Was a sentence for sex with a 12-year-old girl too lenient? No, it was too harsh
KnightWing
girl has been referred to the Attorney-General "to consider if it is unduly
lenient". The defendent, Michael Barrett walked free because statutory rape
laws, where sex with a girl under 13 is instantly classified as rape,
weren't introduced at the time of the alleged offence. The laws are not
retrospective. Instead, Barrett was given a conditional discharge and
ordered to sign the sex offenders register for two years.
Judge Michael Roach said: "It seems to me that while you did what you did,
in contrast to many cases, there was no sexual coercion.
"The girl was a willing participant and her family allowed you to stay in
their home that night, after which you had second thoughts and you took the
view that you had to do something about it and went to the police."
As far as I'm concerned, a crime is a direct action from one person to
another in which the recipient is harmed. If the recipient of the action
enjoyed it then there is no crime. That's why I don't believe in crime by
proxy, e.g. child pornography. The argument is always made that downloading
porn balloons the market for child abuse through increasing the demand. But
it's not the demand that creates the abuse. It's the perpatrators. They who
rape children for porn will do what they are doing because they have a
pathological desire to control over less powerful human beings. They don't
do it just for the money, although that may be an extra perk of the job.
They would do what they wanted irrespective of whether they were getting
paid for it or not, and whether other paedophiles tacitly approved of their
actions by downloading it. Criminals have to take responsibility for their
own actions.
The definition of what constitutes a crime is too wide. It must be narrowed
to what psycholocical or physical harm has been inflicted on an individual,
and not on an imaginary percieved threat to their morals, or the offence it
causes to a society with an outmoded, totalitarian morality.
KnightWing
Anger at child sex sentence prompts review - The Times, September 9 2004
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,173-1253392,00.html
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
D Jacques
more realistic about what kids are actually doing.
American society is really conflicted on this issue. There were two
well-publicized cases of statutory rape that came out of Florida this
year. One guy (Vansandt) got 10 days of probation and the other guy
(Edwin Mann) got 26 years in prison. There needs to be some
reasonable balance between the two.
Again, there needs to be some age of consent law, because of the
ability of small children to make rational decisions, but I think
America would be much better if we lowered the age of consent to 14
and drew a considerable distinction in sentencing between violent and
non-violent sex crimes.
Vendicar Decarian
"D Jacques" <cherry...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:693fb06.04091...@posting.google.com...
There can be no legitimate claim of statuatory rape. For this denies the
right of the child to do with their bodies what they wish, and the
management of personal property is a fundamental right of all human beings
and hence all children.
Any claim the state makes that it can decide for any individual irrespective
of age, what they can and can not do with their property, puts the dictates
of the state above the rights of the individual and directly asserts that
the state is the entity from which fundamental rights flow.
Anyone who argues otherwise is an enemy of property rights, and enemy of
liberty, a statist , and deserving of immediate execution.
Those who love liberty vote Libertarian.