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

First topic message reminder :

A 21-year-old man who admitted rape after having sex with a 12-year-old girl has walked free from court.

Daniel Cieslak wept after police informed him of the girl’s age, having believed she was 16, Glasgow’s High Court heard.

Cieslak met the girl at a taxi rank at 4am and later had sex with her at a flat in Edinburgh in 2015.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/daniel-cieslak-walks-free-from-court-after-admitting-raping-girl-12_uk_58cbd5bbe4b0be71dcf3c3dd?utm_hp_ref=uk

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No she hasn't. She made it clear that these were exceptional circumstances.

My question is - why do you want to ruin this young man's life because he made a mistake?

Well you could say that about anyone who has broken the law.....like I said before, actions have consequences, or they should do.

He didn't know he was breaking the law though because he was told she was over 16, and he believed that.

This young man should be allowed to put the incident behind him and move on. Insisting that he should go to prison is just vindictive and pointless.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:
Well you could say that about anyone who has broken the law.....like I said before, actions have consequences, or they should do.

He didn't know he was breaking the law though because he was told she was over 16, and he believed that.

This young man should be allowed to put the incident behind him and move on. Insisting that he should go to prison is just vindictive and pointless.

Again ignorance is not an excuse

How many times do you need to be told?

Anyway, Rags its clear you a re going to stubbornly repeat the same poor claims and this is going around in circles.

The judge was wrong and it sends out the wrong message.

So no point continuing.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He didn't know he was breaking the law though because he was told she was over 16, and he believed that.

This young man should be allowed to put the incident behind him and move on. Insisting that he should go to prison is just vindictive and pointless.

Again ignorance is not an excuse

How many times do you need to be told?

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but there's no indication that he was ignorant of the law. How many times do you need to be told that?

Thorin wrote:Anyway, Rags its clear you a re going to stubbornly repeat the same poor claims and this is going around in circles.

The judge was wrong and it sends out the wrong message.

So no point continuing.

I disagree with you, but you are just going round in circles with your lack of understanding and poor claims - you're right about that.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:
Well you could say that about anyone who has broken the law.....like I said before, actions have consequences, or they should do.

He didn't know he was breaking the law though because he was told she was over 16, and he believed that.

This young man should be allowed to put the incident behind him and move on. Insisting that he should go to prison is just vindictive and pointless.

He says he didn't know she was under 16....but he would wouldn't he?

Why is it vindictive to want to see someone pay for their crimes Rags? If nothing else it might teach him to think on next time he wants to shag a child...because the bottom line is that's EXACTLY what he has done.

Raggamuffin wrote:There's no point in jailing him. He didn't have sex with a 12-year old girl on purpose.

That's like saying the man who runs a red light didn't do it on purpose...the light changed on him. But if he didn't see the red light change, he's guilty of inattentive driving.

If this guy didn't make sure the girl was of the age of majority, then he is guilty of inattentive sexual intercourse.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:There's no point in jailing him. He didn't have sex with a 12-year old girl on purpose.

That's like saying the man who runs a red light didn't do it on purpose...the light changed on him.  But if he didn't see the red light change, he's guilty of inattentive driving.

If this guy didn't make sure the girl was of the age of majority, then he is guilty of inattentive sexual intercourse.

It's not like that at all. A red light comes after an amber light - plenty of time to stop. He had sex with the girl on purpose, but he didn't know she was 12 - therefore, he didn't have sex with a 12-year old girl on purpose.

How could he have made sure? Ask her for ID? I see you're avoiding the word "rape".

If the girl had told him her true age, none of this would have happened.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's like saying the man who runs a red light didn't do it on purpose...the light changed on him.  But if he didn't see the red light change, he's guilty of inattentive driving.

If this guy didn't make sure the girl was of the age of majority, then he is guilty of inattentive sexual intercourse.

It's not like that at all. A red light comes after an amber light - plenty of time to stop. He had sex with the girl on purpose, but he didn't know she was 12 - therefore, he didn't have sex with a 12-year old girl on purpose.

How could he have made sure? Ask her for ID? I see you're avoiding the word "rape".

If the girl had told him her true age, none of this would have happened.

But the girl is without capacity to be at fault. So it is entirely up to the guy to determine her legal status.

