It's pretty simple. If an adult has sex with an 11 year old, it's rape. An 11 year old cannot give informed consent. If her parents stand by and do nothing, they are party to rape. And possibly pimping. Get them all in front of the court.
Instead, over at DPF some seem to be saying there's nothing wrong with the police deciding not to prosecute.
The Police prosecute people for defending themselves against violent thugs.
The Police prosecute people under the banner of 'smacking'.
But the Police allow an adult to rape an 11 year old...?
..and it has no bearing on 'the public interest'?
This is just sick.
5:00AM Sunday November 25, 2007
By Stephen Cook
Police chose not to lay charges against a 21-year-old who fathered a child with a 13-year-old girl - even though he confessed to police he had been having sex with a minor.
The pregnancy was highlighted last week by Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro, who used the case to illustrate “the wall of silence” protecting people who committed child abuse.
The girl had started having sex from the age of 11 and Kiro claimed that no one in her family would come forward and shed any light on who was responsible.
However, the Herald on Sunday understands the father turned himself in to police but was given only a verbal warning by officers.
Rape Crisis is demanding answers about why police never charged the man with having sex with a minor. It says the police’s failure to do so sends extremely worrying mixed messages to teenagers.
A conviction for having sex with someone under the age of 12 carries a maximum prison term of 14 years. Having sex with someone under the age of 16 carries a 10-year maximum prison term.
Sources involved with the girl’s family told the Herald on Sunday the man had been involved in a sexual relationship with the girl since she was 11. When Child Youth and Family (CYF) became aware the girl was pregnant at 12, she was removed from the mother’s care and placed with a family member. Four months ago the girl gave birth. She was 13.
It is understood the 21-year-old is still involved in a relationship with the girl and has supervised visits with his son. During the day the baby is cared for by a family member, allowing the girl to remain at school.
A source told the Herald on Sunday the girl’s mother was aware her daughter’s relationship was of a sexual nature, but chose to do nothing about it. For five months, the girl had managed to hide the pregnancy, and authorities became involved only after being alerted to the case by the girl’s doctor.
It was then that CYF intervened. CYF is understood to still be monitoring the girl, but with the refusal of police to act in the case it is hamstrung over taking any action about her relationship with the baby’s father.
Asked about police protocols in the case of someone having sex with a minor, a spokesperson at Police National Headquarters said charges were laid only if there was sufficient evidence and proceeding with a case was in the public interest.
Rape Crisis spokeswoman Sandz Peipi said the fact the 21-year-old had been involved with the girl when she was only 11 was “disturbing and quite perverse”.
Whether the sex was consensual was irrelevant because of the girl’s age and the man should have been charged by police.
The fact he had admitted committing “statutory rape” meant police had more than sufficient evidence to go on, Peipi said. She was also surprised police did not believe it was in the “public interest” to lay charges.
Related Link: In the Public Interest
Instead, over at DPF some seem to be saying there's nothing wrong with the police deciding not to prosecute.
The Police prosecute people for defending themselves against violent thugs.
The Police prosecute people under the banner of 'smacking'.
But the Police allow an adult to rape an 11 year old...?
..and it has no bearing on 'the public interest'?
This is just sick.
5:00AM Sunday November 25, 2007
By Stephen Cook
Police chose not to lay charges against a 21-year-old who fathered a child with a 13-year-old girl - even though he confessed to police he had been having sex with a minor.
The pregnancy was highlighted last week by Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro, who used the case to illustrate “the wall of silence” protecting people who committed child abuse.
The girl had started having sex from the age of 11 and Kiro claimed that no one in her family would come forward and shed any light on who was responsible.
However, the Herald on Sunday understands the father turned himself in to police but was given only a verbal warning by officers.
Rape Crisis is demanding answers about why police never charged the man with having sex with a minor. It says the police’s failure to do so sends extremely worrying mixed messages to teenagers.
A conviction for having sex with someone under the age of 12 carries a maximum prison term of 14 years. Having sex with someone under the age of 16 carries a 10-year maximum prison term.
Sources involved with the girl’s family told the Herald on Sunday the man had been involved in a sexual relationship with the girl since she was 11. When Child Youth and Family (CYF) became aware the girl was pregnant at 12, she was removed from the mother’s care and placed with a family member. Four months ago the girl gave birth. She was 13.
It is understood the 21-year-old is still involved in a relationship with the girl and has supervised visits with his son. During the day the baby is cared for by a family member, allowing the girl to remain at school.
A source told the Herald on Sunday the girl’s mother was aware her daughter’s relationship was of a sexual nature, but chose to do nothing about it. For five months, the girl had managed to hide the pregnancy, and authorities became involved only after being alerted to the case by the girl’s doctor.
It was then that CYF intervened. CYF is understood to still be monitoring the girl, but with the refusal of police to act in the case it is hamstrung over taking any action about her relationship with the baby’s father.
Asked about police protocols in the case of someone having sex with a minor, a spokesperson at Police National Headquarters said charges were laid only if there was sufficient evidence and proceeding with a case was in the public interest.
Rape Crisis spokeswoman Sandz Peipi said the fact the 21-year-old had been involved with the girl when she was only 11 was “disturbing and quite perverse”.
Whether the sex was consensual was irrelevant because of the girl’s age and the man should have been charged by police.
The fact he had admitted committing “statutory rape” meant police had more than sufficient evidence to go on, Peipi said. She was also surprised police did not believe it was in the “public interest” to lay charges.
