It's not as wrong to rape children if they look older and slutty.

A British judge appears to think that raping a 10 year old child is not as bad if that child dresses and acts provocatively. This same judge has been in trouble before for telling another paedophile to give his victim money to buy "a nice new bicycle" (after setting him free).

Not to say that the judge was correct, or that this guy wasn't a scumbag, but if he had 'consensual' sex with a person who appeared to be over 16 - that doesn't make him entirely evil. Although I have a very hard time imaging how a 10 year old could have possibly appeared to be over 16.
And obviously, statutory rape should be punished in every case.

I guess that's really the issue here isn't it? Whether it's reasonable to believe that two men could mistake a 10 year old for someone over the age of 16.

As the mother of an 11 year old girl, I find it doubtful.

The guy is fuckin 34 years old. He's got no business fuckin 16 year olds either !

How the hell can you say a 10 year old consented ?!?


edit: pardon, He's 24 and his accomplice is 34.

Be that as it may, sixteen is the legal age of consent in Britain.

I put 'consent' into inverted commas; I was trying to show that while she was not entirely able to give consent, she gave a consent of sorts, leading it's classification as statutory rape.

I was also speaking from the man's point of view: if the defence attorneys are to be believed, he was faced with a person who appeared to be consenting and over the legal age of consent. However, I agree with Phantasy - I think it's doubtful she did actually appear to be in her late teens, and I suspect the man knew that. Which would make him a complete twunt. And, as I said before, statutory rape does need to be punished in all cases.

It doesn't really seem fair to judge without knowing all of the details of the case. It might be one thing if only the guilty persons thought she was of age, but the judge and apparently a number of medical examiners thought so too. So while it seems unlikely, it doesn't sound completely impossible either.

No, no, no. There's no defense for this. 10?! Wrong; I don't give a fuck what men though what.

Also, what's a ten year old girl doing:

• alone at a park
• with a 24 year old man
• dressed "provocatively"
• "consenting" to sex

?

Edit: Ah, she's a ward of the state.

I was wondering about that.

Be that as it may, I'm not finding it in my heart to be really sympathetic to a couple of guys, 24 and 34 that THOUGHT they were getting down with a 16 year old but wound up with charges because she turned out to be 10.

The perceived age of the minor is irrelevant. She can appear to be of the age of consent...she can state that she is of the age of consent...and she can produce a fake ID that says she is of the age of consent....but if she is NOT of the age of consent...it is statutory rape.

Absolutely.

To avoid such risks, it would be wise for such men not to go specifically for girls they imagine to look only barely-legal in the first place, although I have serious doubts that a ten year-old could really look sixteen or older. There must have been some ambiguity there.

Just a thought: I wonder if Judge Julian Hall would be quite so understanding of Fenn's plight, had the ten year-old in question been his daughter? It's not relevant to the case, but I'm honestly curious.

Me neither. And, as statutory rape is a crime, regardless of whether you thought the victim was old enough, they should certainly be punished.

But to debate the case, it is worth taking into account the intentions and mindset of the perpetrators. Especially when considering sentencing and deciding how much of a risk they pose to society.

Well, yes I'd agree with you. Intent doesn't absolve them of guilt. But as I'm sure you've noticed the defendants were found guilty. However, intent can and often does play a role in determining sentencing. Presumably, given the circumstances, the judge thought these two weren't as dangerous as a "normal" pedophile.

Which, ultimately, makes the law kinda silly. If you can know and understand a law, make attempts to not break the law, and still commit a crime, then the law is poorly made. If the judge believes the men were telling the truth, then using his discretion in this way is exactly what he should be doing.

So suppose she looks like she is 10, but really is 16 in the UK or someplace where that or some lower age is the age of consent. What then?

Then nothing. No crime would have been committed.

I would agree but suppose she pretended to be 10, and the person having sex with her thought she was ten.

The person thinks he is committing a crime, and as I recal police sometimes set up traps where for example a fence buys something he thinks is stolen, and he can be convicted of it.

I think it is not so clear that the older party would be innocent in such a case.

My take is that this shows the issue is a bit blurry.

The law isn't blurry at all. If a young woman of sixteen has consenting sex with a man, there would be no offence committed by the man, regardless of how old she looks. The law is in place to protect children, not patronise women who look youthful. Even if the woman was to pretend that she was below the age of consent, (although that would be wholly bizarre) by having sex with her, the man would not be committing statutory rape. The fact that he might have wanted to is irrelevant because she would be above the age of consent.

If, however a young woman was employed by the police, to play the part of a child in order to convict a suspected paedophile, statutory rape would not be the mark's conviction. For a start, the 'actor' would not have sex with the mark. Secondly, she would have had to expressly give the mark the impression that she was below the legal age of consent for the police to discover if sex with a minor was definitely his intention; whereupon the police would have to obtain proof to that effect. The fact that the woman may look particularly youthful may work to the police's advantage in drawing the interest of the suspected paedophile, but aside from that, she would just be like any other officer involved in this area of policing. Her looks would not actually be factored at all, as the case would be based on hard evidence about the mark's intent, such as documents, emails, etc; compiled and recorded in order to secure a conviction.

And if I break into my own house, steal all of my stuff, and pawn it, I haven't committed a crime. I'm just a moron. It doesn't make me robbing someone else's home any more or less of a crime.

Srsly.

I remember, but cannot find on youtube, a "don't have sex with minors" PSA that came out maybe late 90s - early 00s. It showed a number of very attractive young women, all of whom I would have guessed were at least 18 years old. I believe the reveal at the end was that the youngest was 13. Not 10, mind you, but 13 is still an age you would think you could distinguish from 18. Which was, of course, the point of the PSA... it said something like "always check ID."

I do have strong moral issues with holding anyone accountable for sexual relations with an individual who a) appears to be of age and b) has a fake ID claiming to be of age. Maybe I'll feel differently when my wife and I have children of our own.

I'm not the kind of person who would find myself in that situation. But I do agree that it doesn't strike me as particularly fair.

i agree entirely, even 16 i personally find just not appealing. but it would be hard to condemn these guys if someone lied to them about their age.

People can make honest mistakes, but there aren't enough details in these articles to determine that that's what really happened here. Moreover, there's some circumstantial evidence suggesting that Judge Hall tends to go lightly on molestation (guy rapes seven children, including at least one toddler, and is eligible for parole in three-and-a-half years?) and even murder - while he handed down a serious sentence for so-called "crowbar killer," he let another guy claim manslaughter for strangling his fiancee after she compared him unfavorably (and apparently justifiably) to a lesbian ex-lover.

And it would be very hard to convince me that anyone but a predator could "mistake" ten for sixteen.

Sex with a 10 year old child, should win you a one way pass to the Farinelli Tank.