Nobody said it is easy. But I believe the law wants to encourage increased vigilance when one is among young people.

Incidentally, an amber light has no legal standing whatsoever. Some have tried to argue that it was not long enough, and courts have said it's just a help...no legal significance, so no legal consequence.

So back to square one: it either is, or is not. The red light, or the girl's age...either she is or is not. It doesn't matter what the guy thought or whether he was tricked.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not like that at all. A red light comes after an amber light - plenty of time to stop. He had sex with the girl on purpose, but he didn't know she was 12 - therefore, he didn't have sex with a 12-year old girl on purpose.

How could he have made sure? Ask her for ID? I see you're avoiding the word "rape".

If the girl had told him her true age, none of this would have happened.

But the girl is without capacity to be at fault.  So it is entirely up to the guy to determine her legal status.

Nobody said it is easy.  But I believe the law wants to encourage increased vigilance when one is among young people.

Incidentally, an amber light has no legal standing whatsoever.  Some have tried to argue that it was not long enough, and courts have said it's just a help...no legal significance, so no legal consequence.

So back to square one: it either is, or is not.  The red light, or the girl's age...either she is or is not.  It doesn't matter what the guy thought or whether he was tricked.

The amber light is just a warning that a red light is on the way. Nobody said it had any legal standing.

See, saying that a 12-year old has no capacity to be at fault is just making it worse. It absolves young people of any responsibility for their own actions - not a good lesson for the future.

The guy was prosecuted because he broke the law - unintentionally. The issue is the sentence, or lack of it. Do you think he should have gone to prison or what?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But the girl is without capacity to be at fault.  So it is entirely up to the guy to determine her legal status.

Nobody said it is easy.  But I believe the law wants to encourage increased vigilance when one is among young people.

Incidentally, an amber light has no legal standing whatsoever.  Some have tried to argue that it was not long enough, and courts have said it's just a help...no legal significance, so no legal consequence.

So back to square one: it either is, or is not.  The red light, or the girl's age...either she is or is not.  It doesn't matter what the guy thought or whether he was tricked.

The amber light is just a warning that a red light is on the way. Nobody said it had any legal standing.

I agree, it's irrelevant.

Raggamuffin wrote:See, saying that a 12-year old has no capacity to be at fault is just making it worse. It absolves young people of any responsibility for their own actions - not a good lesson for the future.

Nevertheless, it puts the blame where it belongs...on the adult. Perhaps the law deems it more important if the adult gets the lesson.

Raggamuffin wrote:The guy was prosecuted because he broke the law - unintentionally. The issue is the sentence, or lack of it. Do you think he should have gone to prison or what?

I do...intentionally.  The structure of the law makes his negligent failure to make inquiry in a serious way, the real wrongdoing here.  A state-of-mind defense doesn't fly when it's something that you are obligated to do.  It's like filing your tax return...I didn't know, doesn't fly.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The amber light is just a warning that a red light is on the way. Nobody said it had any legal standing.

I agree, it's irrelevant.

Raggamuffin wrote:See, saying that a 12-year old has no capacity to be at fault is just making it worse. It absolves young people of any responsibility for their own actions - not a good lesson for the future.

Nevertheless, it puts the blame where it belongs...on the adult.

Raggamuffin wrote:The guy was prosecuted because he broke the law - unintentionally. The issue is the sentence, or lack of it. Do you think he should have gone to prison or what?

I do...intentionally.  The structure of the law makes his negligent failure to make inquiry in a serious way, the real wrongdoing here.  A state-of-mind defense doesn't fly when it's something that you are obligated to do.  It's like filing your tax return...I didn't know, doesn't fly.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. He was arrested, charged, and pleaded guilty - all for a mistake based on a lie that someone else told him. I think the Judge did the right thing.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I agree, it's irrelevant.



Nevertheless, it puts the blame where it belongs...on the adult.



I do...intentionally.  The structure of the law makes his negligent failure to make inquiry in a serious way, the real wrongdoing here.  A state-of-mind defense doesn't fly when it's something that you are obligated to do.  It's like filing your tax return...I didn't know, doesn't fly.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. He was arrested, charged, and pleaded guilty - all for a mistake based on a lie that someone else told him. I think the Judge did the right thing.

