WTF? Austrian court overturns conviction of Iraqi refugee for rape of 10 year old - prosecution did not show whether attacker thought boy consented

[Axulus]

Is this some sort of translation error, or did the court really rule that the guy is essentially innocent if he thought his 10 year old victim consented to sex? Did this ruling go the way it did because he was from a foreign culture (in some sort of bizzare multicultural double standard) or does Austria really require proof that a rapist knows their child victim did not consent to be convicted of rape of a minor, regardless of who the attacker is? WTF is going on in Austria?

A man who raped a 10-year-old boy at a swimming pool in Austria has had his conviction overturned after judges found he may have believed the child consented.

Police said the 20-year-old Iraqi refugee, who has not been named, assaulted his victim in a toilet cubicle at the Theresienbad swimming pool in Vienna on 2 December last year.

The child reported the rape to a lifeguard and his attacker was arrested at the scene, reportedly telling officers in initial interviews that he was experiencing a “sexual emergency” after not having sex in four months.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-sentence-conviction-overturned-a7377491.html

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Is this some sort of translation error, or did the court really rule that the guy is essentially innocent if he thought his 10 year old victim consented to sex? Did this ruling go the way it did because he was from a foreign culture (in some sort of bizzare multicultural double standard) or does Austria really require proof that a rapist knows their child victim did not consent to be convicted of rape of a minor, regardless of who the attacker is? WTF is going on in Austria?

A man who raped a 10-year-old boy at a swimming pool in Austria has had his conviction overturned after judges found he may have believed the child consented.

Police said the 20-year-old Iraqi refugee, who has not been named, assaulted his victim in a toilet cubicle at the Theresienbad swimming pool in Vienna on 2 December last year.

The child reported the rape to a lifeguard and his attacker was arrested at the scene, reportedly telling officers in initial interviews that he was experiencing a “sexual emergency” after not having sex in four months.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-sentence-conviction-overturned-a7377491.html

"Rape" and "aggravated sexual abuse of a minor" are separate things, apparently. It would seem Austrian law defines "rape" very strictly and the prosecutors got lazy in meeting the burden of proof for that definition. So while the conviction for "sexual abuse of a minor" stands, the rape charge has to be retried, hopefully by someone less incompetent.

Fail journalism is fail.

 

[Derec]

So what's happening now? He is going to serve a couple of years in prison and then not even be deported?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

How does THAT help the victim or for that matter help the perpetrator to realize how important consent is

 

[Axulus]

Is this some sort of translation error, or did the court really rule that the guy is essentially innocent if he thought his 10 year old victim consented to sex? Did this ruling go the way it did because he was from a foreign culture (in some sort of bizzare multicultural double standard) or does Austria really require proof that a rapist knows their child victim did not consent to be convicted of rape of a minor, regardless of who the attacker is? WTF is going on in Austria?



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-sentence-conviction-overturned-a7377491.html

"Rape" and "aggravated sexual abuse of a minor" are separate things, apparently. It would seem Austrian law defines "rape" very strictly and the prosecutors got lazy in meeting the burden of proof for that definition. So while the conviction for "sexual abuse of a minor" stands, the rape charge has to be retried, hopefully by someone less incompetent.

Fail journalism is fail.

Why is a "Rape" charge even a thing in a child rape case, then, if such cases have their own specific charge? You can still apparently tack on a rape charge if you can prove the attacker didn't realize a little kid wasn't consenting?

Apparently "rape" is also a more serious charge than mere "aggravated sexual abuse of a minor", per the article:

While the sexual abuse verdict was “watertight”, the more serious offence requires evidence that the defendant knew their victim did not consent to sex.

Supreme Court judges ruled that the first court should have established whether the attacker thought his victim agreed to a sexual act and intended to act against the boy’s will.

Still really bizarre no matter how you look at it.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, the court thought that this kid consented and then followed up his consent by reporting the guy to the authorities for rape immediately afterwards?

He's a 10 year old kid, not a college woman, FFS.

 

[dismal]

So, the court thought that this kid consented and then followed up his consent by reporting the guy to the authorities for rape immediately afterwards?

He's a 10 year old kid, not a college woman, FFS.

A 10 year old can't legally consent. Baffling.

 

[Axulus]

So, the court thought that this kid consented and then followed up his consent by reporting the guy to the authorities for rape immediately afterwards?

He's a 10 year old kid, not a college woman, FFS.

Apparently consent from the kid isn't the issue, only whether the attacker _thought_ he consented at the time of the rape. That's how I'm reading the court's decision, anyway.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, the court thought that this kid consented and then followed up his consent by reporting the guy to the authorities for rape immediately afterwards?

He's a 10 year old kid, not a college woman, FFS.

Apparently consent from the kid isn't the issue, only whether the attacker _thought_ he consented at the time of the rape. That's how I'm reading the court's decision, anyway.

At least in the US that's how almost all laws work--if you reasonably believe you were acting in a legal fashion (note: ignorance of the law isn't a defense--if you believe an illegal act to be legal it won't protect you) you can't be convicted as you don't have the criminal intent. (Real world example: a woman was asleep on a couch and in an erotic dream she took actions the guy next to her thought were an invitation to sex. He responded, she woke up and claimed assault. Not guilty--he reasonably thought she was the initiator, he stopped when she objected.)

 

[Axulus]

Apparently consent from the kid isn't the issue, only whether the attacker _thought_ he consented at the time of the rape. That's how I'm reading the court's decision, anyway.

