Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Original Quill wrote:It the US there is no leeway for this result.  Statutory rape is a status crime, and neither consent nor mistake is a defense.

Lord Foul wrote:Hmm dunno where to stand on this one....

a bit of a job with a girl who looks much older than she is....
bear in mind he wasnt (as far as the report says) guilty of rape in the sense of violent unwelcomed rape, but statutory rape as the girl was underage......there IS a difference...both legally AND morally

perhaps girls should be bar coded with a "dont touch before" and a "best before" date????

<<<

Tommy Monk wrote:12 year old girls do not look 20+ years old... and also not out hanging around taxi ranks at 4.00am on their own either...


Something stinks about this...

Tommy Monk wrote:Was she out on her own hanging around a taxi rank in scotland at 4 in the morning too...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Also... if the girl was looking so much older (20+) so as nobody had reported anything dodgy about seeing a young girl child out late and getting in a cab with some dodgy bloke etc... and if she was such a willing participant in it all etc... who reported this as a crime to police...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:12 year old girls do not look 20+ years old... and also not out hanging around taxi ranks at 4.00am on their own either...

Something stinks about this...

Raggamuffin wrote:I think that if a man meets a girl at a taxi rank at 4am, it's reasonable to assume that she's much older than 12.

It's probably best not to hook up with anyone one meets in such casual circumstances - generally speaking.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's a problem these days. Retailers have a similar problem, and the guideline is that if someone looks under 25, they should ask for ID in order to sell alcohol or other age-restricted items.

It's not clear if the girl told that chap that she was 16. If she did, she's in the wrong.

I think the judge was reasonable in light of the fact that the girl obviously looks much older than 12.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's a problem these days. Retailers have a similar problem, and the guideline is that if someone looks under 25, they should ask for ID in order to sell alcohol or other age-restricted items.

It's not clear if the girl told that chap that she was 16. If she did, she's in the wrong.

I think the judge was reasonable in light of the fact that the girl obviously looks much older than 12.

She was with a friend and claimed she was 16 and her friend 17.

I can see your point Rags, but to me she was still 12 and cannot legally given consent, no matter if she claimed she was 16.

Difficult case.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

She was with a friend and claimed she was 16 and her friend 17.

I can see your point Rags, but to me she was still 12 and cannot legally given consent, no matter if she claimed she was 16.

Difficult case.

I don't think it's that difficult. It's still not clear if she told him she was 16, but if she did, and she looked 16 or more, he could not have known that she was 12 and that she couldn't give consent.

Raggamuffin wrote:What was the girl doing out so late, and why did she go back to his flat anyway? She consented, and he clearly thought she was over 12. The spirit of the law should be applied here rather than the letter of the law.

The guy was only 19 himself, and he was clearly shocked to find out her real age. He has suffered enough. I think the girl should have some remorse about what he went through.

I don't like the term "statutory rape" anyway - I think it's misleading and silly.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What was the girl doing out so late, and why did she go back to his flat anyway? She consented, and he clearly thought she was over 12. The spirit of the law should be applied here rather than the letter of the law.

The guy was only 19 himself, and he was clearly shocked to find out her real age. He has suffered enough. I think the girl should have some remorse about what he went through.

I don't like the term "statutory rape" anyway - I think it's misleading and silly.

She cannot legally consent because she is 12 years old.
I agree she should not be out and there is the question of that.
Its his responsibility to know the age and verify this and if he cant, he should never have had sex.
That is the law.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


She cannot legally consent because she is 12 years old.
I agree she should not be out and there is the question of that.
Its his responsibility to know the age and verify this and if he cant, he should never have had sex.
That is the law.

He didn't know she was 12 though. She clearly did consent. I suppose he could have asked for her ID.

Raggamuffin wrote:This is why I don't like the term "statutory rape". It implies some kind of force or verbal non-consent. The girl clearly consented.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:This is why I don't like the term "statutory rape". It implies some kind of force or verbal non-consent. The girl clearly consented.

