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

[May90]

This.

People are just reading the clickbait thread title and not the actual article.

We need to make an experiment: create a thread, title it as "Syrian refugee rapes 5000 women, is pardoned by Merkel", and post a link to culinary recipes as a source. Then see how many people take the bait.

[Dextroden]

You realise the SC didn't run the trial, they simply reviewed the trial itself and it's going to retrial, at a court.

They still overturned it. What new information will they have to prevent another overturn?

[Caelia]

While it's good they are going for a maximum sentence, I think it's weird that they even question if the animal knew if the boy consented or not seeing as the legal age for consent is 14 in Austria meaning a 10 year old can never give consent.

[Xanjori]

They still overturned it. What new information will they have to prevent another overturn?

None, they'll simply need to follow procedure better. It's really very simple. Like it's an open and shut case, it just had an error in the way it was run the first time. Hence this entire thread is completely fucking pointless, especially as the rapist will remain in custody until the next trial.

[Dextroden]

None, they'll simply need to follow procedure better. It's really very simple. Like it's an open and shut case, it just had an error in the way it was run the first time. Hence this entire thread is completely fucking pointless, especially as the rapist will remain in custody until the next trial.

Open and shut. Yep.

Looking forward to the sexual emergency excuse.

[Endus]

And I'm stating that those two facts should be changed - by changing the law if necessary.
The mere possibility of consent (or "einverstanden") should be irrelevant for a 10-year old.
Are you truly unable to understand that some of us actually think that laws can be changed in this way in Austria as well?

And you're wrong, because you're not taking the time to understand what the Austrian laws in question actually are. You're just being reactionary off a clickbait title.

That the child couldn't consent is a given under Austrian law. The guy has already been convicted for that reason, of the crime that represents. The second conviction, which is being retried, is for additional illegal acts, over and above the statutory rape of a child, because his act was particularly egregious. And it wasn't reversed, it's being retried. It's not like there was a mistrial and he can't be tried again, or something.

The charge in question, that is being retried, does not factor in the age of the victim. Just like it wouldn't if he'd murdered the child; the kid's age would not be factored in to determining a conviction. That doesn't mean his age is irrelevant, but it's accounted for in a separate charge. Which the guy remains guilty of. And that's not changing, regardless.

You're all upset that Austrian law doesn't penalize child abusers, when he's convicted and serving a sentence for exactly that.

Says who? If the SC didn't accept it as rape then, how do no changes to the story change it now?

What new info is going to turn it into rape?

That's literally not what happened, here.

One of the required elements of this particular charge is that the attacker must have intent to breach consent. It's a violent rape charge, as opposed to other forms of sexual assault. The prosecution never established this at trial, which opens the decision up to being challenged on appeal, and the Supreme Court is sending it back to be retried before that can happen. There doesn't NEED to be more evidence, because this isn't an appeal or something; it's a procedural fix for the prosecution to provide evidence on a particular component (evidence that seems pretty clear from the circumstances) to make that specific argument, and fix that weakness in the original conviction.

It's not that the Supreme Court "didn't accept that it was rape"; they pointed out a legal requirement that had not been met, and the re-trial is intended to correct that. By meeting that requirement, and ensuring the conviction stands. That's it. It's being blown into something it's not because some people have a desperate need to fearmonger about anything involving refugees.

- - - Updated - - -

But it is relevant.
It matters whether he said yes or no.
The thing is: The law does not legally acknowledge that consent.

To be clear; the law would still lock this guy up for years for the "aggravated sexual abuse of a minor", even if the child HAD been "consenting". Quotation marks used because he can't legally consent. Forcing a child is even worse, though both are obviously very bad; this is what the additional charge is all about. How much worse the crime he committed was. And even then, it's not really disputing that he did it, it's correcting a technical flaw in the prosecution's case.

[Bakis]

Cryban had a short visit to the forum.

[st33l]

Don't people get banned for posting deliberately misleading titles that are offensive?

A majority of this thread is crap because people read the title and didn't actually bother reading through the article to realize that the title is just flat out false.

Edit: Looks like the dude is banned; so can we just delete this thread and move on now?

[Forogil]

But it is relevant.
It matters whether he said yes or no.

Once more: it should be irrelevant if a 10-year old said yes or no, and whether the perpetrator thought a 10-year old said yes or no.

The thing is: The law does not legally acknowledge that consent.

Citation needed. The supreme court thought consent("einverstanden") was important - I'm stating that it should be irrelevant; even if that means changing the law.

- - - Updated - - -

And you're wrong, because you're not taking the time to understand what the Austrian laws in question actually are. You're just being reactionary off a clickbait title.

Can you cut the petty personal attacks?

