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

[Zajras]

oh boy is the pendulum going to swing pretty hard right this time... Gotta say those who call themselves progressive left really fucked up this time.

[Cybran]

No, we just don't kill people for this and that is a good thing.

It's a bad thing. It encourages these types of animals. The sentence should be getting chained over a sharp fast growing bamboo tree, old Chinese style.

[Mafic]

Except you obviously don't "get it" because they aren't reducing his sentence at all..he's being re-tried because the prosecution did not properly establish "intent to harm".

But the basis of the re-trial is based on consent. The prosecutor made it clear the first time around which resulted in the conviction but the supreme court disagrees. At this point they are asking the prosecutor to try to squeeze blood out of at turnip.

[Dextroden]

Except you obviously don't "get it" because they aren't reducing his sentence at all..he's being re-tried because the prosecution did not properly establish "intent to use force".

This trial is being redone because they couldn't prove the kid didn't consent. Which means, ten year olds getting sodomized by strangers at the pool is usually consensual if that's the defense to redoing the trial.

- - - Updated - - -

The guy was caught because the boy reported it.
Giving the death penalty for this would cause future victims to be murdered so they don't report it.

Wait. Either you mean he thinks the kid should be killed, since you're talking about victims being killed. Or the refugee is the victim here.

Which is it?

[Xanjori]

This trial is being redone because they couldn't prove the kid didn't consent. Which means, ten year olds getting sodomized by strangers at the pool is usually consensual if that's the defense to redoing the trial.

I don't know if you literally don't care and want to bait responses, or don't actually read what's being said, but the retrial is to prove beyond doubt that he knew no consent was given so that he can keep the maximum sentence. It's got nothing at all to do with whether or not he has commited sexual abuse.

[alexkeren]

I read the article.

Still stupid.

A re-trial for a convicted rapist because consent was not determined? LOL

- - - Updated - - -



How is deteriming if consent of a child a legal argument? Consent in the western world means of adult age, or sexually matured.

One is an adult at 18. Most of the Western world allows consent prior to 18.

And boys are no where near sexually matured until their early 20s.

[Darkeon]

The guy was caught because the boy reported it.
Giving the death penalty for this would cause future victims to be murdered so they don't report it.

Agree. Better to let him free. This way, in future occurrences from this or other criminals, they'll spare the victims - otherwise they'd just kill them so that there are no witnesses.

On that note, are you performing live anywhere? I love comedy shows and I would definitely purchase tickets.

[Xanjori]

Wait. Either you mean he thinks the kid should be killed, since you're talking about victims being killed. Or the refugee is the victim here.

Which is it?

Lol well that answered my question. English not your first language?

[Gib Lover]

Wait. Either you mean he thinks the kid should be killed, since you're talking about victims being killed. Or the refugee is the victim here.

Which is it?

It's not hard at all to see what he is saying. He's saying that perps will kill their victims so they can't report the perp later, who would be given a death sentence.

[Deleted]

It's a bad thing. It encourages these types of animals. The sentence should be getting chained over a sharp fast growing bamboo tree, old Chinese style.

Feel free to petition for such things in your country. The majority of Austrians is opposed to killing criminals and similarily barbaric practices.

[Xanjori]

Agree. Better to let him free.

Yes that's correct, we only offer two sentences, death penalty or freedom, that thing called jail is actually completely imaginary!

[Dextroden]

I don't know if you literally don't care and want to bait responses, or don't actually read what's being said, but the retrial is to prove beyond doubt that he knew no consent was given so that he can keep the maximum sentence. It's got nothing at all to do with whether or not he has commited sexual abuse.

Outside of the truly fucked up, no one is going to admit they thought they didn't consent.

Better redo every single rape trial.

[Xanjori]

Outside of the truly fucked up, no one is going to admit they thought they didn't consent.

Better redo every single rape trial.

Since when was a trial about what people confess to? What do you think a fucking prosecutor does?

[Dextroden]

It's not hard at all to see what he is saying. He's saying that perps will kill their victims so they can't report the perp later, who would be given a death sentence.

So just let them rape freely because they'll kill the victim if the threat of punishment looms.

Even better.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

But the basis of the re-trial is based on consent. The prosecutor made it clear the first time around which resulted in the conviction but the supreme court disagrees. At this point they are asking the prosecutor to try to squeeze blood out of at turnip.

Yes, the Supreme Court Disagrees that the prosecution adequately made the case and as such they ruled for a re-trial. Apparently, according to them, the prosecutor's case did not meet the requirements set by Swedish Law.

Are you an expert in Swedish Law?...because I'm pretty sure the People on the Supreme Court are.

[Xanjori]

So just let them rape freely because they'll kill the victim if the threat of punishment looms.

Even better.

No, you just give a different penalty for murder than for rape. You see how this works? If you get the death sentence for killing, and you get the death sentence for rape, why not just murder your rape victims to reduce the chance of being caught? Not like they can give you the death sentence twice now is it.

[alexkeren]

This trial is being redone because they couldn't prove the kid didn't consent. Which means, ten year olds getting sodomized by strangers at the pool is usually consensual if that's the defense to redoing the trial.

- - - Updated - - -



Wait. Either you mean he thinks the kid should be killed, since you're talking about victims being killed. Or the refugee is the victim here.

Which is it?

Clearly you lack reading comprehension because A) the aggravated sexual abuse stands hence why the perp is still in jail and B) if the death penalty were ever on the table then perps would 100% kill their victims when done with them.

[Dextroden]

Since when was a trial about what people confess to? What do you think a fucking prosecutor does?

Nothing, apparently. Since you can get a retrial for lesser punishment because no one proved the kid didn't want it.

[Gib Lover]

So just let them rape freely because they'll kill the victim if the threat of punishment looms.

Even better.

I don't know if you are being purposely thick, but being raped and killed is worse than being just raped.

[Dextroden]

No, you just give a different penalty for murder than for rape. You see how this works? If you get the death sentence for killing, and you get the death sentence for rape, why not just murder your rape victims to reduce the chance of being caught? Not like they can give you the death sentence twice now is it.

Why not do it to avoid ten years? Or lie about not understanding rape to get it lowered?