“Under 13” – The victim must be below the age of 13-years at the time of the rape.
Note that the victim’s consent does not matter. This is because children aged under 13 are legally incapable of consenting to sexual activity – this means that even if the child agrees to engage in a sexual activity, a crime has still been committed because their “consent” is considered invalid.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


“Under 13” – The victim must be below the age of 13-years at the time of the rape.
Note that the victim’s consent does not matter. This is because children aged under 13 are legally incapable of consenting to sexual activity – this means that even if the child agrees to engage in a sexual activity, a crime has still been committed because their “consent” is considered invalid.

But he didn't know she was 12. Did she actually tell him she was 16? The reports say that was "told" she was 16, but it's not clear if the girl herself told him that.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

But he didn't know she was 12. Did she actually tell him she was 16? The reports say that was "told" she was 16, but it's not clear if the girl herself told him that.

It does not matter that he did not know, that is not a defense.
Again she was 12, she cannot give consent and he admitted to rape.
You can claim otherwise all you like, but you will still be in error.
Now please continue to repeat yourself, it won't make you right on this.

Laters

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


It does not matter that he did not know, that is not a defense.
Again she was 12, she cannot give consent and he admitted to rape.
You can claim otherwise all you like, but you will still be in error.
Now please continue to repeat yourself, it won't make you right on this.

Laters

You're the one repeating yourself over and again. In the KH case you set great store on the decisions of judges, and now you don't - what suits you at the time eh?

I suppose you would have thrown him in jail and ruined his life because he made a mistake.

Of course I can be right - you're the one disagreeing with the judge, not me.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You're the one repeating yourself over and again. In the KH case you set great store on the decisions of judges, and now you don't - what suits you at the time eh?

I suppose you would have thrown him in jail and ruined his life because he made a mistake.

Of course I can be right - you're the one disagreeing with the judge, not me.

Oh dear

You are wrong, the law disagrees with you, the guilty party disagrees with you as he admitted rape, even the judgement is that he raped her.

Its your stubborn refusal to admit you are wrong that is the issue here, not anything else..

You have basically argued that now to you a pedophile is not committing rape to children under 13 if they according to you, consent.

Go figure

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Oh dear

You are wrong, the law disagrees with you, the guilty party disagrees with you as he admitted rape, even the judgement is that he raped her.

Its your stubborn refusal to admit you are wrong that is the issue here, not anything else..

You have basically argued that now to you a pedophile is not committing rape to children under 13 if they according to you, consent.

Go figure

Of course he had to plead guilty. However, the judge gave him an absolute discharge on the grounds that it was reasonable to assume that the girl was over 16. Are you suggesting that she broke the law? I agree with her. I think he was a victim actually.

A paedophile would know that someone was under 13 - this chap did not. Do you see the difference?

By they way, paedophilia is an attraction to pre-pubescent children.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Of course he had to plead guilty. However, the judge gave him an absolute discharge on the grounds that it was reasonable to assume that the girl was over 16. Are you suggesting that she broke the law? I agree with her. I think he was a victim actually.

A paedophile would know that someone was under 13 - this chap did not. Do you see the difference?

By they way, paedophilia is an attraction to pre-pubescent children.

And many have condemned the judge for the decision.

Which is not the first time either she has made such a gaff on a court case

A pedophile may not know the age also

So again you are justifying rape by pedophiles

You can think all you like, but its not consent and you justify child rape.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


And many have condemned the judge for the decision.

Which is not the first time either she has made such a gaff on a court case

A pedophile may not know the age also

So again you are justifying rape by pedophiles

You can think all you like, but its not consent and you justify child rape.

Why would a paedophile want someone he thinks is older than 16? I'm merely explaining the difference to you re a paedophile and someone who genuinely thinks someone is over 16. If you choose to interpret that as justifying child rape, that's up to you, but it makes you look rather petulant and foolish.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why would a paedophile want someone he thinks is older than 16? I'm merely explaining the difference to you re a paedophile and someone who genuinely thinks someone is over 16. If you choose to interpret that as justifying child rape, that's up to you, but it makes you look rather petulant and foolish.

