"Appaling" Rape Verdict Down Under....

Che Guava

The Juicy Revolutionary
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
5,955
Location
Hali-town,
....Saudi Australia justice...?


Rape case ruling shocks Australia


A judge's decision not to jail nine men guilty of raping a 10-year-old girl in an Aboriginal community has triggered outrage in Australia.

The offenders were either placed on probation or given suspended sentences for the 2005 rape in the Aurukun settlement, in northern Queensland.


In her ruling, Judge Sarah Bradley told them that the victim "probably agreed to have sex with all of you".

A review of sexual abuse sentences in Aboriginal Queensland has been ordered.

Sentencing seven of the accused in Cairns in October, Judge Bradley told them that the girl involved was not forced into sex, according to a report in The Australian newspaper.

She placed six of the offenders, who were minors at the time of the rape, on probation for 12 months, local media said.

The three other defendants were handed suspended six-month prison sentences.


Judge Bradley later defended her sentencing, telling The Australian that the sentences were "appropriate" because they were the penalties sought by the prosecution.

'No excuse'

But Australia's newly-elected Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has now spoken out against the ruling, saying he was "appalled" by the verdict.

"I am horrified by cases like this, involving sexual violence against women and children. My attitude is one of zero tolerance," he told reporters in Queensland, his home state.

Boni Robertson, an Aboriginal activist in Queensland, said there could be no excuse for the judge's decision.

"There is nothing culturally, there is nothing morally, there is nothing socially and there is definitely nothing legally that would ever allow this sort of decision to be made," she said.

Queensland Premier Anna Bligh has now announced a review of all sentences given over the last two years in the communities in the Cape York region where the case occurred.

"I am not prepared to just write this off as an unusual one-off case," she said.

"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."

The offenders came from some of the most powerful and prominent Aboriginal families in Cape York, while the victim's family had a lower status, The Australian reported.

The case comes six months after a high-profile inquiry into child sex abuse in remote northern Australia said it found problems in every Aborigine community visited by researchers.

That inquiry led to an intervention programme in the Northern Territory.

link

I'm trying hard not to pre-judge this one on the information given, but it's tough! Are there any Aussies out there with a little more insight on this case?
 
Uh, I thought the whole point of minimum age laws were that a person below the minimum age is unable to consent, making any sex with anyone above the threshold rape? Even if the girl consented, the men should still be guilty of statutory rape, at the minimum. I know Australia is a pretty liberal place, but I seriously doubt that the age of consent there is 10 years old.
 
Wow the judge was a woman!?
 
A 10 year old agreed to have sex? Am I reading this judge's "logic" correctly?

With 9 people that were apparently close to whatever the age of majority is in Australia.

Somehow I doubt the girl was that curious about how people do things.
 
more details from other sources:

[...]

The decision came as The Courier-Mail learned that the girl was also the victim of serious sexual assaults when she was aged five and eight.

The girl, now 12, had exhibited highly dysfunctional, sexualised behaviours as a result of the assaults she suffered as a very small child.

[...]

The Cairns-based District Court judge, who earns upwards of $300,000 a year, has complained to colleagues that "sentencing indigenous offenders is never easy".

[...]

In 2001, Judge Bradley imposed a wholly suspended jail term, without conviction, on a 17-year-old youth who raped his grandmother. The court was told the youth raped his grandmother while she was in a drunken sleep.

[...]

"Sentencing indigenous offenders is never easy," she told a conference in Perth earlier this year.

"There are times when the offending behaviour clearly warrants the imposition of severe and significant penalties.

"There are also times when a judge who has knowledge of a community . . . and the full particulars of those involved may decide that an alternative penalty is appropriate."


link

As for the ages:

Judge Bradley sentenced three men over the age of consent of 16 - aged 17, 18 and 26 - to six months' imprisonment, with the sentence suspended for 12 months, The Australian newspaper reports today.

The four juveniles are aged 14 to 16 years.

link
 
It would be stautory rape, but the character of the crime still matters. Ie they didn't beat her or force her against her will. While rape is always a horrendous crime, I am sure you would agree rape + assualt is worse.
 
The story said that six were minors "at the time" of the incident, which would suggest that they're now not minors.

Edit: Slow crosspost.
 
I don't think it's completely judge's fault. It said in the article that these were the sentences asked by prosecution. You can't be sentenced for more than the prosecution asks for.
 
How old were the rapists?

Didn't it say that about 6 or 7 of them were under the consent age at the time of incident?

