I am having a very hard time understandng in what context it would ever be not that big of a deal for nine men to fuck a ten year old girl.

__________________
the cave mouth shines
by pure force of will
i look down on the world
from the top of this lonesome hill
and you can run, and run some more
from here all the way to singapore
but i will carry you home in my teeth
-mountain goats

yes, this is where im having a problem too.

__________________
It's a new year, I'm glad to be here. It's a fresh spring, so lets sing.
In 2080 I'll surely be dead. So don't look ahead, never look ahead.

i am saying that there are no circumstances which could make sex with a 10 yr old legal. i am saying that the judge would be 100% aware of this, whether the girl cooperated or not.

i am not saying that they deserved lenient sentences. i dont know the facts of the case. im not really willing to comment on who deserves what and how they get it.

there is legislation in respect to sentencing. a judge is obliged to have regard to submissions on sentencing. what is said in submissions (for both the prosecution and the defence) must be taken into account during sentencing.

as far as i can glean, the defendants pleaded guilty. that is a mitigating factor. there are many other mitigating factors that you and i are not aware of because we weren't present for the submissions.

the gravity of the offence is not the only thing a judge will have regard to when sentencing.

i think this offence happened in 2005 when some of the defendant's were still teenagers, btw.

there was no trial - they pleaded guilty. they get credit for that. whether you like it or not. im not sure of the QLD legislation on sex offences but there was a recent sentencing case in sth australia where arguably similiar circumstances were considered by the judge to be mitigating in the circumstances. that accused was given a 'lighter' sentence than the public thought appropriate.

well, i work in the judicial system. i am associate to a judge of the youth court (childrens court). its ok, i understand that judges make mistakes and quite often. its a heck of a job. that's why there are superior courts who review that work.

dont you think its a bit strange that the qld DPP didn't appeal that sentence? OR EVEN MORE STRANGe that the DPP reportedly didnt even seek a custodial sentence in their submissions??


funny how that report completely skips out on the actual sentencing bit.

__________________
N/A

i am not saying its not a big deal.

in fact i dont think the judge was saying its not a big deal.

__________________
N/A

OLD MEME

ban

"Three men involved who were over the age of consent, a 17, 28 and 26-year-old, were sentenced to six months imprisonment suspended for 12 months." i'm wondering what mitigating circumstances would account for a 28 yeah old having sex with a 10 year old and effectively walking free.

judges regularly hand out perverse sentences in the uk, so much that the law was changed to allow appeals to be made by the prosecution against over lenient sentences. it's interesting that it says that these were the sentences the prosecution asked for. the prosecution seems to be in hot water as much as the judge

more here

Fury at lenient rape sentences by Cairns judge Sarah Bradley | Herald Sun

rudd is getting all indignant

apparently they're checking back over 10 years of sentencing because

"I want to satisfy myself that the people of Cape York, and the people who live in remote indigenous communities, are receiving the same level of justice as we can expect in any other community in Queensland," ~ queensland premier anna bligh

__________________
she's a haunted house and her windows are broken

Anna Bligh had a total rant over it. Love it. GO TEAM BLIGH GO!

__________________

It must be nice to take all that load without worrying about getting pregnant, though.

the way the judge chose her words and the sentence she issued says much more than her ever coming out and saying "it's not a big deal."

and if aussie law allows for nine men to rape a ten year old girl (because when youre ten its rape no matter what) and only receive deferred sentencing, there is something gravely wrong with that system. the system failed the girl.

__________________
the cave mouth shines
by pure force of will
i look down on the world
from the top of this lonesome hill
and you can run, and run some more
from here all the way to singapore
but i will carry you home in my teeth
-mountain goats

as i've already mentioned, whether or not it was the prosecutors failing in regard to not asking for a more stringent sentence, the judge herself is at fault in her sentencing remarks for stating that "I accept that the girl involved, with respect to all of these matters, was not forced, and that she probably agreed to have sex with all of you."

this implies that the fact it wasn't forced is somehow a mitigating factor, and if i was a judge, in a position of that authority, it would not be the message i would want to be sending out. this is the central issue i have with the case. the sentencing, as i have mentioned, is possibly not the judges fault, and is probably going to be amended as it is currently under appeal, which itself is a recognition that a mistake was made.

so once again, what about her remark regarding the fact that the sex was 'consensual' do you find defensible?

__________________
It's a new year, I'm glad to be here. It's a fresh spring, so lets sing.
In 2080 I'll surely be dead. So don't look ahead, never look ahead.

beyond horrible

And that is the fucking point. They should be in jail. This is what burns us most of all. Where is the justice for this CHILD?????


I am from Hawaii BTW.

part of my querying the reporting on this case has to do with the fcat that the DPP did not appeal the sentences themselves and indeed in their submissions apparently did not seek custodial sentences. i think this is a bit of a red light that the facts may be a bit different to how it looks on the surface.

sometimes in order to get defendants to plea to charges the DPP will offer to provide the judge with a 'statement of agreed facts'. those agreed facts are part of what she has regard to when sentencing.

this paragraph here -

she "accepts". someone made that submission. that paragraph reads, to me, as something someone else said in submissions. it is quite possible it was said by the prosecution in submissions and probable it was something that defence raised. a phrase like that is most likely to have come from a statement of agreed facts.

i am well aware, and clearly the judge is too, because she goes on to say "All of you have to understand that you cannot have sex with a girl under 16. If you do, you are breaking the law, and if you are found out, then you will be brought to court and could end up in jail. "

we dont have the full sentencing remarks. i will try to find them again today. they might not release them because there are minors involved. we dont release ours. but south australia has a courts site will the full sentencing remarks from all adult offenders.

all im saying is that it is possible that the proseuction and defence negotiated a statement of agreed facts, or something much like that, an amended information, for instance, thus enticing them to plead guilty.

the DPP when deciding to prosecute a case must have regard to whether there is a reasonable chance of sustaining a conviction and whether it is in the public's best interests to prosecute a case. it is possible they felt they wouldn't get over the first hurdle. i dont know. but i think there's alot of factors here that aren't black and white.

maybe the victim wasn't willing to give evidence at trial. maybe they were forced to offer them something lesser than the full facts?

read my above post. cant you even consider for a minute that there is a high chance the facts aren't as they seem in the media reporting?

read my above post.

guys, i am not defending people not being sent to prison for rape. esp rape of a 10 year old girl. i think you are misinterpreting what im saying. i am only trying to draw your attention to some of the things which may explain why this was the result of the proceedings.

__________________
N/A

__________________
N/A

i think there is nothing than can explain away nine men fucking a ten year old girl. unless the case was bunk and this even did not occur, there is no excuse for the judge's comments or for the sentence.

__________________
the cave mouth shines
by pure force of will
i look down on the world
from the top of this lonesome hill
and you can run, and run some more
from here all the way to singapore
but i will carry you home in my teeth
-mountain goats

well, the case isnt bunk - they pleaded guilty.

__________________
N/A

and you use the word 'fucking'. i presume you mean intercourse in the sense of penis/vagina penetration. im sure you're well aware that the legal meaning of 'rape' considers alot of other sexual activity as well. i am NOT SAYING that makes it a lesser offence. dont misinterpret.

__________________
N/A