ZedLeppelin006
Banned
Are you fucking kidding me? Wtf France...
Why?
Sex with sub-15 is illegal, easy to prove. Rape in legal terms can lay to discussions.
Noone said if was a lesser crime than a rape, and everyone will consider it that way. It just legal wording...
The guy got the lesser charge because they decided to go with the fact that the child "consented to sex". It's utterly ridiculous. This is a child sex abuse, and should be treated as such. If the law doesn't reflect that, it needs to be revised as soon as possible.Do people even bother to read the article?
That's exactly what he is being charged with, sex with someone who is unable to consent, ie. under the age of 15. It's the definition of statutory rape, they just don't call it statutory rape.
The problem is that the girl says she was raped, but the prosecution isn't chasing additional rape charges against the offender because 'she didn't struggle enough' seems to be some sort of unusual reason. That's the problem.
The guy isn't walking free, unlike another case that just passed through India where a Bollywood director who was initially charged with the rape of a US post grad student but won on appeal because the judge deemed her merely saying 'no' and not forcibly struggling enough suggested consent.
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world...nviction/ar-AAsvKIz?li=AA5249&ocid=spartanntp
How didn't they even think of going with kidnapping or sequestration that carries 20 years though?
The legal wording literally says it was a lesser crime than rape; that's the problem.
France (and India) fail to recognise the psychological realities of sexual assault, and place the onus on the victim to physically resist. This is absurd and disgusting.
The guy got the lesser charge because they decided to go with the fact that the child "consented to sex". It's utterly ridiculous. This is a child sex abuse, and should be treated as such. If the law doesn't reflect that, it needs to be revised as soon as possible.
The problem here is that usually, statutory rape is punished much less severly in comparison to rape since the law sees that statutory rape usually involves willingness by the victim. Unlike rape, statutory rape can be charged as misdemeanor or a felony.
Rape however, is punished more harshly since it is always committed against the will of the victim.
They're ultimately arguing that a 11 year old child consented to sex which is utterly preptosterous. She's 11 years old.
You could argue anything by just victim blaming. The 11 year old "consented" to walk away with the stranger with candy, your honor!
Law #92-684 of July 22 1992 said:Art. 227-25. - Le fait, par un majeur, d'exercer sans violence, contrainte, menace ni surprise une atteinte sexuelle sur la personne d'un mineur de quinze ans est puni de deux ans d'emprisonnement et de 200000 F d'amende.
NOT googletranslate because I'm a lazy bum but it's so bad I'm doing it myself said:Art. 227-25. - The fact that an adult, without using violence, contrainst, treat or surprise assault sexually a person under 15 is punished by 2years in prison and a fine of 200 000 francs
They're following the law written in 1994, that apparently hasn't been changed since then.Exactly, which is statutory rape and thats what they are charging him with, but why they havent also gone in on rape charges isnt clear. There are obviously details not being published as to why, otherwise the prosecution wouldnt even hessitate.
Many posters in this thread however seem to think the guy isnt being charged, at all. Which isnt the case.
That's indeed the case, after checking, and it's indeed fucked-up. They should update it, there's no reason to be considered a lesser crime, I'd say.It's almost certainly a lesser crime than if they were able to prove one of the required elements under the law for rape. I'd be stunned if it wasn't and would wonder why the law even makes the distinction it does if so.
It's more jail time than what you quote, but still most probably not enough in this case.Well it's the role of the lawyer to do just that, the judge can then ask the lawyer to go fuck herself/himself.
Found the actual part of the law from way back then :
WTF is this shit law!
They're following the law written in 1994, that apparently hasn't been changed since then.
And nope, it ain't statutory rape, it's sexual assault on a minor. see this current post you're reading.
They're following the law written in 1994, that apparently hasn't been changed since then.
And nope, it ain't statutory rape, it's sexual assault on a minor. see this current post you're reading.
I remember when a UK teacher ran off to France with his 15 student lover and the French police wouldn't do shit. They couldn't see where the problem was.