A lie from a child with not the maturity or mental aptitude of an adult
Like I said, he thought with his dick.
If he had of thought with his head, he would not of jumped into bed with her.
The judge should be sacked for this appalling decision, where she moved the goal posts, simply because she bought his sob story.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. He was arrested, charged, and pleaded guilty - all for a mistake based on a lie that someone else told him. I think the Judge did the right thing.

A lie from a child with not the maturity or mental aptitude of an adult
Like I said, he thought with his dick.
If he had of thought with his head, he would not of jumped into bed with her.
The judge should be sacked for this appalling decision, where she moved the goal posts, simply because she bought his sob story.

What do you think her motive was for lying then? Did she forget her real age?

You talk about 12-year old girls as if they're mentally retarded or something.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


A lie from a child with not the maturity or mental aptitude of an adult
Like I said, he thought with his dick.
If he had of thought with his head, he would not of jumped into bed with her.
The judge should be sacked for this appalling decision, where she moved the goal posts, simply because she bought his sob story.

What do you think her motive was for lying then? Did she forget her real age?

You talk about 12-year old girls as if they're mentally retarded or something.

Who said there was a motive.
She is a child and was also drinking and just wanting to be out having fun.
She is thus vulnerable to people older who can easily take advantage of her with flattery.
Which clearly happened here. Its even more evident, that after she was worried she might be pregnant.
This is what you are failing to grasp and how also the one element not even looked at and why I don't believe the accused. A 12 year old will not be sexually mature or understand many things at this age and this surely must have come across. He the predator must have seen she was mentally immature when speaking.

He took advantage of her because she had been drinking.

So no they are not mentally retarded but basically immature to how adults think, this is what you fail to grasp

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What do you think her motive was for lying then? Did she forget her real age?

You talk about 12-year old girls as if they're mentally retarded or something.

Who said there was a motive.
She is a child and was also drinking and just wanting to be out having fun.
She is thus vulnerable to people older who can easily take advantage of her with flattery.
Which clearly happened here. Its even more evident, that after she was worried she might be pregnant.
This is what you are failing to grasp and how also the one element not even looked at and why I don't believe the accused. A 12 year old will not be sexually mature or understand many things at this age and this surely must have come across. He the predator must have seen she was mentally immature when speaking.

He took advantage of her because she had been drinking.

So no they are not mentally retarded but basically immature to how adults think, this is what you fail to grasp

The police didn't notice that she was "mentally immature", and he wasn't a predator - he just met her at a taxi rank, he didn't go looking for her. You have no evidence that he "took advantage" because she'd been drinking.

I thought you were fed up with going round in circles chasing your own tail.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Who said there was a motive.
She is a child and was also drinking and just wanting to be out having fun.
She is thus vulnerable to people older who can easily take advantage of her with flattery.
Which clearly happened here. Its even more evident, that after she was worried she might be pregnant.
This is what you are failing to grasp and how also the one element not even looked at and why I don't believe the accused. A 12 year old will not be sexually mature or understand many things at this age and this surely must have come across. He the predator must have seen she was mentally immature when speaking.

He took advantage of her because she had been drinking.

So no they are not mentally retarded but basically immature to how adults think, this is what you fail to grasp

The police didn't notice that she was "mentally immature", and he wasn't a predator - he just met her at a taxi rank, he didn't go looking for her. You have no evidence that he "took advantage" because she'd been drinking.

I thought you were fed up with going round in circles chasing your own tail.

Oh and the Police are now experts on maturity now are they?

He was a predator.

Why else was he chatting to her at 4am, unless he had at least sex on his mind, of which happened?

I notice you avoid the facts here, she clearly is a child and would have thought like a child, the point missed by this incompetent judge.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The police didn't notice that she was "mentally immature", and he wasn't a predator - he just met her at a taxi rank, he didn't go looking for her. You have no evidence that he "took advantage" because she'd been drinking.

I thought you were fed up with going round in circles chasing your own tail.

Oh and the Police are now experts on maturity now are they?

He was a predator.

Why else was he chatting to her at 4am, unless he had at least sex on his mind, of which happened?

I notice you avoid the facts here, she clearly is a child and would have thought like a child, the point missed by this incompetent judge.