I did read the articles - and have a working moral compass - and thus I want them to make the consent of 10-year old totally irrelevant, as is the case in some other countries. Not just irrelevant for a lesser crime - but totally and completely irrelevant for rape; without decreasing the punishment.

Are you able to understand that point?

You are the one that reacted to a clickbait article - by running in the other direction - without looking.

And since you and others indicate that you are familiar with the Austrian law (but for some reason cannot agree on what it says..): what sections are he charged under? What are the maximum penalties for them? What is the difference between the two charges in terms of consent?
Not just vague guesses, but actual facts.

[Endus]

Can you cut the petty personal attacks?

Nothing in there was a "personal attack".

I did read the articles - and have a working moral compass - and thus I want them to make the consent of 10-year old totally irrelevant, as is the case in some other countries. Not just irrelevant for a lesser crime - but totally and completely irrelevant for rape; without decreasing the punishment.

Are you able to understand that point?

I understand your argument. It's just wrong, because Austrian law already works like that. This is why the guy is still convicted, and remains in prison, serving a sentence, despite the re-trial. Because regardless of how the re-trial of this particular charge goes, he remains convicted of aggravated sexual abuse of a minor, exactly the charge that you keep erroneously insisting that Austria doesn't recognize.

And since you and others indicate that you are familiar with the Austrian law (but for some reason cannot agree on what it says..): what sections are he charged under? What are the maximum penalties for them? What is the difference between the two charges in terms of consent?
Not just vague guesses, but actual facts.

I can't locate a non-German source that's in a webpage I could google translate; if you want to provide one, feel free. But I'll note that I'm not the one claiming specifics, I'm pulling right from the article this thread was started with, which clearly separated his charges into two separate offenses, and only one involved minor status. And the article clearly stated the other required that the prosecution show that the attacker ignored lack of consent. If you have details that contradict that, then you provide them; with the data in the article, your argument is wrong.

Edit: I have a version translated, edit incoming

Edit 2: Here's what I presume is the aggravated sexual assault of a minor charge;

Heavy sexual abuse of minors § 206. (1) Any person having an underage person to sexual intercourse or coitus assimilated sexual act takes, is punished with imprisonment from one to ten punish years

And here's "rape";

§ 201. (1) Who a person by force, by deprivation of personal freedom or Threat of imminent danger to life or limb (§ 89) to engage in or toleration of compels coitus or coitus sexual act assimilated, with to punish imprisonment from one to ten years.

The English is a bit stilted, because it's a rough Google Translate from here (pdf download of Austria's criminal code); http://www.legislationline.org/docum...criminal-codes

That bit in bold in the 2nd seems to be what the prosecution failed to establish in the first conviction.

Up to 10 years for the aggravated assault alone is hardly "light", and it's up to 20 with both. Nor are these the only potential charges; there are lighter offenses for cases where the crime is less forceful, but more based on pressure or general intimidation; if the prosecution felt that was more appropriate, they'd have gone with that.

Now, do YOU have any facts? Or are you going to continue misrepresenting what we DO know?

[Forogil]

Nothing in there was a "personal attack".

"You're wrong", isn't personal?
"You're not taking time - reacting to clickbait article", isn't personal?

I understand your argument. It's just wrong, because Austrian law already works like that.

Partially it does, partially it doesn't. I want to make it fully work like that.
The possible consent of a 10-year old should be totally irrelevant. Not just irrelevant for certain crimes, but totally - 100%, full stop, end of sentence.

Do you get that argument?

And the article clearly stated the other required that the prosecution show that the attacker ignored lack of consent. If you have details that contradict that, then you provide them; with the data in the article, your argument is wrong.

Or to summarize: you don't know the Austrian law; you just like to say that others don't know it - while pretending that you know it.

[Endus]

"You're wrong", isn't personal?
"You're not taking time - reacting to clickbait article", isn't personal?

No, they aren't. They're descriptions of the flaws in your argument, not you.

Partially it does, partially it doesn't. I want to make it fully work like that.
The possible consent of a 10-year old should be totally irrelevant. Not just irrelevant for certain crimes, but totally - 100%, full stop, end of sentence.

Do you get that argument?

I understand what you're saying, but what you're saying does not make sense. Is it theft if a child gives you something, because they're unable to consent to that exchange? That's what your argument leads to.

And, to repeat again, the child's lack of consent is not being contested at any point, here. The perpetrator's understanding of that consent is. Which is relevant, however distasteful you might find it to be.

Or to summarize: you don't know the Austrian law; you just like to say that others don't know it - while pretending that you know it.

Or you could refresh the page and see that I edited in the actual laws in question, to my prior post.

