Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,636
No.
Man admits to rape of a 12 year old
- Thread starter Arazi
- Start date
No.
I'm well aware of that, I thought I'd indicated that by my post. I also agree that the law is pretty dubious in this instance.
I must have miss took how you said "the judge didn't think it was a valid defense". Was just clarifying she didn't have any other options lower than what she gave.
My apologies.
If the guy had pleaded not guilty I wonder if he would have gotten off with it? Most people agree he shouldn't have been charged with anything so a jury might potentially have found him not guilty to let him off.
True. I was astonished to learn about them myself, I couldn't believe that driving through a red light to allow an emergency vehicle to pass would be indefensible in court for example.
True. I was astonished to learn about them myself, I couldn't believe that driving through a red light to allow an emergency vehicle to pass would be indefensible in court for example.
Nope, doesn't work like that. A jury trial comes when someone contests if an action actually occurred, the jury is to decide did it happen or not, the judge is then still the one who decides the punishment.
I know they don't decide the punishment, all they need to do is say he didn't do it and he gets off.
It just wouldn't play, they can't get emotionally involved and vote on their "feelings", they have to stay neutral to the facts, and he did do it, he admitted it.
I know what you're trying to get at, but by putting in a non-guilty to chance those odds with a jury, it would only of put him in a situation where he most likely would have ended up in jail.
I'm not so sure it wouldn't play, there are plenty of documented cases where so called jury nullification has come into play because the jury didn't agree with the law.
One that is often cited is the case of Clive Ponting where the jury acquitted him when they knew he was technically guilty.
But it is a big risk to take yes and I probably wouldn't do it.
One that is often cited is the case of Clive Ponting where the jury acquitted him when they knew he was technically guilty.
But it is a big risk to take yes and I probably wouldn't do it.
Good point, though it would take a lot for them to just 'rebel' on their own IMO, especially if briefed with strict guidelines etc.. But if someone in the jury was aware of jury nullification or the idea was somehow conveyed to them that it was an option then I think it is easily possible that that could happen in a case as clear cut as this.
Problem is, just look on mumsnet, it would only take one person and that goes out the window.
Cases can be decided on a 10-2 majority however. When juries are aware of nullification, as long as the vast majority of the public are on the defendants side then there will be trial after trial after trial until a not guilty verdict is achieved or the cps just give up on the case.
I have always felt that, ultimately. (Otherwise you might as well just have bench trials (Judge says you are guilty so you are!))
The whole point of having a Jury of ordinary citizens (Lawyers are specifically excluded from serving on juries BTW!) is to allow for the possibility of "Jury Nullification"
US Citizens are much more aware of their rights in this situation, but it does apply in the UK too. It is just that people in the UK are much less aware of their powers/rights.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 13,597
In law, a child cannot agree to have sex so it is statutory rape and the full legal penalty applied.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 13,597
You mean, the irony from everyone else?
Because it seems it's okay by everyone to **** underage girls who lie about their age and who may look older and get away with it.
Maybe that's a Scottish thing, but let's remember, he's the victim and not the 12 year old girl.
Just liberal things I guess.
The perpetrator is the victim?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
What do you hope would be changed by a harsher sentence?
When I said 'Why?' I was asking about your opinion, not the fact that it is rape.
It wouldn't have been worth the risk. Given that this defendant has received an absolute discharge and that his name was going to appear in the media whether he pleaded guilty or not, admitting the offence (which he did commit, after all) was the right decision. If he had been convicted after trial, which would have been likely, the judge could not have been so lenient.
Of course though we must also not forget that hindsight is 20:20 and he may not have received a discharge if he had a different judge. His plea may potentially have only spared him a suspended sentence while costing him a potential future career due to the criminal conviction.
Bit like drug possession I suppose.
