British Judges Free Child Rapists, Say 12-Year-Old Girls “Wanted” Sex - Polidicks

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;31302309]guess how little that matters! (none!) I could convince a 6-year-old that having sex would be tons of fun for her and she could want to have it but that doesn't mean giving it to them is alright[/QUOTE] Why did you choose to bring that up specifically? :tinfoil:

The headline stricked me as something completly retarted, but honestly I can see how those men might jsut have been fucked over.

What poorly parented two little bitches, imo

I somewhat agree with this, if the guys are just regular guys who were genuinely duped into it, then they dont deserve to lose 2 years of their life in jail, especially when they arent a threat to society.

I don't see the issue here. If they didn't know the girls were underage then they clearly have no intent to rape children, so there's no need to punish them for the sake of rehabilitation, and the punishment is worthless as a deterrent since they did not mean to commit the crime so could never have been deterred. So the punishment serves no purpose for either deterrence or rehabilatation in this case, so it serves pretty much no purpose. So why should they be punished?

I still don't like the ruling, probably because you'd think a group of men would know better.

[QUOTE=Clark21;31305855]You're an idiot. How can you not tell if someone is 12 years old? I would understand if it was a 15 year old lying about being 16 but girls who are 12 don't look like they are old enough to have sex. It's like saying a baby said 'fuck me i'm of age' to a guy and then the guy fucked the baby and then got thrown in jail and then you come along and say 'it's fucking retarded that if you have sex with a girl who lies about her age, you're the one that gets thrown in jail'.[/QUOTE] Christ. People can look much older than their age. If you don't believe this, or haven't ever seen it, you don't get out enough. Add to that that the men were probably drunk, it's entirely possible that they'd mistake a twelve year old for a sixteen year old.

[QUOTE=Lilolia;31307424]I somewhat agree with this, if the guys are just regular guys who were genuinely duped into it, then they dont deserve to lose 2 years of their life in jail, especially when they arent a threat to society.[/QUOTE] It's not hard to spot a 12 year old.

Normally I'd call this a stupid decision, but I'm glad those guys won. Twelve year old sluts piss me off, and I don't want any money going to their families or any "victories" being claimed by them. The best part of this is that the parents are going to realize their little angel is a bitch.

[QUOTE=TropicalV2;31302076]it's fucking retarded that if you have sex with a girl who lies about her age, you're the one that gets thrown in jail.[/QUOTE] On the other hand though, you don't want rapists using this as an excuse all the time. "Oh she wanted it." I'm pretty sure judges hear that all the time in rape cases, but most of the time that is considered an absurd statement. Not that I don't agree with you to some degree, but I don't see how 12 year olds can really pass off as 16 and above.

[QUOTE=gnome;31308291]On the other hand though, you don't want rapists using this as an excuse all the time. "Oh she wanted it." I'm pretty sure judges hear that all the time in rape cases, but most of the time that is considered an absurd statement.[/QUOTE] thing is this is statutory rape (as in the girls gave consent but were underage), which is a far cry from actual rape

[QUOTE=Mon;31308304]thing is this is statutory rape (as in the girls gave consent but were underage), which is a far cry from actual rape[/QUOTE] I'm not really arguing against that, just that they shouldn't let statutory rapists of any kind (consent or not) use this excuse as a crutch. I just don't think it's excusable to claim ignorance every time something like this happens. Normally I'm on the side of letting stupid people do stupid shit, but I'm all for regulating what we let people do to kids that young, because they're really not old enough to understand sex well enough to "give consent". The whole point of putting people in jail even when the minor gave consent is the idea that minors aren't smart enough to give consent in the first place. What if these dumbass 12 year olds are pregnant? Is that not some shit? I'm not saying these guys should be demonized and put on death row, but I think a little punishment for their own stupidity is in order.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;31308197]It's not hard to spot a 12 year old.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.latina.com/files/imagecache/post-large-image/bella-thorne-2-550.png[/url] How old do you think she is? Hint: [sp]12 + 1[/sp] [QUOTE=gnome;31308392] I'm not saying these guys should be demonized and put on death row, but I think a little punishment for their own stupidity is in order.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure if the laws are significantly different in the UK, but being charged with statutory rape is hardly a "little" punishment.