Because many pedophiles have normal adult sexual relationships.
Or did you not know that?
You are again failing to show you understand anything

Conclusion:

Its not consent.
He committed Rape
The judgement was rape
Not knowing the age, is not an excuse.

You justify child rape

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Because many pedophiles have normal adult sexual relationships.
Or did you not know that?
You are again failing to show you understand anything

Conclusion:

Its not consent.
He committed Rape
The judgement was rape
Not knowing the age, is not an excuse.

You justify child rape

This guy isn't a paedophile, so it's completely irrelevant. Paedophiles are attracted to children who are pre-pubescent - which bit of that do you not understand? This guy was not attracted to the girl because she was pre-pubescent - he thought she was over 16.  

Believing that someone is 16 is a defence actually, especially if they say they are, and they clearly look as if they are.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

This guy isn't a paedophile, so it's completely irrelevant. Paedophiles are attracted to children who are pre-pubescent - which bit of that do you not understand? This guy was not attracted to the girl because she was pre-pubescent - he thought she was over 16.  

Believing that someone is 16 is a defence actually, especially if they say they are, and they clearly look as if they are.

It does not matter, as you just argued based off you believing that under 13's can give consent to sex.
A pedophile will also groom teens.
Ignorance is not a defense as Quill has pointed out.
Are you claiming, that because someone does not know how to drive and then drives a car and kills someone, that their ignorance of not knowing how to drive is a defense?
Stop making up nonsense.
Again, you are justifying child rape, based off your belief under 13's can give consent.

No they cannot give consent.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


It does not matter, as you just argued based off you believing that under 13's can give consent to sex.
A pedophile will also groom teens.
Ignorance is not a defense as Quill has pointed out.
Are you claiming, that because someone does not know how to drive and then drives a car and kills someone, that their ignorance of not knowing how to drive is a defense?
Stop making up nonsense.
Again, you are justifying child rape, based off your belief under 13's can give consent.

No they cannot give consent.

You're introducing red herrings yet again. This is about a young man who thought, and was told, that a girl was over 16, for good reasons. Paedophiles "grooming" young girls is nothing to do with it.

Driving cars is also nothing to do with it - another red herring. If someone can't drive and then tries to drive and kills someone, they're not doing it out of ignorance are they? That's just nonsense.

Ignorance of the law is a different issue. There's no indication that this chap was ignorant of the law, he just believed the girl was over 16 - for good reason.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You're introducing red herrings yet again. This is about a young man who thought, and was told, that a girl was over 16, for good reasons. Paedophiles "grooming" young girls is nothing to do with it.

Driving cars is also nothing to do with it - another red herring. If someone can't drive and then tries to drive and kills someone, they're not doing it out of ignorance are they? That's just nonsense.

Ignorance of the law is a different issue. There's no indication that this chap was ignorant of the law, he just believed the girl was over 16 - for good reason.

It has everything to do with it, you just have a tunnel vision aspect at looking at anything.

Driving cars was a very good example to show your argument from ignorance is invalid.

Again this is besides the point, you have argued that is acceptable to rape a child, as to you under 13's can give consent to sex.

No they cannot.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


It has everything to do with it, you just have a tunnel vision aspect at looking at anything.

Driving cars was a very good example to show your argument from ignorance is invalid.

Again this is besides the point, you have argued that is acceptable to rape a child, as to you under 13's can give consent to sex.

No they cannot.

The red herrings are stacking up now.

You're comparing the situation to someone who doesn't know he's actually trying to drive a car. You need to come up with something better than that.

The girl did give consent - there's no suggestion that she was forced or "groomed" in any way.

“A 12-year-old child does not legally have the capacity to give their consent and sexual activity with them is always therefore a sexual offence.”

