887]foal* bronies are behind it all[/QUOTE] The fuck? I honestly don't see why two consenting teenagers should be charged at all. What point are they trying to make by charging them? Are they upset a teenager gets more action than them?