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

[Endus]

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."

Nope. That sentence is entirely focused on the attacker's intent. I put the relevant phrases in bold. It isn't about the boy's consent at all, it's about the attacker's frame of mind and intent.

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.

Again, he's convicted of aggravated sexual abuse of a minor. That's the part that your whole argument there applies to. That charge isn't being retried; he's guilty of that and is and will continue serving that sentence.

You don't get to just ignore details so you can drum up anger over nothing. There were two distinct charges brought. The elements you're taking issue are part of the one he's convicted of. Not the one being retried.

[Deleted]

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

It is a statement about the validity of the analogy from a cultural perspective.
I dont see the point of your comment.

[Mormolyce]

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.

You're kind of stating it backwards. The charge of rape under this Austrian law requires that the prosecutor prove (to the appropriate burden of proof) the accused knew that the victim didn't consent. It failed to meet that burden in this case.

I'm not saying it's a good judicial test, maybe it isn't. But it's not saying that the kid consented.

[Stormdash]

Nope. That sentence is entirely focused on the attacker's intent. I put the relevant phrases in bold. It isn't about the boy's consent at all, it's about the attacker's frame of mind and intent.

And again, for the Nth time I think, if a standard of strict liability were applied, his intent would not even be an element of the crime. And if it were irrebuttably presumed by law that a 10 year old can't consent, the only issues of his mental state that would be up for argument would be whether or not he did or should have recognized that the child was of that age.

His intentions with regard to the sexual act would be completely irrelevant in either instance. And I"m talking about a charge of rape, not just the lesser included offense, I don't give a shit about that one. I'm talking about the burdens of proof in a civilized and just society on a charge of rape where the victim is a obviously minor child below the age of consent. None of what they said should need proven, should need proven unless their laws are backwards, or the court just opted to ignore them and apply a new legal standard that only benefits economic migrants who rape children.

- - - Updated - - -

You're kind of stating it backwards. The charge of rape under this Austrian law requires that the prosecutor prove (to the appropriate burden of proof) the accused knew that the victim didn't consent. It failed to meet that burden in this case.

I'm not saying it's a good judicial test, maybe it isn't. But it's not saying that the kid consented.

Then that is a backwards conceptualization of a rape statute and Austria stands disgraced amongst the first world for having such a burden. There need not be proof that a defendant knew that a prepubescent child did not consent to sex, in a civilized society they are per se unable to consent and it would be therefore legally irrelevant whether they even did, let alone if the defendant knew it. TO WIT -- under a correctly designed model the 10 year old child could be explicitly attempting to give consent by both word and act and the defendant would STILL be guilty of intentional rape.

To further wit and in hopes that it penetrates -- if a victim is by law unable to consent it is no longer relevant in any context whether a defendant was aware of the victim's subjective opinion on the matter for or against.

[May90]

Austria needs serious politicians with balls, like Trump.

I'll have to suggest that you work more on your English once more, because the title shows total lack of reading comprehension.

[Endus]

And again, for the Nth time I think, if a standard of strict liability were applied, his intent would not even be an element of the crime. And if it were irrebuttably presumed by law that a 10 year old can't consent, the only issues of his mental state that would be up for argument would be whether or not he did or should have recognized that the child was of that age.

This is the case with the aggravated sexual abuse of a minor charge, of which he is still guilty.

The charge that's being retried does not factor in the victim's minor status, at all, because the increased penalty for such a crime is handled by that above aggravated sexual abuse of a minor charge.

That's how the law generally works; separate factors are applied with separate charges, to adjust the penalty accordingly for crimes where certain circumstances make the crime particularly extreme. That he sexually abused a kid isn't being disputed, and you're spending ALL your efforts complaining that it is.

It's just not true.

[Mormolyce]

Then that is a backwards conceptualization of a rape statute and Austria stands disgraced amongst the first world for having such a burden. There need not be proof that a defendant knew that a prepubescent child did not consent to sex, in a civilized society they are per se unable to consent and it would be therefore legally irrelevant whether they even did, let alone if the defendant knew it. TO WIT -- under a correctly designed model the 10 year old child could be explicitly attempting to give consent by both word and act and the defendant would STILL be guilty of intentional rape.

To further wit and in hopes that it penetrates -- if a victim is by law unable to consent it is no longer relevant in any context whether a defendant was aware of the victim's subjective opinion on the matter for or against.