So that would mean that these ones didn't "rape" her, technically. It would be sexual assault/harassment at the very most. However, those over the consent age that had sex with her should most definitely be charged with rape, as this is what it is.

Boni Robertson, an Aboriginal activist in Queensland, said there could be no excuse for the judge's decision.
Well, there is most definitely a difference between "activist" and "expert".

"There is nothing culturally, there is nothing morally, there is nothing socially and there is definitely nothing legally that would ever allow this sort of decision to be made," she said.
I would like to see proof of her expertise in the cultural and social activities of aboriginies before I will accept her credibility in making this statement.

This is a bit off topic, but I have heard of a cultural celebration (not aboriginal as far as I know) where during this certain festival, women have the right to have sex with any man they want. Whether the man wants to or not is completely irrelevant, the women want to go at it with that man, they are within their rights to do so forcibly. They made mention of a particular story where one man was mobbed by a group of women. But if this sounds like the holiday for you, sorry. Their laws state that it is illegal to do this to foreigners.

I'll search for the article.
 
Didn't it say that about 6 or 7 of them were under the consent age at the time of incident?

So that would mean that these ones didn't "rape" her, technically. It would be sexual assault/harassment at the very most. However, those over the consent age that had sex with her should most definitely be charged with rape, as this is what it is.

Why don't people read....? ;)


Four of them were under 16, the rest were 16, 17, 18 and 26 repsectively.

And I'm not sure why it wouldn't be considered rape, even if they were both under the age of consent...
 
well at least they didn't give her 100 lashings.

While i can see leniency on the minors, to give a 26 year old a 6 month suspended sentence for statutory rape of a 10 year old is way to light.
 
Why don't people read....? ;)
Quite so, Che:
Article in first post said:
She placed six of the offenders, who were minors at the time of the rape, on probation for 12 months, local media said.

And I'm not sure why it wouldn't be considered rape, even if they were both under the age of consent...
It's all in the realm of legal definitions, which I don't think even the lawmakers or lawyers truly understand.

As stated, it would probably be sexual asault for them at most, though they could probably tack on sexual harassment and most likely various other forms of assault as well.

I also fail to see how it was rape, as well. But technically (and legally) it isn't for those underage. Is it right? No. Is it one of the major eff ups of the system? Perhaps.
 
Why don't people read....? ;)


Four of them were under 16, the rest were 16, 17, 18 and 26 repsectively.

And I'm not sure why it wouldn't be considered rape, even if they were both under the age of consent...

Because if both partners are under the age of consent, and there's no force / coercion, then who do you charge?

Given that the girl had a very troubled past, I wouldn't be surprised if she did 'consent' in the sense that she said 'yes'

I'm not saying the sentences were right... more so in the case of the guys who were over the age of consent... just that the younger ones have a lot of leeway.

The 26-year-old's sentence baffles me.
 
Why don't people read....? ;)


Four of them were under 16, the rest were 16, 17, 18 and 26 repsectively.

And I'm not sure why it wouldn't be considered rape, even if they were both under the age of consent...

WHAT??? because the girl consented to having sex with the minors, DUH! Did I miss read what you said? How can it be rape is one minor consented to sex with another minor, or a group of them in this case?

I agree with the judge that all the kids that are under the age of consent should be given a light sentence, if not let go all together. Now the 26 and 18 yr olds should be charged with rape, thats a given. The only gray area is the 16 and 17yr olds
 
After finishing reading the article, it becomes quite a bit more clear:

The offenders came from some of the most powerful and prominent Aboriginal families in Cape York, while the victim's family had a lower status, The Australian reported.
----------------------------------
woody60707 said:
The only gray area is the 16 and 17yr olds
Was that their age at the time of the incident or their age now? As this would have a definitely bearing on the ruling.
 
It would be stautory rape, but the character of the crime still matters. Ie they didn't beat her or force her against her will. While rape is always a horrendous crime, I am sure you would agree rape + assualt is worse.

Of course rape and assault is worse than rape. It's also worse to kill someone and set their body on fire than to just kill them. That doesn't change the fact that you frickin killed them. :rolleyes:

"Force" isn't just physical.

It is statutory rape at least. Consent laws rub me the wrong way, but there's no way a ten year old child can consent to sex, nor sex with nine men. This is absurd.

The Cairns-based District Court judge, who earns upwards of $300,000 a year, has complained to colleagues that "sentencing indigenous offenders is never easy".

Boo-hoo.
 
Top Bottom