I should say while it's not statutory rape, it's along the same lines in that they are prosecuting the guy for sex with a minor.
The 'rape' part is the more serious offense, but as you pointed out, as the law is written can't necessarily be applied, so the prosecution can only apply the law as it's written.
They clearly need to reword the law and the sentence updated to be applicable, but at this time it simply doesn't exist; but again I'm not pointing out that, merely that some people seem to think France doesn't have any form of laws protecting minors from sexual misconduct as they clearly do, it's just not integrated in the same way as what many of us would recognise it to be.
I'm actually reading from the law as it was established.It's more jail time than what you quote, but still most probably not enough in this case.
I mean, the dude is still getting charged with child abuse. They just don't conflate rape and pedophilia in France. It's literally a matter of semantics, no?
The legal wording literally says it was a lesser crime than rape; that's the problem.
France (and India) fail to recognise the psychological realities of sexual assault, and place the onus on the victim to physically resist. This is absurd and disgusting.
Also the difference between more than 15 years and up to 5 years...
Yep, semantics.
So you're saying that someone who uses violence to sexually abuse a child deserves the same jail time as someone who doesn't? Should he have more than five years? Yes. But should he get as much jail time as someone who threatened / used violence to get their way? Of course not.
Yes. 100% Yes. Pedophiles that prey on the young all deserve 15 or more years.So you're saying that someone who uses violence to sexually abuse a child deserves the same jail time as someone who doesn't? Should he have more than five years? Yes. But should he get as much jail time as someone who threatened / used violence to get their way? Of course not.
So you're saying that someone who uses violence to sexually abuse a child deserves the same jail time as someone who doesn't? Should he have more than five years? Yes. But should he get as much jail time as someone who threatened / used violence to get their way? Of course not.
Sexual abuse IS violence whether they hit the child during it or not.
Yeah, the US doesn't have some crappy records on this or anythingEurope gon europe. Paradise for the worlds polanskis.
Yes, absolutely yes.So you're saying that someone who uses violence to sexually abuse a child deserves the same jail time as someone who doesn't? Should he have more than five years? Yes. But should he get as much jail time as someone who threatened / used violence to get their way? Of course not.
Sexual abuse IS violence whether they hit the child during it or not.
This.
If they also physically hit the child, charge them with aggravated assault in addition to rape, if you must insist on making a distinction. But there's no such thing as a "non-violent" rape, FFS
I'm all in favor of a more nuanced view on statutory laws, but this is so obviously fucking egregious that I cannot fathom how anyone defended it with a straight face.
Si le prévenu reconnaît les faits, il affirme qu'il tenait la jeune fille, déjà pubère, pour plus âgée qu'elle n'en avait l'air. Du côté de la partie civile, on soutient que lors de leur deuxième rencontre, quelques jours avant les faits, elle lui avait montré un carnet scolaire où figurait son âge.
Pour se défendre, l'accusé s'est justifié, par la voix de son avocat qui a avancé que la plaignante n'avait « pas froid aux yeux » puisqu'elle avait envoyé des photos d'elle « dénudée » à des inconnus via un tchat.
Translation said:Although the accused acknowledges the facts, he claims that he thought the already-pubescent girl was older than she looked. The plaintiff, however, claims that during their second encounter, a few days before the facts, she had showed him a parent-teacher communication log which mentioned her age.
For his defense, the accused stated, via his attorney, that the plaintiff is not "demure" since he had sent pictures of herself "undressed" to strangers on a chat.
Age of consent is 15 in France.
They aren't named either. probably paedos themselves
And we dont even know their names as they sleep soundly tonight with who knows what.
First of all what the fuck.
Second of all come on France. I get it that the culture is different and all but 15 year olds are not even close to being adults.
How can the same country that doesn't allow paternity testing do this? I thought they were extreme progressives.
I know a year may make a big difference, but in my European country (UK) the age of consent is 16. In Germany the age of consent is 14, and it is far from being the only European country with that age of consent.