Judge questions why ‘only the boy’ is charged in underage sex case.

[Deleted]

So, this has started making trends online and is already being discussed by both feminists and MRA's; With both at least finding common ground that the boy shouldn't be charged in this scenario, as it was consensual and both were under the age of adulthood.

A DISTRICT Court judge has said he “always wondered why only the boy is charged” with having sex under the age of consent.

Judge Paul Muscat made the comment while presiding over sentencing submissions for a teen charged with two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 17.

Judge Muscat said the case involved a girl who was 15 and a boy under the age of 18 when they commenced a boyfriend and girlfriend relationship.

He said there was consensual sexual activity before the boy broke up with her “and she clearly became upset at that”.

He said eventually the girl’s mother found out and the police were informed.

The boy’s lawyer told the court his instructions were the boy was under 18 when they had sex.

“If it did then she is as guilty as he is for engaging in those accounts of intercourse with him,” Judge Muscat said.

“If that was so, if he was 17 and she was 15 and this actively was brought to the attention of the police, in her own statement of what happened ... she would have to be charged along with him.

“I have never seen that in the youth court and I always wondered why only the boy is charged, but there I go.”

Judge Muscat said if the girl gave evidence she would have to be cautioned that anything she said on oath could be used against her in youth court charges.

He said it was not unusual for people of that age to have sex with each other but unusual that that in a case like this, where there was obvious consent, there would be the issues he mentioned if the girl were to give evidence.

“She would have to accept responsibilities for her own actions whilst he was under the age of 18,” he said.

Judge Muscat said it seemed to be a “pretty obvious case of boyfriend/girlfriend situation which he eventually calls off and she’s upset by it and one thing leads to another”.

“Before one knows it he’s charged with these crimes and these crimes have now devastated her whole life,” he said.

“It’s the sort of thing that, with all due respect, he is really not the form of criminal courts should be dealing with.”

Judge Muscat said he did not think a custodial term was warranted for “this type of offending in these cases”.

“Quite often that’s the only sentence that a court can impose for an adult having sex with a child but the factual circumstances here are quite different and I would be thinking about it and it’s one of those cases where I think I can exercise my discretion to discharge him with a simple bond without a conviction,” he said.

Judge Muscat will hear further submissions next month.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/s...#itm=newscomau

I personally think it's common sense to legalize R+J laws so as to avoid these scenarios, however some people have the mindset that when a case of underage sex between two minors takes place the boy is de-facto guilty and the girl is an innocent maiden who couldn't possibly want sex.

[Callous1970]

This is yet another sexist legal holdover where all of the responsibility is placed on the male. Men and women are legally equal. If they're in the same legal situation, then they should be equally responsible for the outcome. Two underage kids engaging in sex? Whether they should or shouldn't, neither should be charged with a crime over it. The parents should have been paying better attention. Don't let your horny teenage daughter be alone with an equally horny teenage boy.

The same thing happens when an adult man and women go out together, get drunk, and have sex. If the woman wakes up in the morning and decides that it was a mistake, it is rape. Why? They were both drunk. Why does the woman being drunk excuse her from her decision to go out and get drunk and chose to have sex? Why is the man, who was also drunk, still responsible for his choice?

[Sunseeker]

If sex underage is illegal, then both teens are guilty.

[mikeakanice]

The zero tolerance laws in these type of cases are absurd. There should be context and consideration taken when cases like these arise. Being two years older than the girl the boy was dating does not make him a sexual predator. Do we really want to classify him as a sex offender? Do we consider him to be as appalling as the 30 year old man who would take advantage of a nine year old child? Or the rapist who would force a woman against her will in such a violent way that it would make someone sick to their stomach to read about?

We talk so much about how barbaric the death penalty to is. Yet being put on this list can destroy and prevent someone from ever leading a meaningful, happy life.

If I were the father of that boy I would probably beat the fuck out of the mother of the girl. I don't condone violence against women. But she would be knowingly destroying my sons future.

[Ærion]

That judge will probably get crucified by feminazis soon...

As to the topic at hand, the whole idea of an "age of consent" is moronic at best, the fact that it's used to fuck up someone's life (almost always the male) is just deplorable. If both are "underage" either forget the whole thing happened if no evidence of physical abuse is present, or punish both parties equally.

