Let me put it to you this way:
A person over the age of majority has sex with a Minor. The minor willingly engaged in the sex...but the person is still guilty of statutory rape because, as a minor, legal consent could not be given.
This man has been convicted of what amounts to statutory rape. The Supreme Court has upheld that conviction. What the SC has issues with is that, in their educated opinion, the prosecution did not properly prove that the boy was unwilling and the man forced himself upon him anyway.
Last edited by Evil Midnight Bomber; 2016-10-24 at 10:08 PM.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7370916.html
Somebody forgot to tell the judge in this case.
To be fair though, that scenario has literally nothing to do with this case - or at least it certainly shouldn't. Any country that even ponders whether or not a 10 year old gave consent to such an act, simply isn't worthy of being refered to as "civilized" in that context. The entire notion that you could rape a 10 year old in physically the same manner, yet one of the cases is seen as being "less bad" due to the demeanor of the prepubescent in question, is so seriously out of whack that it's almost embarrassing to contemplate. A 19 year old and his 15 year old girlfriend is not even in the same ballpark, or the same postal code - heck, not even on the same continent, if one is to be completely honest.
Last edited by Sama-81; 2016-10-24 at 10:16 PM.
He is not getting off scott free. The conviction for sexual assault of a minor stands as is. He will be retried for the rape charge as the Supreme Court did not feel the prosecutions case was strong enough.The re-trial is not expected to begin until next year, with the defendant remaining in custody.
My point is rather that it ought to be literally impossible to only get a statuatory rape-charge in any situation even remotely similar to this one, thus negating the need to "re-charge" him in the first place. That it apparantly isn't, is the truly sad part in all of this.