And you really shouldn't decry other people not knowing the law when your own argument is based on not knowing it either.

[Deleted]

Who's higher on the progressive stack?

White 10y boy or the Iraqi refugee?

[Forogil]

No, they aren't. They're descriptions of the flaws in your argument, not you.

So, you meant that my arguments didn't take time to read Austrian law and reacted to a clickbait-article?

Can you even pretend that you are saying that with a straight face?

I understand what you're saying, but what you're saying does not make sense. Is it theft if a child gives you something, because they're unable to consent to that exchange? That's what your argument leads to.

I mean consent to sex; which you should understand.
However, yes, it might be theft if you convince a 10-year old to hand over his bicycle for a candy.

And, to repeat again, the child's lack of consent is not being contested at any point, here. The perpetrator's understanding of that consent is. Which is relevant, however distasteful you might find it to be.

Which shouldn't be relevant - as one part of the point I am making.

Notice that I don't talk about what the law says - but what it SHOULD say.

- - - Updated - - -

And here's "rape";

§ 201. (1) Who a person by force, by deprivation of personal freedom or Threat of imminent danger to life or limb (§ 89) to engage in or toleration of compels coitus or coitus sexual act assimilated, with to punish imprisonment from one to ten years.

Which means that despite all the claims that it's just procedural (and that consent doesn't matter - just click-bait), it would be clear that if a 10-year old consented (even if he legally cannot); that rape-charge would fail - since none of those pre-requisites would be satisfied.

Compare this with the UK law: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/5 - that makes it rape, and consent irrelevant. And 10 year in prison is clearly lighter than life without parole.

Those two laws differ at the moment - and I want the Austrian one changed.

- - - Updated - - -

Who's higher on the progressive stack?

White 10y boy or the Iraqi refugee?

Note that there are indications that the victim was also a refugee.

[Deleted]

But what about the comedy value? Austrian politics could use some extra sauce, from what I've heard!

Thank you, but no thanks.

[Mormolyce]

Funny thing is, a few years ago we had some old rich guy running in an election, who - among other things - said that it might be worth reconsidering our stance on the death penalty in very severe cases. Needless to say that it utterly destroyed any chances of him getting a sizeable amount of votes.
Austria really doesn't need OR want people similar to Trump.

We have a batty old woman who used to run a fish n' chips shop who used to tell us about how Asian immigration was ruining Australia.

Every country has Trumps, but outside of the US they don't normally get nominated by major parties and remain where they belong, as joke fringe candidates.

The difference is, most other countries don't have the Republican voter base. The wing nuts are a much smaller part of major parties or they're third parties/independents.

[May90]

We have a batty old woman who used to run a fish n' chips shop who used to tell us about how Asian immigration was ruining Australia.

Every country has Trumps, but outside of the US they don't normally get nominated by major parties and remain where they belong, as joke fringe candidates.

The difference is, most other countries don't have the Republican voter base. The wing nuts are a much smaller part of major parties or they're third parties/independents.

Wasn't Gillard quite nuts though? Also, there are a lot of crazies in Europe: Le Pen in France (and her daddy is even worse), whose party has been doing pretty well on elections; Orban, that neo-nazi; Berlusconi, the main European clown for years... I don't think Trump is unique for the US, he probably is just an extreme brand of crazy, compared to all the mentioned folks.

[Mormolyce]

Wasn't Gillard quite nuts though? Also, there are a lot of crazies in Europe: Le Pen in France (and her daddy is even worse), whose party has been doing pretty well on elections; Orban, that neo-nazi; Berlusconi, the main European clown for years... I don't think Trump is unique for the US, he probably is just an extreme brand of crazy, compared to all the mentioned folks.

But man could she knit.

I mentally discount Italy from the list of civilised Western democracies :P

[crakerjack]

We're talking about consent when the victim is 10 years old? Can someone just put a bullet in the head of whoever is running that trial?

[Forogil]

But he cannot consent, that is why they have article 206.
They just have another article (201) that talks about 206 with the use of force or threat.

We have the exact same thing.
Two articles; one about sexual abuse and the other is about sexual abuse with force/threat.

They have separate articles because it's quite important to know which one it is; especially because these articles would also apply to girls of 15.

Do they apply? Another poster stated that the age of consent was 14.

However, more importantly: should the laws apply in this way? Why not state that below e.g. 13 years old the consent is irrelevant, with the same penalty - i.e. always treat that as if threat was used. And then have another set of laws that include victims below e.g. 16 years old (and/or based on age difference) - where consent matter.

You might disagree with this - but you should recognize that it is a valid position to take, and we don't need to have one law that doesn't differentiate between victims that are 2-year olds, 10-year olds or 15-year olds.