She got what she wanted? I'd love to know how the judge figured that one out. Even if it were true, I have to say so fucking what? She's ten. She probably wants to eat nothing but jelly beans all day. As adults, it is our reponsibility to take care of children, precisely because they cannot take care of themselves.

Look at how little is expected of men here--ignorance suddenly becomes a legal defense. It's your responsibility to find out how old the girl you're having sex with is. Why can't we hold men to even a minimal standard of decent human behavior? What the fuck was this, a one-night-stand? What was the risk in finding out if she was really old enough, that he might not get laid?

I'd also love how if a girl has been molested/raped previously, it makes it OK to rape or molest her again. Or if she goes through puberty early, it makes it OK to rape her, because how is the poor fellow supposed to know any better?

How utterly sick. How is it that, if she *had* been 16, it was okay to rape her? I hate the "well, he's *sorry* now" defense. Fuck that.

OK, one more thing, from the article:

Edgecombe, a painter, raised the subject of the girl's age but she asked him: "Does it matter?" and the pair had intercourse twice.

So apparently it wasn't so fucking obvious, was it? If he was that sure she was over 16, why did he feel the need to ask, not once, but twice? And what did he think it meant that she refused to tell him?

I'd like to retire from the human race now, if no one minds. What are my other options?

While I agree that the judge's comments were abhorant and there was no reason for the defense to bring up the status of the girl's virginity, after reading the article I don't think the situation is as horrible as it seems. The article implies that the girl and the 20 year old had consensual sex so this would make the case statuatory rape, which is why it would be ok if the girl was 16. Still, there is that ick factor about the whole thing. As EG noted, the guy wasn't really sure of her age or he wouldn't have asked. I have a hard time believing that any man can't tell that a 10 year old is a bit on the young side. Even if she has gone through puberty early. 'I thought she was legal' is no excuse. He didn't try very hard to find out, did he?

This makes me want Wales to devolve much more drastically. ie float off into the ocean.

Not that the rest of the UK is much better...

Mmmmm... Doesn't look good but I suspect that there's possibly more going on here than appears at first glance.

"The prosecution accepts that you believed she was 16 and that that belief was reasonable."

For all its faults (and believe me, they are manifold) I don't believe the UK legal system would allow a court to pass a sentence like this unless there really were exceptional circumstances.

It sounds like both parties to varying degrees, are victims. The real guilty parties lie somewhere in the back story.

I've had sexual experiences before. Looks like I need to start wearing a t-shirt that says, "RAPE ME!"

Seriously, "she got what she wanted"? Ugh. Just...ugh.

Unfortunately, this judge is completely misogynist. Previously, he acquitted a man accused of raping a student who was very drunk, because "She said she could not remember giving consent and that is fatal for the prosecution's case." By the way, this woman was so drunk that she had passed out. Here is the link to the story http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/4464402.stm Anyway, disgusting though this latest story is, sadly I am not shocked to see that particular judge's name pop up again.

Just goes back to that same stupid idea that if a girl isn't "pure" she isn't worth protecting. Even, apparently, ten-year-olds with obvious problems (she was already in the care of authorities).

Note how much of the article was spent on how traumatized and sad the poor twenty-year-old childfucker felt.

"This was not her first sexual experience."

No, because her FIRST sexual experience was probably when she was forcibly raped by someone in her home. And that's why she's in state care now (where, more likely than not, she's been raped some more).

The court heard Edgecombe, who admitted rape, was "visibly traumatised" when he was told the girl's real age.

Maybe he castrated himself...?

It sounds like both parties to varying degrees, are victims.

Oh, bullshit. She's a victim of whoever raped her before as well as this asshole, and he's a victim of his own desire to get laid. I don't see how the two things are at all comparable.

I tell you what I suspect, from his "visible" distress combined with the fact that he clearly suspect that she was not of age. I bet he knew she was underage, but thought that she was 13 or 14, and somehow, in his mind, that's not "so bad," probably because there's a "teen" on the end of those numbers. It should be needless to say that kids that young can't consent either and that he's scum.

