So, you're in a group of nine........

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22915491-949,00.html

It is a shame they haven't been punished. A rape is a rape is a rape, in any community, moreso when a child is involved.

I can appreciate the need to protect and integrate and not alienising minorities, but this judgment does seem ridiculous.

doremi wrote:It is a shame they haven't been punished. A rape is a rape is a rape, in any community, moreso when a child is involved.

.

I don't think it is that clearcut. There is some evidence that this was not non-consensual and therefore you are talking about statutory rape which sets an arbitrary age limit (which admittedly 10 would qualify everywhere that I am aware of).

JGK wrote:

doremi wrote:It is a shame they haven't been punished. A rape is a rape is a rape, in any community, moreso when a child is involved.

.

I don't think it is that clearcut. There is some evidence that this was not non-consensual and therefore you are talking about statutory rape which sets an arbitrary age limit (which admittedly 10 would qualify everywhere that I am aware of).

12 is the limit in Queensland, JGK.

You also have to ask how do you define "consensual"? At what age does a child understand exactly what it is they are consenting to? No matter the circumtances they have been brought up in. Same goes for the boys, did they know they were doing something wrong? That's the real question, if they did they are guilty and should be punished as such and I'd say 15 and 16 years, on the whole, would know.

eowyn wrote: That's the real question, if they did they are guilty and should be punished as such and I'd say 15 and 16 years, on the whole, would know.

Except if they have grown up in an isolated community where that sort of thing is tacitly accepted.

I did say on the whole.

JGK wrote:

doremi wrote:It is a shame they haven't been punished. A rape is a rape is a rape, in any community, moreso when a child is involved. .

I don't think it is that clearcut. There is some evidence that this was not non-consensual and therefore you are talking about statutory rape which sets an arbitrary age limit (which admittedly 10 would qualify everywhere that I am aware of).

FFS, she had been gang-raped before - as a 7yr old - and there's evidence of on-going sexual activity in between the two cases. Of course she was acclimatised to the idea of being used for sex. It's not uncommon in kids who have been sexually abused to 'come on' to adults because they're accustomed to that being a major part of their interaction with them.
Sickening though the idea is.

Presumably she had been free to refuse, in which case the boys would have apologised for asking and walked away? Many rape victims agree to sex because they fear for their lives.

What kind of message does not convicting rapists convey to other members of the young men of the community - and to parents of young girls? As it is, many rape cases do not get reported because of the trauma involved in going to court. Will this decision do anything to improve the situation?

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:FFS, she had been gang-raped before - as a 7yr old - and there's evidence of on-going sexual activity in between the two cases. Of course she was acclimatised to the idea of being used for sex. It's not uncommon in kids who have been sexually abused to 'come on' to adults because they're accustomed to that being a major part of their interaction with them.
Sickening though the idea is.

And that's where 'adults' are supposed to know better. It might not be easy to keep it in your pants all the time, but it's not impossible.

Merlin wrote:

HH_pink wrote:

please don't yell wrote:But is it all just about the future of the offender and their chances of rehabilitation(that in itself is a tenuous notion in this country when you consider the overwhelming rate of recidivism by offenders who our system said were ready to rejoin society)

What about the victim?

many of those victimized by youthful offenders are underage themselves yet they are all but abandoned by our soft legal system.

What do you mean abandoned? They could also still be rehabilitated, maybe given better care and rehabilitation. I don't understand why 'justice' should always be a vengeful process - apart from the purpose that serves in preventing a repeat of the crime by the original perpetrator or as a deterrent against such crimes by others. But that said, the assumption that a person that once commits a crime is more likely to repeat it than not I don't think has a sound basis.[/

I'd suggest that you might want to reconsider that rather bold statement!

Think "paedophelia" ... then return with your reassessment.

Bold? I just said it seems like an assumption, and not something backed up by sound proof. I thought "paedophilia", and I still stand by my assessment. How is it any different you mean? If you mean they continue to harbor "evil thoughts", etc. as tac and LLL have suggested, no one can and has the right to do anything about that.

In any case, I think it is well established and accepted that humans are prone to making mistakes .... but some of them assume the proportions of a crime, and to snatch the 'life' out of a criminal because he did something wrong once .... something seems not right. ffs, we're not robots. Especially when it's done in an institutionalized manner in the guise of justice but essentially fulfilling the victim/victim's kin/society's need for revenge, seems plain twisted to me. But I do see there're other reasons why it might be a good thing, as I said earlier - as a deterrent and to set an example. But an attempt at 'rehabilitation' should always take precendence over any other (re)actionary measure ...