I'm not reading 8 pages to find out if facepunch agrees or disagrees with the judges decision. Whats facepunches stance on the ruling?

[QUOTE=gnome;31308392]I'm not really arguing against that, just that they shouldn't let statutory rapists of any kind (consent or not) use this excuse as a crutch. I just don't think it's excusable to claim ignorance every time something like this happens. Normally I'm on the side of letting stupid people do stupid shit, but I'm all for regulating what we let people do to kids that young, because they're really not old enough to understand sex well enough to "give consent". The whole point of putting people in jail even when the minor gave consent is the idea that minors aren't smart enough to give consent in the first place. What if these dumbass 12 year olds are pregnant? Is that not some shit? I'm not saying these guys should be demonized and put on death row, but I think a little punishment for their own stupidity is in order.[/QUOTE] they already did a year in prison, they're on probation now [editline]24th July 2011[/editline] considering the charges that's a slap on the wrist

[QUOTE=Mon;31303179]let's look at a case of a guy getting killed then let's say that you're going up an elevator, and somehow, through normal operation, you manage to kill a man 3 floors up. would you convict him of murder? because that's sort of what you're getting at here[/QUOTE] Using an elevator and fucking a girl are completely different situations. [QUOTE=Camundongo;31303222]The intent of the men, and this is important, was to have consensual sex with two girls they believed to be over the age of consent. However, due to recklessness, they didn't take any steps or show any caution a reasonable person would do to ensure their partner was of the legal age. They still committed a crime, but having sex with underage girls was not their intent.[/QUOTE] Yes. Being reckless shouldn't absolve you of committing a crime. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;31303732]Lachorz you likely commit crimes every day without knowing it, should you be prosecuted for each one? I can understand and respect your gripe against adult and minor relations, as it is an extremely questionable circumstance, but please stop saying "it's the law" as "the law" does not automatically justify or in-justify everything, nor does it even represent or balance everybody's best interests. Perhaps in many circumstances statutory rape laws will protect minors, but in many other cases the law itself also winds up being abused by unscrupulous, or downright stupid people. Statutory Rape and Rape are both words of extreme weight. [I]True[/I] statutory rape is despicable, and true rape is generally a horrific experience for the person at the butt end of it. Unfortunately, while many cases may have legitimacy, in many circumstances these words and terms of extreme gravity are abused to ones advantage. I can only hope that true rapists burn in the inner circle of hell (if there is one) but the same goes for those who abuse the term "rape," as it is a word of extreme gravity, and misusing it removes legitimacy from cases where people have been horribly, horribly scarred (both physically and mentally) by [I]real[/I] rape scenarios. I feel as much hatred for [I]liars[/I] as rapists, because the liars actually do more damage in the long run. I dont think this is one of the cases where these girls have been truly scarred by the experience. Then again, it's hard to tell because the article is pure fucking sensationalist rubbish. the article posted used the word "rape" without any fucking discretion, and I am highly, highly skeptical about whether this case has any legitimacy. I have a hard time imagining that a judge as inane as the one described in the article can exist, his words were likely taken out of context (if he was even quoted properly at all), and its unlikely that even a shred of the story posted in the article is true. Come to think of it, it brings me back to my point about liars. it's hard to tell if the story posted is truly accurate or not, because there is so. much. bullshit posted by blogs and news installations.[/QUOTE] Just for the sake of argument, jaywalking and statutory rape are completely different situations. The rest of the post is absolutely spot on, though. And yeah, the original source (the source the blog uses) is the Daily Mail, but as far as I can tell, it's the [i]only[/i] source so far. Any other sources I can find point back to it. Here are the links I'm going to be using: [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2014278/Jailed-footballers-freed-judges-rape-appeal-say-girls-12-wanted-sex.html[/url] [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367377/Six-footballers-jailed-gang-rape-12-year-old-girls-midnight-park-orgy.html[/url] [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2017823/Raped-12-gang-footballers-judge-frees--Victim-speaks-sickening-sex-attack.html[/url] The men fully confessed to the crime, and turned themselves in, so the five who had sex with that one shouldn't really be kept in jail for very long. They understood that they fucked up, and are already 'rehabilitated', so to speak. Their convictions will still be with them for some years, which is punishment enough. Additionally, the first girl was doing it on her own free will, as said in all three links. [quote]An appeal was launched to find those involved and soon all six had handed themselves in and made full confessions. They were said to have been shocked and disgusted to learn the true ages of the girls, with one stating: 'I've got a little sister about that age.' [/quote] The last guy and the other girl are a trickier situation, though. As you can see in the third link, she seems pretty traumatized, and as the second and third links say, the last guy pressured her into sex. That's definitely rape, so he [i]should[/i] be kept in jail, and have a more serious criminal record. He did give a full confession and turn himself in as well, but that could have just been because the other five guys did the same, so he couldn't possibly get out of it. [quote]One went beside the building and the other went to a children's play area. She said one of the males kept asking her for sex. She was initially reluctant but eventually gave in to his persistence. It was her account that there was only one male she had any sexual contact with.[/quote] UNLESS, however, that this part of the first link turns out to be correct: [quote]Amos, from Caversham, engaged in a brief sex act with the other girl but this stopped when she became upset and he comforted her.[/quote] In which case, his criminal record and jail time should be less serious, while still being more serious than the other five. However, he could have lied about that part in order to save as much face as he could, which is why I'm not sure about this part. The first girl needs counseling and help in order to find out why she's so promiscuous at her age. The other girl is already getting therapy. Does that settle it?

