Legislation makes everyone a Pedophile...
Noodle
old and who a Court found did not rape her, is still registered as a
Pedophile:
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/soldier-on-sex-register-a-travesty-20110819-1j1la.html
Politicians are idiots.
In order to bring a sledgehammer to legitimate Pedophiles, they have
"thrown out the baby with the bathwater" and enforcing a blanket
'black-and-white' rule, that "everyone is a Pedophile".
Even the Magistrate himself says it's unfair!
What is the point of Magistrates & Judges if they cannot make
deccisions?
B J Foster
> A 19-year-old Victorian male, who innocently had sex with a 16 year
> old and who a Court found did not rape her, is still registered as a
> Pedophile:
>
> http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/soldier-on-sex-register-a-travesty-20110819-1j1la.html
What is the point of quoting a story if you can't get the facts straight?
"MJNB was 19 when he had sex with two underage girls, aged 15 and 14"
>
> Politicians are idiots.
>
> In order to bring a sledgehammer to legitimate Pedophiles, they have
> "thrown out the baby with the bathwater" and enforcing a blanket
> 'black-and-white' rule, that "everyone is a Pedophile".
>
> Even the Magistrate himself says it's unfair!
>
> What is the point of Magistrates& Judges if they cannot make
> deccisions?
bringyagrogalong
> Noodle wrote:
>
> > A 19-year-old Victorian male, who innocently had sex with a 16 year
> > old and who a Court found did not rape her, is still registered as a
> > Pedophile:
>
>
> What is the point of quoting a story if you can't get the facts straight?
>
> "MJNB was 19 when he had sex with two underage girls, aged 15 and 14"
Perhaps MJNB should have used the Hollingworth defence (aided and
abetted by John Howard) when it comes to having sex with an underage
girls, which was "My belief is that this was not sex abuse, there was
no suggestion of rape or anything like it, quite the contrary. My
information is that it was rather the other way round.'
Yep! According to Hollingworth and Howard it was the underage girls
fault.
Peter Jason
Well, they could have said "no".
Perhaps the two girls were feral and in search of some innocent male
to assuage their unrequited lusts. Perhaps the poor young man had
been unable to hold his liquor and the two aforementioned saw a way
quicker than the usual true-love path.
Perhaps the judge, in handing down the sentence, was jealous as hell
and imbued with vengeful pique.
Sylvia Else
> deccisions?
The politicians have decided that a girl below the age of 16 is not
competent to consent to intercourse, and that consent cannot be granted
by such a girl.
But it bothers me that the law doesn't criminalise the action of a girl
who, being below the age of 16, gives consent. She may not be considered
competent to give consent, but provided she's over the age of criminal
liability, she's old enough to know that she's not allowed to give consent.
Sylvia.
Peter Jason
What if the 16yo girl seduces the 15yo boy next door, and they're
banging away like there's no tomorrow? Can the girl be prosecuted
for "penetration" a minor?
Sylvia Else
In Victoria, which is where the case cited by the OP occurred, no, but
not because it's the boy who's under age. It's a defence that there was
consent, the child was not less than 12 years old and the offender was
not more than 2 years older than the child.
This is at least somewhat more sensible that the legislation in South
Australia,
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/clca1935262/s49.html
where the threshold for consent is 17 years, and where, by virtue of
4(b)(i), it appears that two teenagers both aged at least 16, but less
than 17, can go at it like rabbits, until one of them turns 17, at which
point they must stop until the other turns 17.
Sylvia.
Peter Jason
<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
Good heavens! Trust the lawyers to invent "Coitus Interruptus".
Eunometic
> A 19-year-old Victorian male, who innocently had sex with a 16 year
> old and who a Court found did not rape her, is still registered as a
> Pedophile:
>
>
> Politicians are idiots.
>
> In order to bring a sledgehammer to legitimate Pedophiles, they have
> "thrown out the baby with the bathwater" and enforcing a blanket
> 'black-and-white' rule, that "everyone is a Pedophile".
>
> Even the Magistrate himself says it's unfair!
>
> What is the point of Magistrates & Judges if they cannot make
> deccisions?
There clearly needs to be a formula to account for the fact that sex
with a 14/15 year old is different from sex with an 12 year old which
is different from forced sex with a minor especially when the ages are
about the same.
In theory a 17 year old male have sex with a precious 15 year old
makes him a sex offender.
Girls are having puberty at 9 years of age now, it has lowered
enormously.
The law is an ass.
Kangaroo Court Australia
but there is provision in the law that says it "may" be reasonable to
suspect the girl may be 16 and over......there is no statutory rape as
in it were?