Yeah, of course.
What was Kyle Sandilands thinking? Better yet what the hell was the mother thinking?
- Thread starter RYDA
- Start date
Wellsey
Likes Bikes and Dirt
Not just Leitch. You're about as funny as salmonella.
nick_dales
Likes Bikes and Dirt
Just Stop(.)(.)
Gluey_trails
Likes Dirt
Welcome to my ignore list.
Regan of Gong
Likes Dirt
I.e. You laugh at your own jokes.
Binaural
Eats Squid
I just got home from work, crack open a cold beer after a ride home in the best weather I've seen all month, open Farkin to find out that Sandilands is going to be wearing a barrel in short order - can life be any better?
downhiller88
Banned
Um so she wasn't raped? Watching the news now and she said it was consented sex, not rape. The mother, and aunt then confirmed this.
It's good that it has gotten those two off the air nonetheless
she was 12 when she supposedly had sex. and the guy was 14 and they were drunk also i believe. so its statutory rape.
i'm no law expert so i reckon someone can correct me preety quickly.
yer, fucking sucks there back on.
i mean, look what happened with the chasers stunt, they got taken off air for 2 weeks, yet they get to stay on
. shows how screwd up the world is.
LQQK
Likes Bikes
The age of consent in NSW, Qld, ACT, NT, Vic and WA is 16. In SA and Tas it’s 17. Under these ages you cannot give consent, so sex cannot ever be legally consensual, so it is statutory rape.
I have read a few QLD police charge sheets that state the charge is “sex with a minor under 16”, and some have also said “sex with a minor under 16 also under 12”, which means in QLD at least (most likely other states too) that sex with a 12 year old or under is an even more serious charge.
downhiller88
Banned
so i was right.
and my understanding is that its ok as long as there is a 2 year diferance or something like that i think it was.
Please do correct me
.
LQQK
Likes Bikes
and my understanding is that its ok as long as there is a 2 year diferance or something like that i think it was.
Please do correct me
I’ve heard of this “2 year difference” thing, but can’t find it written anywhere. I think what is meant by that is that the judge has the discretion of a range of sentencing options, and if there is a 2 year or less difference they may choose a more lenient sentence.
But a word of warning – it is at the judges’ discretion it is not a ‘get out of gaol free card’. I know of a 17 year old girl (in QLD 17 years 3 months and you can be treated as an adult in the legal system), who did time for having sex with a 14 year old boy (she was even pregnant to him!). The boy’s parents had an ongoing feud with the girls’ family, and made it known in court that her actions have caused a lot of problems, therefore a harsh sentence was needed.
downhiller88
Banned
thats quite the hairy case right there ay.
oh ok. i thought it might have being a more lenient sentence i just wasn't sure though.
LQQK
Likes Bikes
Sorry to go on... but I think some might find this interesting.
If you are convicted of statutory rape, you are likely to end up on ANCOR (Australian National Child Offender Registry) i.e. you are now a registered child offender. Depending on the offence, you will be on this list from 8 years to life.
This means every time you change your alias (nic names), physical description (any new tats), address, children of interest (your own or those you have contact with), employment, education, vehicles, affiliations (clubs), new offences or travel (interstate or overseas), you have to tell the police.
I think all government jobs and more and more private employers do a criminal history check on potential employees, if on the list, your name comes back that you are a registered child offender (or worse a child sex offender). It gives no details of the offence, so the fact that you were 16 and your girlfriend was 15 and everything was consensual means nothing, you most likely won’t be given a chance to tell your side of the storey. Makes getting a job even harder...
If you are convicted of statutory rape, you are likely to end up on ANCOR (Australian National Child Offender Registry) i.e. you are now a registered child offender. Depending on the offence, you will be on this list from 8 years to life.
This means every time you change your alias (nic names), physical description (any new tats), address, children of interest (your own or those you have contact with), employment, education, vehicles, affiliations (clubs), new offences or travel (interstate or overseas), you have to tell the police.
I think all government jobs and more and more private employers do a criminal history check on potential employees, if on the list, your name comes back that you are a registered child offender (or worse a child sex offender). It gives no details of the offence, so the fact that you were 16 and your girlfriend was 15 and everything was consensual means nothing, you most likely won’t be given a chance to tell your side of the storey. Makes getting a job even harder...
downhiller88
Banned
yerrr, i reckon that would kinda make it hard to get a job ayy.
Binaural
Eats Squid
If both parties are under 16 then it's not statutory rape, since who would you charge? If your logic applied then both would be guilty of raping the other, which is a patent nonsense. The statutory rape laws are there to protect underage kids against older ones or adults, not kids from other kids.
LQQK
Likes Bikes
The statutory part means that the law is a written law made by parliament. When linked with rape, the law says anyone under 16 cannot legally give consent to have sex, therefore all sex under 16 can be considered statutory rape. The charge (in QLD at least) is carnal knowledge, this is where a person by reason of age or disability are incapable of giving consent.
Looking at what’s happening in the Northern Territory at the moment, health officials are required to report all sexual activity of minors, those under 16 are being charged with sexual assault crimes.
If it is brought before the courts, the judge has to make a decision. They do have discretionary powers and take into account all circumstances, and have a sliding scale of sentencing options. If one or both parents/ guardians make a representation in court against the other, the judge also takes that into account, so yes both can be charged, what the penalty is another thing.
It is not about stopping kids having a bit of fun, the laws are there to protect kids from themselves as well as from older sexual predators. It takes into consideration the physical, psychological and emotional well being of the minor. When 10 year old kids are turning up with 2 or 3 sexually transmitted diseases someone has to take responsibility and do something. The law isn’t justice, but a tool to find justice.
Binaural
Eats Squid
According to the examples you listed, it is in fact about stopping "kids having a bit of fun", since by your definition any sexual contact at all, even with your peers, is illegal. The law explicitly does not take into account physical or psychological factors at all, since they are next to impossible to enforce, so your point there is moot. The age limit is all that matters in determining an offence, the rest would come into effect if at all during sentencing.
To repeat myself, I think any law where both parties can be charged with mutual rape is an complete absurdity. Now, I realize that sometimes lawyers use words in a sense that is not totally in line with their common usage, but this seems beyond the pale so I've done a bit of googling after it. I can't find any instances of two kids being charged with mutual rape in Australia, so it may well be a good example of a law that exists on the books but is not enforced or really enforceable - the thrust of the law seems entirely on protecting kids from sexual contact from older persons, which is what I'd expect.
One other thing to consider - by definition both children are under the age of 16, i.e. below the age of criminal responsibility. How can either, let alone both, be charged? You seem to have a bit of knowledge here so I'd be interested to see your answer.
One of the reasons this is interesting is that I read in the local papers here the other day that the US has a list of registered sex offenders as large as the state of Wyoming, many for crimes of exactly this nature, but they don't call it statutory rape but "unlawful sex" or similar euphemisms. Once you're on the sex offenders list and out of jail/detention there you are treated more or less the same regardless of whether you are a 15yo girl who had consenting sex with a 16yo boyfriend, or a 50yo paedophile with a long criminal history. Pretty awful punishment for former type, in my opinion.