"No, because her FIRST sexual experience was probably when she was forcibly raped by someone in her home. And that's why she's in state care now (where, more likely than not, she's been raped some more)."

you're assuming a lot more than you can possibly reasonably assume.

Jesus H. Christina!

Judges gone wild seem to be sweaping the international stage--1st the Maryland case in which consent for one act equals consent for anything a man can forcibly do to a woman, then the German judge and her Islam says its okay to beat your wife, so Muslims living in Germany don't have the protection of the law like Christians, Jews, or non-affliated, and now this Welsh judge and his multiple misogynist rulings, the most recent being the most reckless. Well, I guess those conservatives are right about activist judges--yet they all seem to be conservatives! What is the recall procedure in the UK for judges? Heck in the US? Law Fairy out there to help?

Good to see you're keeping your priorities straight, Coast.

Um, I agree with Kimmy. Is there any such thing as species reassignment?

Coast, if a ten-year-old girl (who is already in the care of the authorities) is seeking out and/or going along with sex with a man (let alone with a twenty-year-old) that she met outside of a pub...

You think it's unreasonable to assume that there's some traumatic event in the past, possibly or even probably of a sexual nature? Sounds 100% reasonable to me. And since most young girls who are molested are victims of people they know, frequently family members or close family friends, it is also not unreasonable to assume that it took place in the home.

Where's the unreasonable part again?

you're assuming a lot more than you can possibly reasonably assume.

And you're assuming that it matters one bit whether she was forcibly raped or not. The girl is ten years old. Whether someone was violent with her or not is completely beside the point- a twenty year old man had sex with her even though he had reason to believe that she was under-age. He asked her how old she was, and she wouldn't tell him. A reasonable person, in that situation, does not jump to the conclusion that "This girl must be legal!"

So, yes, please... nitpick comments and ignore the rather more significant issue of, you know, a judge letting a man who raped a ten year-old girl walk free.

And once a rapist, always a rapist. If they couldn't see that it was rape, they should at least give him time just for the fact that he did have sex with a ten year old, which can't be tolerated at all, whether the person knew it or not.

It's actually not that huge of an assumption. Not so long ago this (almost exact) same thing happened in Canada. A 12 year old native girl was picked up by three 20-something white men on false pretenses. They took her out to the middle of nowhere and raped her. Her rapists largely got off because the judge and the media insisted on calling the 12 year old a "woman" and the 20 year olds "boys," as well as because she had previous sexual experience. Her previous experience? She was repeatedly raped by a family member. Oh yeah, and since she was native, she was obviously sexually precocious.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/03/18/3776463-cp.html

Not all of the things I've mentioned are in this link, but google any of the rapists names for more.

"And you're assuming that it matters one bit whether she was forcibly raped or not. "
no, it doesn't matter in the least. It's still ridiculous to say that because a 10 year old is in foster care and seeking sex that she has "probably" been raped before.

"Good to see you're keeping your priorities straight, Coast."

Just because the judge in this case is a misogynist asshole, doesn't mean that it's ok to run around making wild speculations about the case. There's plenty here to be critical of without dreaming up rape scenarios that aren't even hinted at in the available information.

"The girl is ten years old. Whether someone was violent with her or not is completely beside the point- a twenty year old man had sex with her even though he had reason to believe that she was under-age. He asked her how old she was, and she wouldn't tell him. A reasonable person, in that situation, does not jump to the conclusion that "This girl must be legal!""

well, he could have been asking because he thought she might have been legal, but still younger than he was comfortable with. Say someone meets someone who is 16, but is not usually comfortable having sex with anyone under 17. The older person asks their age, and they reply "does it matter"
The older person could assume that the younger person is probably younger than 17 while still assuming that they are at least 16 plus a day.