(I don't see what your "argument" with tac was about, though. I thought what he said in response to your response to my original post seemed reasonable enough. It was you who wasn't being clear there.)

HH_pink wrote:Bold? I just said it seems like an assumption, and not something backed up by sound proof. I thought "paedophilia", and I still stand by my assessment. How is it any different you mean? If you mean they continue to harbor "evil thoughts", etc. as tac and LLL have suggested, no one can and has the right to do anything about that.

Agreed, for instance, when I see Richard Madeley and one or two others I get the instant thought of filling his face in with my fist and not stopping until his head is pure pulp. Doesn't make me a murderer.

HH_pink wrote:
(I don't see what your "argument" with tac was about, though. I thought what he said in response to your response to my original post seemed reasonable enough. It was you who wasn't being clear there.)

No real change. He's never the most concise and coherant, but has the demeanour of a man who is. Which is why he gets into long, long 'debates' with others - they just don't know WTF he's on about and he just reiterates his blathering load of bullsht. In the end, nigh on all forget and he's got a clean slate, when in all reality he's received verbal smackdown after verbal smackdown.

Merlo has all the communication skills of a dyslexic dysarthric dysphasic drunk from the isle of Lewis. His incomprehensibility is exceeded only by his indignation.

lardbucket wrote:Merlo has all the communication skills of a dyslexic dysarthric dysphasic drunk from the isle of Lewis. His incomprehensibility is exceeded only by his indignation.

Thats a bit unfair on drunk dyslexic dysarthric dysphasics from the isle of Lewis isn't it?

only the humans

Remind me never to fall out with you, lardy........

lardbucket wrote:Merlo has all the communication skills of a dyslexic dysarthric dysphasic drunk from the isle of Lewis. His incomprehensibility is exceeded only by his indignation.

Hmmm ... strong words from one who perhaps, like tac, missed the original point of my post in response to Pink - or indeed, perhaps attempting at being an apologist for some Australian's on here who, whilst wringing their hands in indignation, nevertheless make excuses for a 10 y o girl's gang rape, absolve the judge and berate those who criticize the non-actions of the judiciary. Or was it my mention of paedophilia?

Lardy ... let's be clear on this - since our last exchanges we really haven't see eye to eye on a few matters, and this, your latest virulent verbal attack on me is a clear indication of your underlying frustration.
No worries .... that's your problem not mine!
This is an open forum and as such "open" to individual opinion and comment.
But, a sign of weakness in a person - whether cyber or real - is exhibited by their unprovoked personal attack on another - FFS you weren't even involved in the original discussion (clearly still NOT) - and yet, here you are, spearing away at me, regardless.

I'm perfectly happy to amplify my " communication skills of a dyslexic dysarthric dysphasic drunk from the isle of Lewis" as you so succinctly put it, at anytime and any place in a debate with you ... providing you refrain from portraying your weakness by indulging in personal attacks.

For the record, I will repeat - Pink mentioned "repeat offenders" and how jailing them was considered to be unnecessary.
My reference to paedophiles, in response to Pink's post, directly related to his reference of "repeat offenders" - ( paedophiles are repeat offenders - a proven fact)... and was NOT, I repeat NOT in reference, veiled or otherwise, to the issue concerning the 10 y o girl's rapists. If this was incomprehensible to you, then accept my apologies.
If, however, you sought to score cheap points by making the absurd statement above, then more fool you.
Let's hope this is an end to it.

And do please leave the gentry from the Isle of Lewis out of this.
Unless of course you happen to be a direct descendant of their lesser mortals and thus, through inheritance, know of their failings!

That could have been summed up as: "You're right, lardbucket, I am a tw@t." It would have been a lot faster for you to type.

JB wrote:That could have been summed up as: "You're right, lardbucket, I am a tw@t." It would have been a lot faster for you to type.

To quote your very own post of Oct 28th ...

JB
Joined : 17 Sep 2007
Posts : 16

Subject: Re: Australian cricket is not multicultural enough- CA official Sun Oct 28, 2007 5:41 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm a moronist.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enough said.

Merlin wrote:Lardy ... let's be clear on this

OK, it's your turn