Related Link: In the Public Interest
I'm sure the police can still prosecute even if the girl refuses to press charges right? Someone needs a kick up the bum to get them moving i say.
ReplyDeleteExactly mk. So the next time a 11 year old gets a smack, they just have to say to the Police "it was consensual". That should get mum or dad off scott free on this logic.
ReplyDeleteActually, a few liberals would be treating it as a bit of S&M and probably fully approving.
Find me a liberal who thinks adults should be able to f*ck children without ending up with a fat jail term, and I'll show you a sick f*ck masquerading as a liberal, Zen. Whichever cop reached this decision warrants investigation himself.
ReplyDeleteIsn't this simply the extremist end of liberalism Psycho? Just as religion has its fair share of extremists?
ReplyDeleteDo Liberals have to take responsibility for the masqueraders, just as religion does, or can we agree to create a completely new group called 'sick f*cks' and lump all of the immoral in there? Come to think of it, wouldn't Mohamed (PBUH) make it on both counts in this instance?
Except that most extremists when it comes to legalising sick behaviour seem to of the liberal persuasion.
ReplyDelete"...it's never their particular brand of leftism."
ReplyDeleteThis seems to be a very common argument from righties.
Whenever the crap behaviour of rightists (as in dictators killing the odd million or so of their own citizens, or the 100+million killed in the name of imperialism etc) is pointed out to them, it's never their particular brand of rightism.
To which we might add that belly-laugh standby, "Hitler? Not us! Look at the name - it's National Socialist party."
I'm not sure there's even an extremist end of "liberal" that finds sex with children OK, Zen. There's certainly a bunch of liberal perverts that find it OK, but there are also conservative perverts - I don't think the liberalism's the relevant characteristic.
Dictators are not necessarily right wing. Mugabe and Castro are two obvious examples.
ReplyDeleteOf course there is an extremist end of liberalism. The fact you find perverts across all walks of life and all ideologies is missing the point.
Increasing liberalization of society has to, by definition, push limits. This translates to lowering the age of consent, legalizing prostitution, turning advertisements into soft porn pitches for your business etc.
As libertarians say - with freedom comes responsibility. This kind of freedom does create a climate where the unacceptable becomes acceptable. Throw in some moral relativism and it's perfectly reasonable to argue that this is a symptom of extreme liberalism.
The issue here is not only what the adult did to the child, but how the police responded. A liberal attitude is responsible for the police officer being able to correctly apply the law.
And the law of common sense is being continually being downgraded.
Just had a thought, I wonder if there was any connection with the religion of peace in this sorry affair. Following Muhummads example etc... that would prompt the cops to think about whether the public interest was served in having people get more outraged than usual.
ReplyDeleteLeftists might publicly state they they are against all crime and all that, but they are also always angling for reduced punishments for all sorts of criminals. Anyone can say that pedophilia is terrible and what not, but who is in favor of keeping pedophiles locked up forever or shot and who isn't.
ReplyDeleteI remember recently one of the lefty candidates here in Australia ensured some scumbag in Somalia was hauled away and shot for his crimes, the leftists were all squealing and doing gymnastics about the horror of capital punishment. I commended the fellow.
"Peter Singer, a founding member of the Victorian Greens, supports legalising bestiality."
ReplyDeleteBut...that's not our particular brand of environmentalism....
Perhaps not, but the left sure attracts the loonies in droves.
Correction to my above comment: A liberal attitude is responsible for the police officer being unable to correctly apply the law!
ReplyDelete"Following Muhummads example etc..."
ReplyDeleteThe guy's white - more likely to be following the Medieval Europeans' example, surely?
his seems to be a very common argument from lefties.
ReplyDeleteSeems to be a fairly common argument from the religious too...
S
Returning to the original topic.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was younger -1960's & 70's and was a weekly purchaser of Truth this was known as `Unlawful Carnal Knowledge' and any male over 16 having sex with a girl under 16 was before the courts and usually convicted.
It is time we returned there.
But is there not talk of raising the age of criminal responsibility to 18 years?
ReplyDeleteTherein lies a 'window of opportunity.'
Y'know, now that NZConservative has taken up this issue, I find myself desperately trying to come up with some argument against laying charges... just to piss you off.
ReplyDeleteYou're just lucky I can't think of any right now ;)
Thank you PM. Winter being over, I no longer need a newspaper to start the fire. My thought was uninformed and in ignorance of the fellow's tint.
ReplyDeleteI was vainly racking my brain to find some obscure reason why the public good would not be served in placing the matter before a judge.
I can find none, but there must be one somewhere. It can't be that our police are lead by craven dickheads who focus on traffic misdemeanors and can't be bothered prosecuting a man that has eventually duffed the child he has been using.
There has to be some grander good than that hidden somewhere, surely.
What a pity Blair. I could have called it the Blair Witch Project.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I think you've p*ssed me off anyway, as I really had expected a far better capacity for immoral and amoral irrational argument from you. Try to lift your game man.
Maybe the Cop knew, if Helen and Co hang in there for another term. We'll end up like some Muslim Countries a few more years down the line whereby they marry girls off at the tender age of 9, so a 11yr can go and fend for herself?
ReplyDeleteAnyway the cops do stuff all about prosecuting dirty old men who're involved with 11-15yr old prostitutes. Probably most of them cops for starters?
It's an appalling state of affairs!