If the girls are the ones who wanted sex and the man agreed since they told him they were sixteen, why is it called rape? Is it because they're underage? Or are they referencing the previous charges since the girls said it was rape.

[QUOTE=Unreliable;31309175]Is it because they're underage?[/QUOTE] yes

[QUOTE=Unreliable;31309175]If the girls are the ones who wanted sex and the man agreed since they told him they were sixteen, why is it called rape? Is it because they're underage? Or are they referencing the previous charges since the girls said it was rape.[/QUOTE] they're underage and unable to give consent. it's therefore classed as statutory rape.

[QUOTE=Mon;31309072]they already did a year in prison, they're on probation now [editline]24th July 2011[/editline] considering the charges that's a slap on the wrist[/QUOTE] That's true, I kind of forgot about that part. None the less, I find the reason for their release slightly appalling.

[QUOTE=Unreliable;31309175]If the girls are the ones who wanted sex and the man agreed since they told him they were sixteen, why is it called rape? Is it because they're underage? Or are they referencing the previous charges since the girls said it was rape.[/QUOTE] "statutory rape" isn't always actual rape. It can be consensual, but it's still against the law because you're having sex with an underaged girl. I actually know a guy in his 40's, when he was 18 he had sex with his 16 or 17 year old girl friend when her dad walked in, his dad pressed charges and in a bargain he got off without jail time, but now he has to put a sign in his yard saying he's a sex offender, contact the police when he moves, and children can't come to his door for Halloween. Statutory rape is retarded.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;31308920]I'm not reading 8 pages to find out if facepunch agrees or disagrees with the judges decision. Whats facepunches stance on the ruling?[/QUOTE]There shouldn't really be a stance considering this article doesn't really explain much of anything. I think we can all agree that if the men knew they were having sex with 12 year old girls and/or raped them they should be punished for it, but if they had consensual sex with what they legitimately believed was girls who were at the age of consent then they shouldn't be punished. This depends a lot on whether or not the girls actually looked 16, since there are no available pics for us to be able to tell that.

It does not matter if she wanted it or not, grown men should know that it is wrong to do that. Young kids/teenagers can be pressured in to almost anything.

I'm not sure if I should be outraged or think this is good.

[QUOTE=ChilColdCoolaid;31306053]God dammit why is your name Chilean but you have a Norwegian flag as your avatar?[/QUOTE] That's the Chilean flag I don't know what you're talking about.

Wouldn't they still be convicted for statutory rape? Or maybe the judges were just sorry for how shitty the sex was.

If you have sex with a 12 year old, you know your fucking a kid. There is no "being duped"...

[QUOTE=TropicalV2;31302076]it's fucking retarded that if you have sex with a girl who lies about her age, you're the one that gets thrown in jail.[/QUOTE] True, but the law is still the law. The original 2-year sentence was acceptable, and those girls need some proper help

Did they release how old were the men?

[QUOTE=ProWaffle;31316838]Wouldn't they still be convicted for statutory rape? Or maybe the judges were just sorry for how shitty the sex was.[/QUOTE] They were released on the basis that they may have been tricked.