Cairns-based District Court Judge Sarah Bradley did not record convictions against six teenagers and gave suspended sentences to the three others over the 2005 rape at the Arukun community on Cape York.
The girl had "probably agreed" to have sex with the youths, Judge Bradley said during her sentencing remarks, The Australian newspaper reported today.
Um WTF!?
A ten year old cannot CONSENT to sex! >:| And worse, the judge didn't even say that she had consented (ignoring the statutory rape part), but that she "probably agreed" to it.
wtf >_>
I can't totally blame the judge though since..
the prosecutor asked for those "penalties" >:O
“My submission in relation to this particular offence is the same that I make in relation to children of that age … they’re very naughty for doing what they’re doing but it’s really - in this case, it was a form of childish experimentation, rather than one child being prevailed upon by another,” he said.
Childish experimentation? o_O "naughty"?
Um... naughty?
Stealing from a cookie jar is naughty. Participating in a gangbang rape of a 10 year old!? >:|
*flails*
I'm sorry but wtf.
One of them was 26!? This isn't "oh 12 and 10 year olds fooling around" >:\ A 26 y/o having sex with a 10 year old is WRONG no matter what planet you're from no matter how seductive she tried to be (assuming of course she was at all). And that 26 year old should DEFINITELY know better (as if the 17 and 18 y/os wouldn't have known better too!) and not just NOT participated but STOPPED it.
And no criminal conviction recorded. Yay them!
The four juveniles are aged 14 to 16 years. They and the adults come from some of the most prominent and powerful Aboriginal families on Cape York.
The child victim, now aged 12, does not enjoy the elevated family status of her attackers, and has had to be removed from Aurukun and put with foster parents.
Classism too! YAY!!!
>:O
Srsly...
W T F
I know I have some Australian readers. xD Nebody know more? :o
I'm rly rly rly tired and sick right now and kinda in a weird mood, so I can't rly parse this news well :(
7 comments:
I'm afraid not. This is the most information I have seen so far.
And it is really completely ridiculous to let them off so lightly. The judge even admitted in her remarks that the girl was under the age of consent. It does not matter if she thinks the girl probably agreed or whatever, by legal definition someone so young is considered incapable of making that decision and it should still be treated as rape.
Australia is fucked up.
Former prime minister John Howard, paraphrased:
"Them immigrants are throwing their babies overboard when they try to sneak in here illegally! So lets lock them in extra-territorial prisons!"
"Them damn natives are molesting all their childrens! Lets ban pornography and booze from Aboriginal reservations because they're obviously too primitive to control their heathen urges!"
I don't want to travel outside New Zealand because the rest of the world is really fucking scary.
Canada isn't scary. But it is cold.
Can't we be scary AND cold? :(
Or is that Russia's job? xDDDD
I've heard bad things about John Howard from my Australian friends :(
For whatever it is worth, I never voted for him. New Zealand still seems more sensible than here though.
Hi, never commented before, but this post prompted me to take to Google in an attempt to figure out just what the hell was indeed going on, and I thought I'd share what I learned.
First off, it looks like basically everyone in Australia (aboriginal academics, the new PM, the general public) is also going "wtf," except for the mayor of the town who is probably in good with the families of the perpetrators. So I don't think we should conclude from this that Australians generally believe that 10-year-old girls can or do consent to group sex (:shudder:).
It's a little harder to pin down the judge's motivation, as it seems to be tied up in the very fraught relations the white folks who run Australia have with the aborigines they stole it from, a relationship that seems to have a lot of complexities to it that I don't yet fully understand.
It seems that in January she gave a speech at a conference about how aborigines are overrepresented in the justice system and that more leniency and "community consultation" should be employed in order to reduce this problem. I can kinda see where she MIGHT have been coming from when she made those remarks, so perhaps she is just a an extremely misguided leftist (as a graduate student I'm a bit of an expert on these types, although not that bad! :P). But you raised the family status thing, and it seems very suspicious that she is taking the side of young men from the area's prominent families. So, based on what little I know as an outside observer that's dug into it for a little bit, I would guess that that judge is just colossally corrupt, and her speeches about keeping aborigines out of jail (a noble cause in theory... certainly I'm for people of color or people in general not getting jailed over drug use, for instance) is just cover for the fact that she's on the take. I imagine it's been like this for some time but she finally went too far and managed to get national, even international attention. An appeal is pending, so hopefully she's done for now.
If anyone else has a better explanation, though, I'd like to hear it.
Btw, the article on the judge's conference is here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22903360-17044,00.html
The appeal story is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7137815.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7137815.stm
There is just one way to make sure stuff like this doesnt happen. Sex with someone under the age of consent must be considered rape, no matter what the circumstances. No lesser punishment for 'sexual activity with a minor', or whatever its called in different countries. Rape, period.
Isnt John Howard gone btw?
And lay off the Australians. We're all mates here mate!. And my mother is an australian and I have many australian friends still!
I thought it already was considered rape. That's the remark I have been making everywhere. Even if the judge thinks she did consent, by law it is still rape.
And Howard is gone, but only recently. Does not mean everything is better in every way now though, alas.
Post a Comment