Something is wrong here.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/8583014.stm

Jim wrote:
Something is wrong here.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/8583014.stm

Yes of course something is wrong, a 3 year old girl has been raped, and the 13 year old is clearly very disturbed. No doubt everyone on this forum will spring to his defence.

Certainly not me Robbie; he should be punished; but as a child.

<quote>The boy will receive counselling from a panel of youth specialists.

They will talk to him about the crime, his behaviour, awareness of the victim, and address his education and training.

He may also be asked to take part in reparation by doing work for the community. </quote>

From the link, it sounds like he will be treated in a sensible manner

JK2006 wrote:
he should be punished; but as a child.

I think that's the crux here.

robbiex wrote:

No doubt everyone on this forum will spring to his defence.

You mean we'll try to look at it with level heads? What a strange spin you put on things.

robbiex wrote:
Jim wrote:
Something is wrong here.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/8583014.stm

Yes of course something is wrong, a 3 year old girl has been raped, and the 13 year old is clearly very disturbed. No doubt everyone on this forum will spring to his defence.

I've never seen anyone spring to a genuine offender's defence here-rather they have questioned media reports and the sensationalism surrounding these cases.

A 14 year old is cetainly capable of sexual assault-considering the rampaging homones-and there is the problem. They are continually bombarded with mixed messages fom the media. Sex is thrust at them from every angle whilst they are basically told it's all some horrible thing but their brains haven't yet fully developed.

From the little info given it sounds like sensible decsions have been made except for the bizarre rubbish of him being put on on a 'sex offender's' register-which US research is now proving can cause more harm than good to potential victims and is bad law based upon no research or common sense. We don't know the physical details (and I don't want to) but it sounds from the judge's decsion it was a more minor offence. But 'rape' is a highly emotive word.

I think your response is indicative of how difficult it is to discuss this subject sensibly at times and the greater indication of that is the The Sun newspaper-at the fore of salivating over such cases- was a serial child pornographer up to a few year ago and there isn't a peep from the so-called, self appointed 'child advocates' or politicians about it.

## the latest Private Eye points out the gutter rubish of The Sun with a tale of a hack who has written a load of codswallop about the Venables case -when that same hack was convicted of manslaughter of his wife decades ago. He strangled her and was committed to an institution.

Whilst the verdict must be accepted and he has done his time-his contribution to the Venables hysteria is a classic example of News Corp tabloid hypocrisy.

### and I wouldn't put it past a tabloid to set up a 'sting' on JK's site..try to lure someone into posting some sort of support for a real rapist.

Thanks Veritas, you write:

"I wouldn't put it past a tabloid to set up a 'sting' on JK's site..try to lure someone into posting some sort of support for a real rapist."

Perhaps now is a good time for me to introduce myself. I am Jim Schmoe, Managing Editor at Sun Newspapers Ltd. I'm here to try to lure you into supporting paedophiles.

The news is not all bad, however. You've all done very well so far and you can view this as an opportunity to impress the paper and your readers in general with your restraint and fair-mindedness.

Just kidding.

On a more serious note, I think what is wrong here is not what is reported, but the anomaly it creates for the prevailing justification for paedohysteria. Of course, what is reported is terrible in itself, but it is being dealt with by society in a way that seems sensible.

The problem is the anomaly it represents for prevailing theory. On the conventional view children are incapable of sexual agency. It appears, however, that this child has acted as a sexual agent. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The main reason sex between an adult and a child is that consent is required otherwise the sex is like rape and children are incapable of giving consent because, amongst other reasons, they lack sexual agency. There are other reasons, too, such as the power held by adults over children, but that is not essential to the existence of crime. Even without exploitation of power and privilege, sex with an underage person is statutory rape mainly because a child simply can't give consent, and I think that's tied up with the face that a child is not supposed to be a sexual agent or have sexual desires.

Cases like this present a problem for the conventional view.

Or don't you think so?

Best Wishes,
Jim

It all depends what your definition of a 'child' is.

Which in the countries plauged with a Puritan streak..GB, USA, Aust, NZ is all over the place.

But it also varies in the USA with consent laws ranging fom 14 to 21 !

very complicated.

personally I only go out with pensoners now and if they don;t produce their bus pas we don't get past first base.

I think the definition of rape has become very clouded too.
Statutory rape is often nothing of the kind. If a man meets a girl in an over 18s nightclub and he doesn't ask her if she is over 16 before having mutually agreed sex with her it should not be classed as rape. The girl has obviously convinced those on the door and probably those on the bar that she is over 18. A girl of 14 can look much older especially if they want to. It is a nonsense to suggest that girls cannot understand or cope with sex. I was just as capable of understanding it all at 13 as I am now.

According to the letter of law a crime can only exist if there is both mens rea (intent) and actus reus (putting the intent into action). While ignorance of the law is no defence, ignorance of the fact should be. If the man has no reason to believe that the girl is under age then he has not acted with intent to break the law, so he should not be labelled as a rapist.

Rape is where sex is forced, regardless of age.

This case with the boy is clearly different. I'm just making a general point about how what society now calls rape often isn't anything of the sort.

It mentions sexual assault not rape.
Certainly didn't sound like a serious assault,and he was probably a victim of assault himself.

Seems a sensible decision by the magistrates,educating to avoid a repeat,not punishing unduly to pander to an hysterical media.