They added: “It’s any adult’s legal and moral responsibility to actively seek and be sure they have received the other person’s consent for any and all sexual activity with them.

“This includes making sure that that person has the freedom and capacity to give their consent. For example, if someone is unsure as to whether the person they’re with is too drunk to freely consent, they should not have sex with them.”

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The red herrings are stacking up now.

You're comparing the situation to someone who doesn't know he's actually trying to drive a car. You need to come up with something better than that.

The girl did give consent - there's no suggestion that she was forced or "groomed" in any way.

The counters from ignorance are stacking up from you...

I am comparing arguments from ignorance and in each case they are invalid.
So I dont need to come up with anything for you further, that nailed it

So you can again approve of child rape

As you believe 12 year olds can give consent to sex
No they cannot

“A 12-year-old child does not legally have the capacity to give their consent and sexual activity with them is always therefore a sexual offence.”

They added: “It’s any adult’s legal and moral responsibility to actively seek and be sure they have received the other person’s consent for any and all sexual activity with them.

“This includes making sure that that person has the freedom and capacity to give their consent. For example, if someone is unsure as to whether the person they’re with is too drunk to freely consent, they should not have sex with them.”

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


The counters from ignorance are stacking up from you...

I am comparing arguments from ignorance and in each case they are invalid.
So I dont need to come up with anything for you further, that nailed it

So you can again approve of child rape

As you believe 12 year olds can give consent to sex
No they cannot

As you're so fond of red herrings, how about this one?

If the boys who had killed Jamie Bulger had been 9 instead of 10, would you say that they didn't commit a criminal offence? Would you say they didn't murder him? After all, children under 10 cannot be prosecuted for a criminal offence.

You haven't nailed anything, and repeatedly accusing me of approving of child rape just makes you look desperate.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

As you're so fond of red herrings, how about this one?

I have nailed it

Ignorantia juris non excusat[1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat[2] (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"[1] and "ignorance of law excuses no one"[2] respectively) is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because one was unaware of its content.

Again you approve of child rape, as you believe girls of 12 can give consent.

No they cannot

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

I have nailed it

Ignorantia juris non excusat[1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat[2] (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"[1] and "ignorance of law excuses no one"[2] respectively) is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because one was unaware of its content.

Again you approve of child rape, as you believe girls of 12 can give consent.

No they cannot

There's no suggestion that the chap was ignorant of the law. He just believed she was over 16, which is a different issue.

You're looking really desperate now.

“Under 13” – The victim must be below the age of 13-years at the time of the rape.

Note that the victim’s consent does not matter. This is because children aged under 13 are legally incapable of consenting to sexual activity – this means that even if the child agrees to engage in a sexual activity, a crime has still been committed because their “consent” is considered invalid.

The mens rea of a crime can be thought of as its “mental” part, i.e. the intentions and thought processes of the defendant. The rape of a child under 13 is unusual in that there is no mens rea element.

This means that it does not matter if the defendant thought the victim was consenting, or if they thought the victim was over the age of consent (16) – they are still guilty.

Raggamuffin wrote:I see you completely ignored my question about the boys who killed Jamie Bulger.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There's no suggestion that the chap was ignorant of the law. He just believed she was over 16, which is a different issue.

You're looking really desperate now.

You claimed a 12 year old can give consent.

No they cannot give consent.

Thus that means you are justifying and approving of child rape

“Under 13” – The victim must be below the age of 13-years at the time of the rape.

Note that the victim’s consent does not matter. This is because children aged under 13 are legally incapable of consenting to sexual activity – this means that even if the child agrees to engage in a sexual activity, a crime has still been committed because their “consent” is considered invalid.

The mens rea of a crime can be thought of as its “mental” part, i.e. the intentions and thought processes of the defendant. The rape of a child under 13 is unusual in that there is no mens rea element.

This means that it does not matter if the defendant thought the victim was consenting, or if they thought the victim was over the age of consent (16) – they are still guilty.