I'm just gonna stop now, vitriol and all that...

[Sunseeker]

That judge will probably get crucified by feminazis soon...

While I'm not going to lay the blame on any one group, it wouldn't surprise me if the judge was removed from the case.

[Masark]

Here, why don't you copy our age of consent law?

age of consent : 16.
If the younger is 14 or 15 and the elder is less than 5 years older, it's legal.
If the younger is 12 or 13 and the elder is less than 2 years older, it's legal.

[Sunseeker]

Here, why don't you copy our age of consent law?

age of consent : 16.
If the younger is 14 or 15 and the elder is less than 5 years older, it's legal.
If the younger is 12 or 13 and the elder is less than 2 years older, it's legal.

Too logical and granular, how can we ever follow more than one rule?

YOU CAN ONLY HAVE SEX AT 18 OR HIGHER OR DEATH PENALTY!

[Norjak]

All he has to do is keep his mouth shut - he said/she said situation.

[Itisamuh]

Age of consent is kind of ridiculous in general. If it absolutely must exist at all, it should be like 12/13, when people actually start doing it.

[-aiko-]

<-- Feminist.

In a consensual underage sex case both teens should be charged.

[Vivek]

Brace yourself lads.

The feminazis are coming.

[Kerath]

Here, why don't you copy our age of consent law?

age of consent : 16.
If the younger is 14 or 15 and the elder is less than 5 years older, it's legal.
If the younger is 12 or 13 and the elder is less than 2 years older, it's legal.

This makes complete sense to me.
If 2 teenagers under the age of consent agree to have sex, they're each as accountable as the other. Either both are charged (which seems silly to me) or neither.
Obviously cases which involve coercion are a different kettle of fish.

[Velaniz]

I would have to struggle NOT to roll my eyes at an adult having consensual sex with a 15 year old and then being charged. It becomes impossible when the person being charged is close to that age himself.

[Easo]

Here, why don't you copy our age of consent law?

age of consent : 16.
If the younger is 14 or 15 and the elder is less than 5 years older, it's legal.
If the younger is 12 or 13 and the elder is less than 2 years older, it's legal.

This seems about fine.

[Velaniz]

In a consensual underage sex case both teens should be charged.

Or neither should be charged, because society would be better off dropping the whiny, puritanical attitude and convincing itself that there are any kind of "victims" in these situations, for fuck's sake.

On topic, though, the kid here wasn't arbitrarily charged simply because he was the male. He was obviously charged because he was the significantly older one. Not that I don't think charging him isn't spasticity of the highest order.

[-aiko-]

Or neither should be charged

Hmm, maybe I should have used the word 'punished' instead. I think both teens should be punished for sure. I don't think we should promote sex between teens, who will not have the responsibility to care for an 'accident' child, by not punishing the act.

[Kerath]

Hmm, maybe I should have used the word 'punished' instead. I think both teens should be punished for sure. I don't think we should promote sex between teens, who will not have the responsibility to care for an 'accident' child, by not punishing the act.

I think it's more effective to educate teens about safe sex and contraceptives than to punish them for giving in to their hormones.

[-aiko-]

I think it's more effective to educate teens about safe sex and contraceptives than to punish them for giving in to their hormones.

We do that but it doesn't work. In the same way we make teenagers wait until they can drive, drink, smoke, etc we make them wait before they can have sex. Besides, contraceptives aren't 100%. Accidents can happen and teenagers don't have the responsibility to care for their 'mistake'. The age of consent is up to debate for sure but it needs to be there and we need to punish the act where we can. It's the only real preventative measure we have.

[Velaniz]

Hmm, maybe I should have used the word 'punished' instead. I think both teens should be punished for sure. I don't think we should promote sex between teens, who will not have the responsibility to care for an 'accident' child, by not punishing the act.

Tonnes of adults don't have the "responsibility" to care for a child either. If your concern is a child, then perhaps you can reserve punishment only for when a child actually happens, which the parents are unable to see to the well-being of.

You're proposing more sexual repression, when what society needs is the polar opposite.