At least in the US that's how almost all laws work--if you reasonably believe you were acting in a legal fashion (note: ignorance of the law isn't a defense--if you believe an illegal act to be legal it won't protect you) you can't be convicted as you don't have the criminal intent. (Real world example: a woman was asleep on a couch and in an erotic dream she took actions the guy next to her thought were an invitation to sex. He responded, she woke up and claimed assault. Not guilty--he reasonably thought she was the initiator, he stopped when she objected.)

But in this case, a kid that young can never give consent, under any scenario.

 

[dismal]

So, the court thought that this kid consented and then followed up his consent by reporting the guy to the authorities for rape immediately afterwards?

He's a 10 year old kid, not a college woman, FFS.

Apparently consent from the kid isn't the issue, only whether the attacker _thought_ he consented at the time of the rape. That's how I'm reading the court's decision, anyway.

I would think that's irrelevant. That would only be an issue if he reasonably thought the kid was 18, or whatever the age of consent is.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Sighhhhhh.......

It look like America does not have a monopoly on moron judges who don't understand about sex crimes.

 

[barbos]

Apparently sex with consenting kids is lesser crime than rape in Austria. That's how I understand this.

 

[dismal]

Apparently sex with consenting kids is lesser crime than rape in Austria. That's how I understand this.

But sex with kids is rape. They can't legally consent.

 

[barbos]

Apparently sex with consenting kids is lesser crime than rape in Austria. That's how I understand this.

But sex with kids is rape.

Not in Austria it seems. And I think it may make sense to put it in separate category.

They can't legally consent.

What if the kid looks like he/she could be legal age and then says he/she is legal age and then consent?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Apparently sex with consenting kids is lesser crime than rape in Austria. That's how I understand this.

Apparently sex with consenting kids is lesser crime than rape in Austria. That's how I understand this.

But sex with kids is rape. They can't legally consent.

I don't know the law down there but this verdict makes sense if that's the way it works.

I also find myself agreeing with the law working that way. Rape and statutory rape should be separate crimes. Force them, rape. Too young, statutory rape. Force someone who is too young, you get both charges.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Apparently sex with consenting kids is lesser crime than rape in Austria. That's how I understand this.

But sex with kids is rape. They can't legally consent.

I don't know the law down there but this verdict makes sense if that's the way it works.

I also find myself agreeing with the law working that way. Rape and statutory rape should be separate crimes. Force them, rape. Too young, statutory rape. Force someone who is too young, you get both charges.

So having sex with a baby is only statutory rape in your mind. What is wrong with you?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Apparently sex with consenting kids is lesser crime than rape in Austria. That's how I understand this.

But sex with kids is rape. They can't legally consent.

I don't know the law down there but this verdict makes sense if that's the way it works.

I also find myself agreeing with the law working that way. Rape and statutory rape should be separate crimes. Force them, rape. Too young, statutory rape. Force someone who is too young, you get both charges.

So having sex with a baby is only statutory rape in your mind. What is wrong with you?

1) Babies are going to be harmed by sex--the offense should be even more severe in that case.

2) What I'm saying is that forcing someone is a different offense than sex with someone who agrees but isn't legally able to. I'm not arguing for a lighter sentence for statutory rape, I'm arguing that lack of ability to consent + force is a worse crime than simple lack of ability to consent.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Apparently sex with consenting kids is lesser crime than rape in Austria. That's how I understand this.

But sex with kids is rape. They can't legally consent.

I don't know the law down there but this verdict makes sense if that's the way it works.

I also find myself agreeing with the law working that way. Rape and statutory rape should be separate crimes. Force them, rape. Too young, statutory rape. Force someone who is too young, you get both charges.

So having sex with a baby is only statutory rape in your mind. What is wrong with you?

1) Babies are going to be harmed by sex--the offense should be even more severe in that case.

So are 10 year olds and in fact a 10 year old will remember.

2) What I'm saying is that forcing someone is a different offense than sex with someone who agrees but isn't legally able to. I'm not arguing for a lighter sentence for statutory rape, I'm arguing that lack of ability to consent + force is a worse crime than simple lack of ability to consent.

Therefore, you are arguing that there are two types of offenses against babies and since you can't PROVE force in most cases, there is only statutory rape against babies.

Much like in the case of the 10 year old.

Reductio ad absurdum.

Fantasies aside, in real life, babies and 10 year olds can't consent legally to sex with an adult.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Apparently sex with consenting kids is lesser crime than rape in Austria. That's how I understand this.

But sex with kids is rape. They can't legally consent.

I don't know the law down there but this verdict makes sense if that's the way it works.

I also find myself agreeing with the law working that way. Rape and statutory rape should be separate crimes. Force them, rape. Too young, statutory rape. Force someone who is too young, you get both charges.

So having sex with a baby is only statutory rape in your mind. What is wrong with you?

1) Babies are going to be harmed by sex--the offense should be even more severe in that case.

So are 10 year olds and in fact a 10 year old will remember.

Except the 10 year old who has consensual sex is unlikely to have any serious harm from it. We quite rightly say the 10 year old can't consent because of the risks of sex, not because of any inherent harm.

2) What I'm saying is that forcing someone is a different offense than sex with someone who agrees but isn't legally able to. I'm not arguing for a lighter sentence for statutory rape, I'm arguing that lack of ability to consent + force is a worse crime than simple lack of ability to consent.

Therefore, you are arguing that there are two types of offenses against babies and since you can't PROVE force in most cases, there is only statutory rape against babies.

Much like in the case of the 10 year old.

Reductio ad absurdum.

Fantasies aside, in real life, babies and 10 year olds can't consent legally to sex with an adult.

A baby can't say yes and certainly wouldn't if they could due to the harm it causes.