I'm actually surprised the forum MRAs and alt right shills haven't started applauding Austria for having such a high threshold for a rape conviction. After all we get threads complaining about this exact issue on a regular basis.

[Stormdash]

This is the case with the aggravated sexual abuse of a minor charge, of which he is still guilty.

The charge that's being retried does not factor in the victim's minor status, at all, because the increased penalty for such a crime is handled by that above aggravated sexual abuse of a minor charge.

That's how the law generally works; separate factors are applied with separate charges, to adjust the penalty accordingly for crimes where certain circumstances make the crime particularly extreme. That he sexually abused a kid isn't being disputed, and you're spending ALL your efforts complaining that it is.

It's just not true.

I understand perfectly well what you've said. Point being, there should be no rape statute (up to and including one that would carry a life without parole or even capital sentence if permissible), where the victim is a prepubescent child, to which subjective consent can be raised as a defense in any context. It is completely outside the bounds of human decency. I'm glad that in systems derived from English common law it is not. It should be a matter of law in all contexts that a child -- even setting so low a bar as only biological/reproductive childhood -- cannot consent to sex and therefore that any sexual act against them is per se non-consensual. Whether charging a mere battery that carries some minor sentence or intentional rape by sodomy that carries lengthy imprisonment, that should not be an issue open to argument by the defense and therefore not required proven by prosecution.

Were someone to bet me at a bar that there were countries in the 1st world where it was ever a question of legal significance if a 10 year old subjectively consented to sex, I'd have lost that bet because I apparently was giving the rest of the first world too much credit. Austria is just wrong here. If this is how their statute has always been applied, than their statute is garbage; if this is a unique case in which the statute is being squinted at to avoid a worse outcome because the defendant's backstory is politically problematic, than it's just the judges on the court who are garbage.

[Mafic]

You're kind of stating it backwards. The charge of rape under this Austrian law requires that the prosecutor prove (to the appropriate burden of proof) the accused knew that the victim didn't consent. It failed to meet that burden in this case.

I'm not saying it's a good judicial test, maybe it isn't. But it's not saying that the kid consented.

A competent adult can not negligently ignore that a child can't consent, so that shouldn't be a valid argument. Furthermore, in non western cultures and customary law, consent can only come from a person that hits puberty. A ten year old boy hasn't even started puberty and how is the accused presuming to know that the boy has hit puberty? And finally, language barrier can not be used as an excuse for not understanding consent was giving or not. Body language is not consent in any western law whether civil or common.

[Trumpcat]

I was going to suggest that the Shariah law be applied to this guy and have him beheaded. Then I realized that the Shariah law not only allows, but encourages intercourse with kids and where regularly you have reports of 9 year old children dying after severe injuries during their first wedding night. The reports that manage to slip through the thick coat of censorship.
Whoever's sick brain allows this pedophile and rapist to have his verdict delayed or even debated should have their kids offered to please his emergent sexual needs. And everyone here intelligently explaining that this is how the system works is as disgusting as the system itself. The system has become so bloated that it no longer serves the people, it's the people serving the system. A defunct system for a malformed and disgusting society.

[Mormolyce]

I just realised one of the top hits for this story is RT. In addition to the "usual suspects" of course. Hmmmm.

P.S. The victim was also an immigrant.

P.P.S. I do like the defence "I had a sexual emergency". I'll have to remember that one.

An competent adult can not negligently ignore that a child can't consent, so that shouldn't be a valid argument. Furthermore, in non western cultures and customary law, consent can only come from a person that hits puberty. A ten year old boy hasn't even started puberty and how is the accused presuming to know that the boy has hit puberty? And finally, language barrier can not be used as an excuse for not understanding consent was giving or not. Body language is not consent in any western law whether civil or common.

You'd have to take that up with the Austrian legislature.

It's really hard to find any objective non-spin versions of this story so I can't figure out whether the requirement for the defendant to be aware of the victim's lack of consent is a loophole or if Austrian law actually doesn't consider sex with minors to be "rape", ie it doesn't meet the requirement of the rape charge at all. Since they have a separate charge for sexual abuse of a minor.

[Deleted]

Just here to remind everyone that Torquemada did nothing wrong and Matamoros was right.

[Cybran]

P.S. The victim was also an immigrant..

