Jump to content

My problem with the way society deals with rape

laowai

By laowai
in Current Events

 Share

Recommended Posts

laowai Newbie

laowai

Posted
Posted
This story, in the context of how we treat female rape victims, makes me realize the whole way we deal with rape as a society is wholly dependent on the victims gender and makes me realize I have given up on my society once and for all.
 
What makes me so disappointed about this is that even when the boy is the rape victim and the perpetrator a woman society somehow finds a way to still blame the male! 
 

A judge has been criticised after deciding not to imprison a 21-year-old babysitter who admitted sexual activity with the 11-year-old boy she was looking after.Judge Tim Mousley QC gave Jade Hatt a suspended jail term for the offence, committed in November 2014 when she was 20.

Mousley said she was immature, while the boy was mature for his age, and he felt able to step outside normal sentencing guidelines.
 
He said: “Having read everything before me, it was quite clear he was a mature 11-year-old and you were an immature 20-year-old so that narrows the arithmetic age gap between you.”
The judge also took into account that the boy’s father spoke up for Hatt in court, claiming his son was “fully up for the experience”. However, the boy said he knew what had happened was wrong and he said he had not enjoyed it.
A six-month jail term suspended for two years with supervision was imposed and Hatt was told she must register as a sex offender for seven years. Mousley also imposed a sexual harm prevention order banning her from having unsupervised contact with young boys for two years.
Children’s charity the NSPCC expressed concern at the message the sentencing sent out.
A spokesman said: “The judge’s comments in this case send out completely the wrong message and confirm a common view in society that the abuse of a young boy by a woman is somehow less serious than the abuse of a girl by a man.
 
“The offender in this case has escaped extremely lightly and you have to wonder whether, in the same circumstances, a man would have been treated the same.
“It beggars belief that Tim Mousley QC could say that the 11-year-old victim’s maturity and the abuser’s immaturity ‘narrowed the age gap’ and was reason to step outside the sentencing guidelines; this sends a deeply worrying signal.
 
 
“The victim’s voice appears to have been ignored as, despite his own father claiming that his son was ‘fully up for the experience’, the boy himself said he had not enjoyed it and knew it was wrong. The effects of sexual abuse can be long lasting and it’s essential that this boy is offered the necessary support.”
Swindon crown court heard that Hatt was looking after the youngster as he had a day off school when she stripped off, removed his clothes, and had sexual intercourse.
Hannah Squire, prosecuting, told the court: “The defendant was friends with the boy’s father, with whom she had had a brief sexual relationship.
 
“He would ask her to babysit; she had babysat his 11-year-old son on six or seven occasions. On one of those occasions this offence took place.
“It was during the day and the boy was off school. The defendant arrived at about 11.30am.Sexual intercourse took place.
She told him she enjoyed it, he said he had not as it was wrong.”
Squire said the boy’s father noticed he had a love bite on his neck and he found texts from Hatt that revealed what had taken place.
Police were called and when arrested, Hatt told officers the boy had told her he was 15, even though she knew his age as his father had told her, the court heard. Hatt, from Swindon, admitted sexual activity with a child.
Rob Ross, defending, said his client was a small, immature, woman and the victim was very advanced for his years. He read out a statement from his father in which he said: “He [the boy] is sex mad. He would have been fully up for this experience and in many ways sees it as a notch on his belt and is totally unaffected by it.”
 
 
Ross said Hatt “clearly doesn’t operate at the level of a 20-year-old” and was honest with the police about what had taken place.
Claude Knights, CEO of charity Kidscape, said the language used in court to describe the young victim wrongly implied he was to blame.
She said: “This is a very disturbing case involving attempts to find mitigating circumstances.
“It must be stressed however that we are dealing with an 11-year-old boy who, however physically mature he might appear, is a child in every sense.
“He cannot be expected to have the emotional maturity to engage in a sexual relationship. 
 
“It is very sad to hear this young boy described in terms such as ‘sex mad’, which somehow implies that he was to blame for the illegal activity that took place. We have to ask about the influences that this child was subjected to.” 
 
She added: “Sadly the current sexualisation of childhood is well documented. The fact that he realised that what had happened was wrong indicates that he will have been affected by this regrettable incident.”

 

 
 
Just found this article questioning the credibility of the father.
 

Let’s hope the next line of action for police investigating this vile case is a thorough questioning of the boy’s father.For what kind of a fool could ever regard his child having sex in such circumstances as a “notch on his belt”?

Most parents would be rightly appalled. But it seems to me this man must be happy having his son living in a highly sexualised environment.
I refuse to believe any 11-year-old being brought up in a safe, normal environment could possibly already be “sex mad”.
How does he even know what sexual desires are at that age?
The poor child.
 
 
Perhaps he was sexualised before his encounter with the abhorrent Jade Hatt, his dad’s ex-lover.
Perhaps that shows he was already damaged, about to be damaged further.
As for the sentencing, it would appear this idiotic judge has fallen for the defence of Ms Hatt and this feckless father by being so ludicrously lenient.
 
 
Eleven is a child. And it makes not a shred of difference what gender the child is or what their life’s experiences may have been.
How many more cases of sexual assault must we have to endure before the simplicities of all this stuff becomes apparent to those dispensing justice?
 
 
In my view, if the boy’s father and Ms Hatt are happy to be destroyers of childhood, that is their repugnant choice – for which they deserve punishing.
But surely our judicial system should know far, far better.

 

 
 
And I also am researching some of Tim Mousley QC's other cases and have reason to question his credibility also. For example he gave a robber who showed remorse and who was under the influence of drugs when he committed his crimes, a 13 year jail sentence, despite only stealing cash and not physically harming anyone.
 
 
dsayers Newbie

dsayers

Posted
Posted

I have to agree with Donnadogsoth. What you're talking about is a reason TO make the case for rational thought, peaceful parenting, and a respect for property rights. Not a reason to lay down and let those that make it this way have an easier time doing so.

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept