Ms R. Clarke, (age 23) and two others (who pleaded guilty) made multiple sex videos with two girls aged 14 at the time. Her line of defence was that she thought they were 17 years old. Yet examples of her "lines" in the movie were:
"your breasts feel like a 10-year-old's" and "I feel like a child molester".
If she thought they were 17, the movie script was still trying to portray the idea that they were much much younger. Is that a responsible film to make?
Said the judge of the 'I thought they were 17 excuse': "I'm of the view that it does not, as a matter of law, provide a defence"
Problem is, others have tried, and another court ruled it was a valid defence. In a case in NSW, an adult offender sexually assaulted a sleeping girl and claimed he thought she was 16, not 15 (lesser crime perhaps?) However, whilst the judge agreed it was a valid defence strategy, he didn't find the assailant's belief credible. Small mercy.
The crime of making child pornography and inciting children to sexual acts carries a penalty of up to 10 years in Australia. Her penalty was ZERO jail time, a good behaviour bond for 24 months, and her name on to a sex offenders register.
I think she has been fortunate to be let off so lightly. She thought this sentence excessive and appealed. One request I thought particularly ironic was that she wanted name suppression so that her 17 year old step brother would not find out. Apparently, 17 is too young to know of such things, but at the same time, 17 is old enough to participate in them. Go figure.
She's made a second appeal. She's declared a desire to be a child counselor. This is the reason she wants (needs) her name dropped from a sex offenders register. You cannot be a child counselor if you are on the sex offenders register. In any case, her judgment in working with problem children is questionable.
It's not really the specifics of this story that caught my eye.
Firstly, I thought the story headline was overly sensationalist: Lesbian Porn Star.. blazed the news feed. Hardly. A women who makes low budget porn flicks. She's pregnant or just had a baby, so is probably not a lesbian.
Secondly, there is constant pressure on the law to crumble under diminishing responsibility of the criminals. Here, a casual disregard for demanding proof of age and a push for a defence based on "I assumed". The result was a 10 year sentence reduced to a good behaviour bond. Maybe the other two fared worse?
With self-defence laws (to change the topic slightly), the criminal can have the intent of murder, but if they get hurt first, the victim has to expect a hard fight to prove he was in danger, and the response was not excessive. Diminishing responsibility of the criminal, even though they were the instigator.
Expect such cases to continue to push the boundaries, and as the penalties diminish expect the boundaries to slide.
Related Link: Lesbian Porn Star Wants To Clear Name
Related Link: Guilty of Lesbian Underage Romp
Related Link: Sister shocks half brother in teen sex romp
"your breasts feel like a 10-year-old's" and "I feel like a child molester".
If she thought they were 17, the movie script was still trying to portray the idea that they were much much younger. Is that a responsible film to make?
Said the judge of the 'I thought they were 17 excuse': "I'm of the view that it does not, as a matter of law, provide a defence"
Problem is, others have tried, and another court ruled it was a valid defence. In a case in NSW, an adult offender sexually assaulted a sleeping girl and claimed he thought she was 16, not 15 (lesser crime perhaps?) However, whilst the judge agreed it was a valid defence strategy, he didn't find the assailant's belief credible. Small mercy.
The crime of making child pornography and inciting children to sexual acts carries a penalty of up to 10 years in Australia. Her penalty was ZERO jail time, a good behaviour bond for 24 months, and her name on to a sex offenders register.
I think she has been fortunate to be let off so lightly. She thought this sentence excessive and appealed. One request I thought particularly ironic was that she wanted name suppression so that her 17 year old step brother would not find out. Apparently, 17 is too young to know of such things, but at the same time, 17 is old enough to participate in them. Go figure.
She's made a second appeal. She's declared a desire to be a child counselor. This is the reason she wants (needs) her name dropped from a sex offenders register. You cannot be a child counselor if you are on the sex offenders register. In any case, her judgment in working with problem children is questionable.
It's not really the specifics of this story that caught my eye.
Firstly, I thought the story headline was overly sensationalist: Lesbian Porn Star.. blazed the news feed. Hardly. A women who makes low budget porn flicks. She's pregnant or just had a baby, so is probably not a lesbian.
Secondly, there is constant pressure on the law to crumble under diminishing responsibility of the criminals. Here, a casual disregard for demanding proof of age and a push for a defence based on "I assumed". The result was a 10 year sentence reduced to a good behaviour bond. Maybe the other two fared worse?
With self-defence laws (to change the topic slightly), the criminal can have the intent of murder, but if they get hurt first, the victim has to expect a hard fight to prove he was in danger, and the response was not excessive. Diminishing responsibility of the criminal, even though they were the instigator.
Expect such cases to continue to push the boundaries, and as the penalties diminish expect the boundaries to slide.
Related Link: Lesbian Porn Star Wants To Clear Name
Related Link: Guilty of Lesbian Underage Romp
Related Link: Sister shocks half brother in teen sex romp