Iraqi refugee rapes 10 year old boy, Supreme court thinks boy gave consent

[Jotaux]

So is this just an issue of rape vs. statutory rape?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Obviously there is an age when the child is "old enough". But "willingly" is a nebulous concept. There are more many ways an older persons can misuse their status without using overt force - especially if the perpetrator knows the victim (often the case, but not in this case). The children are often already traumatized by that - and saying that the punishment is lesser because they didn't "resist enough" will likely just make the trauma worse.

It's not a case of "resisting enough" though. It's more about proving intent to use force on the accused part.

Like in most western countries...the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused did commit the crime. In this case...the Supreme Court feels that the prosecution did not adequately meet that burden and so they ordered a retrial.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

So is this just an issue of rape vs. statutory rape?

The charge that amounts to statutory rape conviction is being upheld.

The concern the Supreme Court has is that the prosecution, in their opinion, did not present the case of forceful rape strongly enough.

[Forogil]

And what you pstill won't acknowledge is that while this is a valid argument, the problem is that this argument was never established, in the case, and it had to be.

That a 10-year old cannot consent shouldn't be something that you need to establish in a specific case; since it has nothing to do with the specifics of the case.

It seems that supreme court's interpretation of Austrian law disagrees, and I want that changed.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

That a 10-year old cannot consent shouldn't be something that you need to establish in a specific case; since it has nothing to do with the specifics of the case.

It seems that supreme court's interpretation of Austrian law disagrees, and I want that changed.

Yes, in the legal sense a 10 year old cannot consent...and that is why the first conviction has been upheld...that is the one to do with statutory rape.

the second conviction is whether or not he acted against the boy's will. And, while I think everyone agrees that he did, it seems the prosecution was lax when proving that. It's not enough that "everybody knows he did it"...the prosecution needs to make the case beyond all reasonable doubt.

[Deleted]

I think all child rapist should receive the same treatment...regardless of their country of origin. A locally born child rapist is no better than one from overseas.

- - - Updated - - -



But a child rapist that was born there...he's all good?
.

Again this is where you are wrong. I will repeat myself.

" it does matter that he is an immigrant. Immigrants are supposed to run from war, terror and famine or is willingly seeking to be a part of a country's workforce and be a generally good citizen and one day maybe state citizenship.

A person like that literally came to another country, just to have sex with a 10 year old child. If that is not betrayal of the country taking him in, then i dont know what it is."

A rapist pedophile is never a good thing, no matter where he is from. But it does make it worse that he literally came from far away just to trample on the generosity given to him by taking him in.

Ill try make an analogy, and hopefully get the point across.

A rapist in your own country is like a teenager making a ruckus and smashing stuff in his parents house. He is not gonna get away with that, and is punished. He did not choose to be born there though, allthough this does not forgive his actions, there is an expected % of problems tied with having people living there with no choice given.

In the case of a rapist from another country it is the same thing, except this is not his parents house. It is a guests house.
It does make the case slightly worse in my perspective. You dont trample on hospitality.

You could say you should expect immigrants to carry the same crime % as other people. In reality it is a bit more complex though.
People from certain eastern and western countries behave extremely well, especially asians. They are hard working and dutiful.

Muslim and African immigrants... not so much. Always a higher unemployment and usually also a higher crime statistic.
When people say immigration is a process that have never succeed yet on a big scale, it does not mean generally, it means some cultures are generally simply bad to mix, because some people know how to, and some simply piss on you and take your money.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

A person like that literally came to another country, just to have sex with a 10 year old child. If that is not betrayal of the country taking him in, then i dont know what it is."

A rapist pedophile is never a good thing, no matter where he is from. But it does make it worse that he literally came from far away just to trample on the generosity given to him by taking him in.

I don't think he came to the country for the express purpose of having sex with a 10 year old boy. It happened, and it's sick...but I highly doubt that was the motivation for becoming a refugee.

In the case of a rapist from another country it is the same thing, except this is not his parents house. It is a guests house.
It does make the case slightly worse in my perspective. You dont trample on hospitality.

Getting raped is a terrible thing no matter who does it. Getting raped by a guest is not worse than getting raped by a member of your community. On the contrary, I think getting raped by a neighbour is a bigger betrayal than anything.

[Forogil]

Yes, in the legal sense a 10 year old cannot consent...and that is why the first conviction has been upheld...that is the one to do with statutory rape.

the second conviction is whether or not he acted against the boy's will. And, while I think everyone agrees that he did, it seems the prosecution was lax when proving that. It's not enough that "everybody knows he did it"...the prosecution needs to make the case beyond all reasonable doubt.