Why does that matter? Do you hold them in lower regard than European children?

P.P.S. I do like the defence "I had a sexual emergency". I'll have to remember that one.

This is a very sick thing to say.

[Forogil]

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.

What you are claiming is that he reasonably could have believed a 10-year consented - something that I and others, like @Stormdash , find morally repugnant.

According to the UK Sexual offenses act this is Rape and the attacker can be sentenced to life without parole. What matters is that he penetrated a 10-year old, but "Whether or not the child consented to this act is irrelevant."

If Austrian law is different it should be changed.

- - - Updated - - -

You'd have to take that up with the Austrian legislature.

As previously stated I don't know if the problem is the law and/or the interpretation - but I want it changed regardless.
One can obviously argue that the supreme court followed the current law - while stating that the law should be changed.

It's really hard to find any objective non-spin versions of this story so I can't figure out whether the requirement for the defendant to be aware of the victim's lack of consent is a loophole or if Austrian law actually doesn't consider sex with minors to be "rape", ie it doesn't meet the requirement of the rape charge at all. Since they have a separate charge for sexual abuse of a minor.

I agree that it is unclear, but note that also UK law have different charges for sexual abuse, and even penetration (when using e.g. fingers) as different from rape.

- - - Updated - - -

I just realised one of the top hits for this story is RT. In addition to the "usual suspects" of course. Hmmmm.

Of course RT will spin this - but OP's link linked to an Austrian article that presented the same story (without being an obvious click-bait).

[Deleted]

You and many others are missing the obvious:

Whether the 10-year old child objected or consented, was awake or asleep, was a native or immigrant, was a girl or a boy, was wearing revealing bathing trunks - or not, etc should all be irrelevant.

The child was 10-years old (and the perpetrator adult) - that suffices for many.

Whether the judges made an error - or the Austrian law should be changed; that can be discussed.
But if you say that his hypothetical consent is relevant you are saying that adults convincing 10-years old into having sex (with candy, money, or, whatever) should carry a substantially lesser penalty than using force to accomplish that.

It makes all the difference in law
If the child consented its sexual activity with a minor
If the child didn't consent then it's rape on a child


Both are very serious of course and will almost definately grant jail time but the later is more serious and will award more jail time. Seriousness aside though, you can't just generally charge someone with an offence you need to specifically define what he has done, in this case rape or sexual activity with minor etc which it appears wasn't quantified
The point of appeal from the defence is probably appealing the definition of the conviction. as I imagine he was sentenced on the prioviso that the defendant raped the child(aka higher sentence). But the objections of the child was only assumed and never proved

Hence the need for the retrial to clarify this original assumption


Really from someone who works in law this sort of thing happens every day, don't assume he will get off it's just the spin the media puts on it as it's gone off for a retrial
.

[Deleted]

Yea clearly what every country needs is a bunch of SJW assclowns who are so belligerently intent on proving to the world that "refugees" are a good thing to inundate one's nation with that they're willing to excuse the rape of a fucking child by saying "the kid was asking for it".

FORRRWARRRDDDD INTO PROGRESSSSS!

Holy fuck.

Hey USA, check out the glimpse of what our SCOTUS will look like here coming up real fast.

They certainly don´t need a thin skinned orange buffoon with 0 political insight or experience, who caters to the dumbest in society

[xindralol]

So in Austria you can give consent at age 10?!

[Wyrt]

I'm actually surprised the forum MRAs and alt right shills haven't started applauding Austria for having such a high threshold for a rape conviction. After all we get threads complaining about this exact issue on a regular basis.

They're conflicted because immigrants were involved.

So in Austria you can give consent at age 10?!

No. The guy is already in prison for having sex with a 10 year old and that charge is not being questioned.

[NarcissisticInvoker]

Well gotten gains.

[Deleted]

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

I suppose, now I'm less triggered I read the overturn more as a procedural error rather that has to be remedied.. Factually nothing changes and im sure the next trial will be a rerun if the first with someone saying '10 years old are incapable of giving concent' and then itll be kay, those poor parents though... Having to relive all this for procedures.

Im reminded now by how in the culture of 'some religions' women are for babies and boys are for fun.. Seeing how sexuality is a shamefull subject in the west i wonder if integration has any chance on a subject that seems so archaic to us (/me)