Harsh ruling or fair?

Vonhelmet · 21 Mar 2011 at 07:57

ash_scotland88 said:
I know it's cruel but girls that dress like whores deserve anything they get, no matter the age.
They dress for it they ask for it.

Are you asking to be personally insulted then?

Vonhelmet · 21 Mar 2011 at 07:58

mglover070588 said:
How the heck can you mistakr a 12 year old for a 16 year old.

That is beyond me.

A mature 12 year old could probably be passed off as an immature 16 year old.

Glaucus · 21 Mar 2011 at 07:59

BigglesPiP said:
Even if they were only just 16, only one of the boys falls within the 1/2 + 7 rule.

You do realise this is a crap "rule"(if you can even call it that) which is totally meaningless and pointless.

Cosimo · 21 Mar 2011 at 08:05

vonhelmet said:
Are you asking to be personally insulted then?

You're almost there, why not go the whole way?j

Glaucus · 21 Mar 2011 at 08:06

simulatorman said:
You're almost there, why not go the whole way?j

You where to slow, it was before the edit.

robgmun · 21 Mar 2011 at 08:14

Gackt said:
The men should obviously be punished, but not simply for what they have done - but why they have done them. The girls should also face some sort of punishment for their roles.

This TBH

Yes it was a bit harsh but in the end it was fair, but also the girl must have been punshed somehow

Also i'm going to throw it out there and say i think the girl in question could also have been black. In school the black girls always look much older then everyone else

Vonhelmet · 21 Mar 2011 at 08:36

AcidHell2 said:
You where to slow, it was before the edit.

Indeed. I'd rather not be banned, even it is just for telling the truth.

bitslice · 21 Mar 2011 at 09:31

ash_scotland88 said:
I know it's cruel but girls that dress like whores deserve anything they get, no matter the age.
They dress for it they ask for it.

ash_scotland88 said:
But school girls walking around in short skirts and breasts out that then rung home to dad as soon as a man gives them some sort of attention, they deserve it.

ash_scotland88 said:
Not rape, but unwanted attention, the odd creeping hand etc

stop digging that hole eh, you are looking like an idiot.

As for Thread, they had sex without considering the girls age and they got it wrong, therefore they deserve it. There's no charge for treating girls like meat, but their behaviour was degenerate at best.

Sudden · 21 Mar 2011 at 10:51

Angilion said:
Are you sure? When did the law change? It certainly wasn't like that the last time I looked for details during an argument, which wasn't that long ago.

When I looked, the law was very explicit about reasonable belief not being a legal defence - one second under 16 was enough and no evidence, not even a sworn affadavit from the Queen stating the person was over 18 combined with a detailed medical report stating they were an adult, was enough. For no stated reason, you might get one go at a reasonable belief defence if you were also young enough, but it would not be "OK", it would remain on record and you could only use it once, ever.

Pretty sure. Reasonable belief is a defence if the person is between 13 and 15, but not if she's under 13.

Section 9(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 -

A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual, and
(c)either—
(i)B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or
(ii)B is under 13.

If you were also young enough (i.e., under 18), you are still guilty regardless, but I think the sentance is a fair bit lighter (not sure how much ligher. it's in the act).

Zid_ · 21 Mar 2011 at 10:58

I did a quick skim but I don't think anyone's brought up the fact that the age of consent is lower in some countries. This same scenario could play out and there would be no jail time at all which is some food for thought.

It's interesting to see a lot of people vehemently agreeing with the sentences seemingly because of the law in this country.

Don't get me wrong, it's all a bit perverse, but whether people should face time in prison for it is another matter. It's especially odd that there doesn't seem to have been any form of punishment for the girls. It's basically free entrapment.

haz_pro · 21 Mar 2011 at 11:03

Assuming the story is true, i dont feel the imprisonment is right.

I have friends with sisters, and family friends etc who are maybe 12/13 and could easily pass for 16.

Dave M · 21 Mar 2011 at 11:08

2 years seems quite short for gang rape, as such I think the judge took the circumstances into account and they got exactly what they deserved.

May I just add the popular media (x-factor, music videos and nearly all magazines) should share the blame for young girls ending up doing such disgusting things.

Robbo · 21 Mar 2011 at 12:21

Telescopi said:
2 years seems quite short for gang rape, as such I think the judge took the circumstances into account and they got exactly what they deserved.

May I just add the popular media (x-factor, music videos and nearly all magazines) should share the blame for young girls ending up doing such disgusting things.

Ah yes, the X-Factor. Mindless garbage that most of the country love watching, very worrying indeed.

Morba · 21 Mar 2011 at 12:24

Telescopi said:
May I just add the popular media (x-factor, music videos and nearly all magazines) should share the blame for young girls ending up doing such disgusting things.

I dont think any of those can be blamed for what these girls were doing.
I'd guess that the one that had them lining up has had a troubled upgringing of some sort to make her like that.

Vonhelmet · 21 Mar 2011 at 13:09

Robboftw said:
Ah yes, the X-Factor. Mindless garbage that most of the country love watching, very worrying indeed.

Bread and circuses. Ancient Rome says hi.

bitslice · 21 Mar 2011 at 14:15

Zid_ said:
It's especially odd that there doesn't seem to have been any form of punishment for the girls. It's basically free entrapment.

Why punish someone for offering sex?
It's the man's responsibility to not have sex with children, not the child (who is by definition not able to give consent), they just didn't care.
Like someone said, she may have family issues.

They are degenerates who willing share the same girl without knowing the first thing about her. That just shows zero respect for anything other than their own pleasure.

SexyGreyFox · 21 Mar 2011 at 18:18

Of course nobody has mentioned that the link was from a news story and we all know they like to write selective bits.
If we were in that court we would all know the reasons why a jury gave them 2 years.

Gackt · 21 Mar 2011 at 18:51

Morba said:
I dont think any of those can be blamed for what these girls were doing.
I'd guess that the one that had them lining up has had a troubled upgringing of some sort to make her like that.

Not blamed, but it clearly has an effect on a person. Even moreso with someone who is young and impressionable. Obviously it doesn't mean someone who listens to a certain song or watch a certain show is going to become a superslut/manipulative cow as much as someone who plays violent videogames becoming a killer but it is naive to think that these sorts of things don't have an impact on a person.

Just how much of an impact is difficult to tell, as the kind/amount of media we're subject to is only fairly recent, compared to say a thousand years ago. The amount of music, we listen to, for example, is extreme in comparison, and where/how and what kind. Music has all kinds of effects on a person, so why not other media.

Also, this isn't ignoring upbringing, social, religious and other factors, but it all needs to be taken into account.

Makunouchi · 21 Mar 2011 at 19:03

Probably the right outcome, you can't let them get off free as they have obviously broken a law and should be punished for it but the mitigating circumstances are, as described, extreme.

steve-h · 21 Mar 2011 at 19:29

PICS OF GIRLS?

If they were consenting and they initiated it, then it's not rape in my eyes.