My point is that they shouldn't have to prove that part, and either the law or the interpretation needs improvement.

E.g. Sexual Offences Act 2003 in the UK says: "Whether or not the child consented to this act is irrelevant." (both for sexual assault and rape of 10-year olds.)

[Stormdash]

Despite the clickbait title, this has absolutely nothing to do with whether the 10-year old can or did consent. That's the mistake you keep making, here.

The charge being retried requires, as one component, that it be shown that the accused knew there was no consent, and continued regardless. It's that intent that wasn't demonstrated, not the lack of consent. And because it's a required element of the charge, you either send it back to be tried again, or have the conviction thrown out because the prosecution didn't do their job properly; this is the better alternative. Keeping a charge applied and denying the offender due process isn't really a valid option, however much you want to pretend it is.

Again; he's almost certainly going to be found guilty a second time. It's really clear that he knew that there was no consent. It just wasn't proven at trial, they skipped that step. This is about making sure everything's done properly, not about somehow being light on sex offenders. Every point you raise is relevant to his outstanding conviction, which isn't being retried. So yes; he's been found guilty of abusing a minor who could not consent. That's what you're complaining he was getting away with; he isn't. Convicted on that charge.

If Austrian law doesn't have a strict liability standard for the rape of a 10 year old, Austria is a broken country out of touch with the civilized world. I'm much more likely to believe that the court here has simply thumbed the scale and changed the law to accommodate a political hot potato.

To accord their response more respect than it merits, Louise and Simon's point was that: sure, there's a bit of child rape here and there, but what's the big deal? It's a relatively small and manageable amount.

It's not, but let that pass. That was my point: "Migrant rights trump women's rights" and "migrant rights trump children's rights" and (in some of the most grisly cases) "migrant rights trump disabled rights". It's not that there's only three or four - or seven or twelve, or 29 or 97 or 236 or 1,768 - rapes. It's not the "small" number of cases, but the fact that, in a fainthearted age prostrate before the multicultural pieties, these "few" cases are changing us. So that the most eminent jurists in Austria feel obliged to assimilate with their invaders: hey, how was poor old Amir supposed to know the cute l'il moppet wasn't consenting to anal rape?

Is this ruling of general application? Would Fritz and Gerhard have their appetites so indulged? Or do these new migrant rights also trump such outmoded concepts as equality before the law?

Mark Steyn, Descent into Evil

Does anybody here think Fritz or Gerhard would benefit from this ruling? I'm guessing not, and certainly they shouldn't, since the reasoning in this court's modification of law is a disgrace to law, reason, and morality alike.

[Deleted]

I don't think he came to the country for the express purpose of having sex with a 10 year old boy. It happened, and it's sick...but I highly doubt that was the motivation for becoming a refugee.



Getting raped is a terrible thing no matter who does it. Getting raped by a guest is not worse than getting raped by a member of your community. On the contrary, I think getting raped by a neighbour is a bigger betrayal than anything.

If you are gonna mix relations up you can keep arguing obscure things.

We are talking about immigrants raping children vs native population raping children.
No past relations.

Many countries, including mine have political parties running that increases punishment for immigrants in severe crimes.

Fx semi-severe/severe crimes from immigrants is not punished with just prison. It is punished with stripping all citizenship and expulsion from the country along with the normal punishment. You simply dont wanna keep them any longer if they cant behave.
But to expel a citizen born in the country it usually only comes down to very extreme cases with media attention, if at all.

So it is not just me thinking this, generally Europe is moving more far right because of these actions.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

If you are gonna mix relations up you can keep arguing obscure things.

We are talking about immigrants raping children vs native population raping children.
No past relations.

Many countries, including mine have political parties running that increases punishment for immigrants in severe crimes.

Fx semi-severe/severe crimes from immigrants is not punished with just prison. It is punished with stripping all citizenship and expulsion from the country along with the normal punishment. You simply dont wanna keep them any longer if they cant behave.
But to expel a citizen born in the country it usually only comes down to very extreme cases with media attention, if at all.

So it is not just me thinking this, generally Europe is moving more far right because of these actions.

All I am saying Rape is rape...it doesn't matter who is doing the rape...the punishment should be the same for all.

[Stormdash]

If you are gonna mix relations up you can keep arguing obscure things.

We are talking about immigrants raping children vs native population raping children.
No past relations.

Many countries, including mine have political parties running that increases punishment for immigrants in severe crimes.

Fx semi-severe/severe crimes from immigrants is not punished with just prison. It is punished with stripping all citizenship and expulsion from the country along with the normal punishment. You simply dont wanna keep them any longer if they cant behave.
But to expel a citizen born in the country it usually only comes down to very extreme cases with media attention, if at all.