This very thing happened to a good friend of mine, he was at a party and somewhat inebriated with close friends, I was there as well. All of the friends were of the same age, but one girl had brought a much younger girl along without telling anyone how old she was. She certainly looked to be only a year or two younger than all of us. A normally very conservative, guy met her, they both had some alcohol and they had consensual sex together. He asked how old she was and she replied very similarly to the girl in this case. The next day he felt horrible at having his first ever one night stand, and feels horrible that she was probably two years younger than he was, which is outside his usual comfort range. In the days ahead it comes out that she was actually 5 years younger than him. I was shocked to hear her age as I certainly wouldn't have put her at anywhere near that young. He was mortified and guilt ridden.

So I know of at least one case similar to this one in which I would never place blame on the man.

"No, because her FIRST sexual experience was probably when she was forcibly raped by someone in her home. And that's why she's in state care now (where, more likely than not, she's been raped some more)."

you're assuming a lot more than you can possibly reasonably assume.

Um, actually CTC, she isn't. She's making a VERY reasonable assumption. This kid is TEN. Which means that if someone much older than her has sex with her, it is rape, period. Maybe kids are different nowadays, but waaaaaaaay back in the early nineties when I was ten, the boys my age had ZERO interest in girls. If I'd wanted to try to have sex with someone, he'd probably have to have been at least four or five years older than me to have any interest in sex. I'm not a hundred percent familiar with UK law, but I'm willing to wager that much of an age gap, at her age, is sufficient to constitute legal rape.

Hardly a "lot" more than can be "reasonably assume[d]."

Heather, it depends on the kind of judge. Federal judges, unfortunately, are basically for life or until they decide to retire (or are appointed to a higher court). The Constitution says they stay for a term of "good behavior" so theoretically they can be impeached and convicted and then removed from their position (just like the president). In the history of the United States, this has happened less than a dozen times.

For state court judges, it's specific by state. To be perfectly honest, I'm not even completely sure how it works here in California. I believe we vote for superior court judges, who serve for fixed terms, and the governor appoints Cal Supreme Court justices, who are subject to periodic retention votes. I'm not sure if we elect appellate court judges or if they're appointed.

what is sad to me is that a 10 year old did want to have sex, and what could have happened to her previously that made her sexually active at such a young age. the judges comments are disgusting, however, this is statutory rape and i believe the person who said this

"And once a rapist, always a rapist."

is full of crap, bc if (and i am saying if bc who knows) it is indeed statutory rape, then no, hes not "always a rapist". what this kid did (which was stupid, what if she HAD said she was 16, would it still be this bad?) was not like someone who date rapes a girl, or who finds someone on the street. this could be a legitimate mistake, and i think its really just ignorant to say once a rapist always a rapist. he even admitted it for the love of god. i think hes clearly a scumbag, but rapist and one who will always be, i think not. as for the girl, who clearly did want to have sex (which she should not, and god help her i cant imagine what she went thru to be sexually active at 10) i hope she finds the help she needs. out of all the things that have hurt her in her life, this is probably the least of it.

"Man who raped 10 year-old gets no jail time"

I think the headline is misleading. Wouldn't a better one be "Man guilty of statutory rape of 10 year old gets no jail time"?

It's less outrageous, but more accurate.

I hate to tell you this, RM, but statutory rape is still rape. Sex with someone who cannot consent (which a ten-year-old cannot), is rape. Period.

Children under the age of 13 cannot consent to sex in England and Wales. This means that you cannot use the term "consensual sex" to describe the crime of rape that occurred.

This case is one of the reasons I support Jessica's Law. Then it wouldn't matter if the judge in the case sympathized with the defendant or thought that prison systems don't rehabilitate sexual offenders. Mandatory minimum sentences for all offenders that sexually assault minors.

In support of my "unreasonable assumption" -- which seems to be intuitively reasonable to everyone here except Coast, who has helpfully identified the reasons for his/her bias --

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2007/04/03/child_prostitution/index.html

yes, but he didnt know she was 10. thats the whole point. and if someone who you think is an ok age says yes, then you wouldnt know any better. clearly, he should have pressed her for her age, but yes is yes, and it is consent, and frankly, i think the 10 year old knows exactly what she is doing, i just feel sorry that she has been through so much that she DOES know. i had sex with my 16 year old boyfriend when i was 15, technically its statutory rape, but i take complete and utter offense to the fact that you believe i was raped. who are you to tell me? clearly, 10 is different from 15, but it appears as though the girl has been through enough to have the mentality of a 16 year old. she will suffer for it later on, she already is, and again i hope she gets help. i am sure she was honest to god raped an molested in the past, just not by this idiot.