Nope - the Judge said there was no suggestion of predatory behaviour on his part, and she was there in court whereas you were not.

Maybe she spoke to him at the taxi rank - did you think of that? Anyway, there's nothing unusual about chatting to other people whilst waiting for a taxi.

The police would probably notice if they were talking to an "immature" person, don't you think?

If she thought like a child, I doubt she'd be out drinking at that time.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Oh and the Police are now experts on maturity now are they?

He was a predator.

Why else was he chatting to her at 4am, unless he had at least sex on his mind, of which happened?

I notice you avoid the facts here, she clearly is a child and would have thought like a child, the point missed by this incompetent judge.

Nope - the Judge said there was no suggestion of predatory behaviour on his part, and she was there in court whereas you were not.

Maybe she spoke to him at the taxi rank - did you think of that? Anyway, there's nothing unusual about chatting to other people whilst waiting for a taxi.

The police would probably notice if they were talking to an "immature" person, don't you think?

If she thought like a child, I doubt she'd be out drinking at that time.

Well the judge is not an expert of psychology is she Rags.
Like I said she bought the sob story.
So why was he chatting to girls at 4am. If not to hook up with one of them?
If she spoke to him, then why did he go off together?
Clearly, he had sex on his agenda, as they ended up having sex.
I would like to think the Police would be able to spot the difference but this falls out of the window, when they are dealing with people intoxicated at that time of the morning. To them, all would seem immature, based on them drinking.

Clearly she did think like a child. What you doubt is based on your views and not how children have a fixation for breaking the rules. The fact she was drinking and 12, thus immature both mentally and intelligence wise compared to an adult. made her extremely vulnerable.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nope - the Judge said there was no suggestion of predatory behaviour on his part, and she was there in court whereas you were not.

Maybe she spoke to him at the taxi rank - did you think of that? Anyway, there's nothing unusual about chatting to other people whilst waiting for a taxi.

The police would probably notice if they were talking to an "immature" person, don't you think?

If she thought like a child, I doubt she'd be out drinking at that time.

Well the judge is not an expert of psychology is she Rags.
Like I said she bought the sob story.
So why was he chatting to girls at 4am. If not to hook up with one of them?
If she spoke to him, then why did he go off together?
Clearly, he had sex on his agenda, as they ended up having sex.
I would like to think the Police would be able to spot the difference but this falls out of the window, when they are dealing with people intoxicated at that time of the morning. To them, all would seem immature, based on them drinking.

Clearly she did think like a child. What you doubt is based on your views and not how children have a fixation for breaking the rules. The fact she was drinking and 12, thus immature both mentally and intelligence wise compared to an adult. made her extremely vulnerable.

There was no sob story. He was told the girl was over 16, and she looked and behaved as if she was. It's not like he dragged her off is it? She went very willingly.

As for the Judge, she's better placed than you to make a judgement because she was there. You're not an expert in psychology either, even though you think you are.

I think he was the vulnerable one actually. He was lied to.

Anyway, he's highly unlikely to do that kind of thing again, so there's no point in sending him to prison. Hopefully, she won't be doing that kind of thing again either - as a child or an adult.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Well the judge is not an expert of psychology is she Rags.
Like I said she bought the sob story.
So why was he chatting to girls at 4am. If not to hook up with one of them?
If she spoke to him, then why did he go off together?
Clearly, he had sex on his agenda, as they ended up having sex.
I would like to think the Police would be able to spot the difference but this falls out of the window, when they are dealing with people intoxicated at that time of the morning. To them, all would seem immature, based on them drinking.

Clearly she did think like a child. What you doubt is based on your views and not how children have a fixation for breaking the rules. The fact she was drinking and 12, thus immature both mentally and intelligence wise compared to an adult. made her extremely vulnerable.

There was no sob story. He was told the girl was over 16, and she looked and behaved as if she was. It's not like he dragged her off is it? She went very willingly.

As for the Judge, she's better placed than you to make a judgement because she was there. You're not an expert in psychology either, even though you think you are.

I think he was the vulnerable one actually. He was lied to.

There was a sob story.

Again ignorance is not an excuse, especially, when he has a one track mind, to get inside her knickers, of which he did. This you keep avoiding. If he did not have sex on his mind, why then did he sleep with her? 