So it is not just me thinking this, generally Europe is moving more far right because of these actions.

It does make a difference in the same way that it makes a difference between what your family does in your home vs. what people who are guests in your home do. You have a say over who enters your home, so to some extent, you own the consequences of who you choose to let in.

[Deleted]

I'm so triggered by the sexual emergency, pretty sure that is a phrase from sharia law/islamic culture, which I am entirely forbidden to discuss or voice my opinion about on these forums.

But oh lordy am I triggered.

[Deleted]

It does make a difference in the same way that it makes a difference between what your family does in your home vs. what people who are guests in your home do. You have a say over who enters your home, so to some extent, you own the consequences of who you choose to let in.

Maybe i just presumed you were supposed to be extremely polite as a guest. It guess it is a cultural thing.

[Deleted]

I'm so triggered by the sexual emergency, pretty sure that is a phrase from sharia law/islamic culture, which I am entirely forbidden to discuss or voice my opinion about on these forums.

I think few people here will argue about if this "sexual emergency" thing is utter nonsense or not. Because it obviously is.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Maybe i just presumed you were supposed to be extremely polite as a guest. It guess it is a cultural thing.

Rapists, regardless of culture of origin, don't seem to be especially concerned with politeness.

[Endus]

That a 10-year old cannot consent shouldn't be something that you need to establish in a specific case; since it has nothing to do with the specifics of the case.

It isn't. That's not what the case is being retried for. I keep telling you this, you keep ignoring it. It's about the attacker's intent, not the 10-year old's consent.

If Austrian law doesn't have a strict liability standard for the rape of a 10 year old, Austria is a broken country out of touch with the civilized world. I'm much more likely to believe that the court here has simply thumbed the scale and changed the law to accommodate a political hot potato.

Again, this just ignores facts, because this guy is still guilty of aggravated sexual abuse of a minor. This is an additional charge on top of that.

[Stormdash]

It isn't. That's not what the case is being retried for. I keep telling you this, you keep ignoring it.



Again, this just ignores facts, because this guy is still guilty of aggravated sexual abuse of a minor. This is an additional charge on top of that.

Honestly days like this I think the best judicial outcome might have been for the boy's father to have come across this cultural misunderstanding in progress, have done the obvious, and been acquitted later.

- - - Updated - - -

It isn't. That's not what the case is being retried for. I keep telling you this, you keep ignoring it. It's about the attacker's intent, not the 10-year old's consent.

There is no threshold of sex crime that should carry with it as an element a question of whether or not a 10 year old consented. Not a more serious crime, not a less serious crime. It should be an irrebuttable presumption of the law that a reasonable person knows a 10 year cannot consent.

[Endus]

There is no threshold of sex crime that should carry with it as an element a question of whether or not a 10 year old consented. Not a more serious crime, not a less serious crime. It should be an irrebuttable presumption of the law that a reasonable person knows a 10 year cannot consent.

And that is irrebuttable under Austrian law. That's not what the retrial is about. Seriously, this is all spelled out in the article.

And regardless of how easy the argument may be to make, the issue is that the prosecution didn't make it. And they needed to. Hence the re-trial. It's not like they just voided the charge, this is about correcting a technicality, and it's almost certainly going to result in a second conviction on this second charge.

[Stormdash]

And that is irrebuttable under Austrian law. That's not what the retrial is about. Seriously, this is all spelled out in the article.

What you have said, is diametrically contradictory to the legal premise of this sentence, from the article -- "Supreme Court judges ruled that the first court should have established whether the attacker thought his victim agreed to a sexual act and intended to act against the boy’s will."

The things that court said should have been established, are not questions that should even be relevant if inability to consent were presumed, let alone irrebutably (i.e. not even permissible to be argued) was being applied. Not to mention that is obviously means no strict liability. You may want to google strict liability. Most forms of statutory rape, sexual battery of a minor, etc, in the civilized corners of humanity apply a strict liablity standard below the age of consent. Indeed, that is the biggest difference that defines what an age of consent means. Were strict liability the standard, it not only wouldn't matter if the victim consented, it wouldn't even matter if the noble immigrant even knew his age. He could have subjectively, sincerely thought the boy was 15, but since he was 10, if strict liability applies, he's still guilty regardless.

So regardless of whether Austrian law even has a strict liability standard for sex crimes against minors, this court abandoned it. And what they further did is saying that the prosecution should have had to prove non-consent. If it's something that has to be argued, it is by definition something that is permissible to argue, i.e. it is not an irrebutable presumption of the law. The court here is basically saying that the defendant should be entitled to raise mistake of fact as a defense to something for which there should be no mens rea requirement in the first place.