"I hate to tell you this, RM, but statutory rape is still rape."

Why do you think there's a distinction between rape and statutory rape (and the penalties for each)?

i am wondering why everyone honestly thinks this guy is an honest to god rapist who will keep doing it and or is a pedophile.

yes, but he didnt know she was 10. thats the whole point.

That's funny, katie. The other day I got a ticket for making a U-turn in a business district. It's a $135 ticket. I think it's pretty fucking stupid. First, I didn't know that such a law existed, and second, I didn't know I was in a business district. There were no signs. I explained this to the cop, who didn't care and wrote me the ticket anyway.

But I didn't KNOOOOOOOW! Shouldn't that be an excuse for breaking the law?

You know what I notice about the two terms, RM? They both have the word rape in them! How about that! I don't think the phrase "statutory rape" would have the word "rape" in it if it wasn't considered rape. There are differences in how it's defined (mostly that consent is irrelevent in statutory rape), but that doesn't change what the word "rape" means.

no it doesnt. honestly too, i dont like commenting on situations like this, bc he could be horribly sorry, or he couldnt be. i mean i have no idea of the context really. do i think he should go to jail, yeah, i do, do i think hes a rapist necessarily (again i dont know they guy) no, i dont. he needs to be taught a lesson, by no means do i think he should get away with it with no punishment, but i think people are being harsh here.

"What was the risk in finding out if she was really old enough, that he might not get laid?"

EG was right, first comment. If there was any doubt, why didn't he take the time to find out for himself?

It's just related to that whole, icky view of male sexuality being somehow 'uncontrollable' etc etc etc. Men don't die if they don't get laid for one night. Sheesh.

"yes, but he didnt know she was 10. thats the whole point."

Do you honestly think it's possible to confuse 10 with 16, even in a girl who's hit puberty very early? If so...well, the most generous thing I can say about you is that you clearly haven't spent much time around 10-year-olds lately.

My sister is ten, and I've spent a fair amount of time volunteering in primary schools, and I can say (along, I assume, with anyone else with the barest experience with children) that it's impossible to seriously think a 10-year-old is 16. Hell, it's barely possible to think she's 13. That excuse doesn't even begin to wash.

well, is a 15 year old who has sex with or 17 year old raped then? kimmy?

katie, he committed rape. That makes him a rapist. I don't see how we're being "too harsh." He clearly suspected she was underage, and he fucked her anyway. There's no "I'm really, really, really sorry" loophole in the law.

All he had to do to not rape this girl was to make a reasonable effort to a) find out her age and b) err on the side of caution. The fact that somehow that seems like an unreasonable imposition speaks to how ingrained the assumption is that men are entitled to get sex whenever they want it.

I'm not sure why you brought up your first boyfriend--surely you can see that the two situations are not even a little bit comparable.

Katie-

I think the reason people are being harsh here (and imagine I'm saying this really slowly in order to help you comprehend): The law states that a 10 year old cannot consent to sex. In Wales (where this crime occurred), when you have sex with a 10 year old (or any person under the age of 13), you can be charged with rape. He admitted that he had sex with a 10 year old, which means that he admitted that he raped a 10 year old. And a person who commits rape is...wait for it, wait for it...a rapist.

In fact, I know that at least NY state has more complex statutory rape laws for just that reason: it's something like, if you're over 16 and he's under 20, it's not statutory rape, I think.

Let's keep our eye on the ball, folks. katie, are you seriously arguing that a 10-year-old could give meaningful consent?

Can't we castrate both the rapist and the judge?

There's no mens rea requirement for statutory rape. I don't care if she looks 40; you still get jail time.

I don't want to vomit... I want this guy removed from the bench.

I would add that UK statutory rape laws make it very clear it doesn't matter if the older party thought the younger was overage.