Are you saying the girl forced him into having sex? You see this is the damning point here. He may well have thought she was 16. Does that mean he should have slept with her on just meeting her minutes before?

That in itself shows how he played on her vulnerability. As she is a child and naive to the ways of the world. 

He clearly sought sex and took advantage of the her. Again you ignore the fact she was a child, who may look bodily 16, but mentally and maturity wise was 12. Where because of alcohol,makes her more vulnerable.

Girls of that age, are unable to comprehend the difference of being taken advantage of. Even more so when drinking and seeking attention. Wanting to be far older than their years. This even more makes them vulnerable.

I just proved the judge is incompetent and she failed to factor the many issues I have raised and even more, he clearly had sex on his agenda.

How was he vulnerable, did she force his dick in her and continue to pump his body into her?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There was no sob story. He was told the girl was over 16, and she looked and behaved as if she was. It's not like he dragged her off is it? She went very willingly.

As for the Judge, she's better placed than you to make a judgement because she was there. You're not an expert in psychology either, even though you think you are.

I think he was the vulnerable one actually. He was lied to.

There was a sob story.

Again ignorance is not an excuse, especially, when he has a one track mind, to get inside her knickers, of which he did. This you keep avoiding. If he did not have sex on his mind, why then did he sleep with her? 

Are you saying the girl forced him into having sex? You see this is the damning point here. He may well have thought she was 16. Does that mean he should have slept with her on just meeting her minutes before?

That in itself shows how he played on her vulnerability. As she is a child and naive to the ways of the world. 

He clearly sought sex and took advantage of the her. Again you ignore the fact she was a child, who may look bodily 16, but mentally and maturity wise was 12. Where because of alcohol,makes her more vulnerable.

Girls of that age, are unable to comprehend the difference of being taken advantage of. Even more so when drinking and seeking attention. Wanting to be far older than their years. This even more makes them vulnerable.

I just proved the judge is incompetent and she failed to factor the many issues I have raised and even more, he clearly had sex on his agenda.

How was he vulnerable, did she force his dick in her and continue to pump his body into her?

You talk as if girls and women never want to have sex. Neither of them should have been having sex after they only just met IMO, but that's another issue. You talk about force, but the point is that there was no force.

You haven't proved the judge is incompetent at all - you just disagreed with her - that's not the same thing.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


There was a sob story.

Again ignorance is not an excuse, especially, when he has a one track mind, to get inside her knickers, of which he did. This you keep avoiding. If he did not have sex on his mind, why then did he sleep with her? 

Are you saying the girl forced him into having sex? You see this is the damning point here. He may well have thought she was 16. Does that mean he should have slept with her on just meeting her minutes before?

That in itself shows how he played on her vulnerability. As she is a child and naive to the ways of the world. 

He clearly sought sex and took advantage of the her. Again you ignore the fact she was a child, who may look bodily 16, but mentally and maturity wise was 12. Where because of alcohol,makes her more vulnerable.

Girls of that age, are unable to comprehend the difference of being taken advantage of. Even more so when drinking and seeking attention. Wanting to be far older than their years. This even more makes them vulnerable.

I just proved the judge is incompetent and she failed to factor the many issues I have raised and even more, he clearly had sex on his agenda.

How was he vulnerable, did she force his dick in her and continue to pump his body into her?

You talk as if girls and women never want to have sex. Neither of them should have been having sex after they only just met IMO, but that's another issue. You talk about force, but the point is that there was no force.

You haven't proved the judge is incompetent at all - you just disagreed with her - that's not the same thing.  

Where did i claim women or girls do not want to have sex?

Never did.

I talk about the fact, you have a girl, very naive and very susceptible to flattery through attention and alcohol, due to her age.

I know one thing, and that is the mind of men, at that age, at 4am in the morning coming out onto the streets from clubbing and drinking. Of which many men here would also agree with at some point in their lives

They generally have a one track mind. To get their nuts up, of which he did.

I proved the judge failed to factor in many points here and has made a grave error of judgement.

Its clear to me, he was the sexual predator here as he clearly had sex as his intention.
The judge took only the view that people thought she was 16 and thus has treated her as if she was 16 and not 12.

That makes her completely incompetent.