• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Girl, 11, ‘consented’ to sex with man, 28, French prosecutors declare

hey_monkey

Banned
Mar 14, 2007
6,544
0
0
I'm not terribly familiar with the French legal system but surely there's some other step here, right? Goddamn.
 

kswiston

Member
Mar 25, 2005
35,134
2
0
Canada
The world is so fuckes up...

There's unfortunately way worse stuff happening than this. We had an article couple of months back about girls this age being married off to their rapists in rare cases in the US. With the consent of their parents. In some countries, that isn't such a rare occurance.

The guy is still going to go to jail. Perhaps not as long as he deserves. But hopefully, this prompts France to update their consent laws.
 

FDC1

Member
Aug 15, 2012
3,539
13
0
I'm not terribly familiar with the French legal system but surely there's some other step here, right? Goddamn.

Yes, the girl's lawyer is going to ask the "ministère public" (public prosecutor) to requalify the facts before the trial happens
 

shadowkat

Unconfirmed Member
Mar 28, 2013
11,060
0
0
That poor girl. :(

This is absolutely outrageous and completely messed up. Their laws need updating, badly.
 

Dunlop

Member
Oct 2, 2007
10,961
3
965
That is messed up, there is no fucking way an 11 year consented.

28 year old gets away with raping a minor, insane
 

Kinyou

Member
Sep 12, 2009
48,126
4
975
I'd get it if it was a case where it's bordering on the age of consent, but 11? What the fuck.
 

jaxom

Member
Jan 13, 2015
92
0
300
monaco
Guys , he will still be charged with 5 years in jail even without any change in laws. It's not enough for what he did , and law needs to be updated, but come on he's not walking free from this.

Bait title article.
 

Kinsei

Banned
Jun 5, 2013
22,870
2
0
Guys , he will still be charged with 5 years in jail even without any change in laws. It's not enough for what he did , and law needs to be updated, but come on he's not walking free from this.

Bait title article.

It's not just about the piece of shit that did this. They are telling a little girl that she wasn't raped because she didn't fight back hard enough.
 

kmax

Member
Feb 25, 2013
6,388
2
0
Guys , he will still be charged with 5 years in jail even without any change in laws. It's not enough for what he did , and law needs to be updated, but come on he's not walking free from this.

Bait title article.

There is no such thing as children "consenting to sex". They're kids.

The law is there to protect children. If it fails to do that, something is very wrong and so it should be rightfully condemned in the strongest of terms.

The fact that this is even viably possible is utterly absurd. Hopefully the country will update its statutory rape laws as soon as possible.
 

Jack Scofield

Member
Dec 20, 2007
8,535
0
0
You would think that common sense would prevail in this situation. I just can't imagine how a group of adults came to this decision.
 

Frozenprince

Banned
Sep 26, 2013
31,941
1
0
Well this ruined my afternoon.

France, get your shit together a pedophile shouldn't be given free reign that's beyond fucked.
 

Kill3r7

Member
Jun 19, 2014
8,896
1
320
How can this even possibly be used as a defense when age of consent laws exist?

Like wtf?

I have not read the article but at a quick glance there seem to be various charges at play 1)rape and 2) sexual assault due to age of consent. The elements of rape are not met due to lack of resisting. So they move on to the lesser charge which presumably is the equivalent of statutory rape in the US. Again I could be completely off base but that is my quick read on this.

Either way the law should be changed.
 

Mohonky

Member
Jan 19, 2007
12,051
1,938
1,585
Do people even bother to read the article?

There is no such thing as children "consenting to sex". They're kids.

The law is there to protect children. If it fails to do that, something is very wrong and so it should be rightfully condemned in the strongest of terms.

The fact that this is even viably possible is utterly absurd. Hopefully the country will update its statutory rape laws as soon as possible.

That's exactly what he is being charged with, sex with someone who is unable to consent, ie. under the age of 15. It's the definition of statutory rape, they just don't call it statutory rape.

The problem is that the girl says she was raped, but the prosecution isn't chasing additional rape charges against the offender because 'she didn't struggle enough' seems to be some sort of unusual reason. That's the problem.

The guy isn't walking free, unlike another case that just passed through India where a Bollywood director who was initially charged with the rape of a US post grad student but won on appeal because the judge deemed her merely saying 'no' and not forcibly struggling enough suggested consent.

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world...nviction/ar-AAsvKIz?li=AA5249&ocid=spartanntp
 

Apharmd

Member
Sep 18, 2006
2,160
0
0
That's utterly insane. How the hell did they reach that decision without outing themselves as misogynistic idiots??

How rich is this piece of shit??
 

Keri

Member
Nov 24, 2011
3,319
0
0
It's not just about the piece of shit that did this. They are telling a little girl that she wasn't raped because she didn't fight back hard enough.

This. This is just more of the same, unfortunately. Even if you're only eleven, if you're a girl, it's your responsibility to protect yourself, somehow.
 

Mael

Member
Oct 23, 2009
23,428
0
0
France
Is this another case where no one ever bothered to look at the law to fix it for situations like this?
Before 2013, women were not allowed to wear pants in public.
Old law that was in the book that no one ever bothered to remove.

The worst part is if the law the prosecutors and judges are following is really set the way they claim it is, they cannot risk convict for rape charges or the culprit will have ground for mistrial or something!
That shit should have been fixed since before the 80's!
 

Koren

Member
Mar 11, 2005
9,345
1
0
For the tenth time, title is misleading, justice didn't consider she gave consent, the guy is indicted for having sex with the girl.
You expect GAF to read about the case after the headline before discussing it?

There's a problem with wording but he won't avoid the legal hammer.

Is this another case where no one ever bothered to look at the law to fix it for situations like this?
Before 2013, women were not allowed to wear pants in public.
Old law that was in the book that no one ever bothered to remove.

The worst part is if the law the prosecutors and judges are following is really set the way they claim it is, they cannot risk convict for rape charges or the culprit will have ground for mistrial!
Indeed... They're playing it safe so he can't avoid responsibility. I wonder if there will be really a difference in jail time at the end.

About dumb laws, France don't have that many compared to other countries, and honestly, laws like the one above takes time to remove, and no-one will ever uphold them, so I'm not sure it's that bad if we just ignore them...


Edit: and about the noise it makes... I discovered it here, nothing on radio or TV news about this...
 

Morrigan Stark

Arrogant Smirk
Jul 23, 2010
30,991
13
720
www.metal-archives.com
For the tenth time, title is misleading, justice didn't consider she gave consent, the guy is indicted for having sex with the girl.

So he's charged with statutory rape but not "rape rape", and the reason was, they claim the girl consented because she didn't fight hard enough.

Misleading or not, this is still supremely fucked up. Rape culture y'all
 

Mael

Member
Oct 23, 2009
23,428
0
0
France
Indeed... They're playing it safe so he can't avoid responsibility. I wonder if there will be really a difference in jail time at the end.

About dumb laws, France don't have that many compared to other countries, and honestly, laws like the one above takes time to remove, and no-one will ever uphold them, so I'm not sure it's that bad if we just ignore them...

The Code Civil also specifies the standard sentence to apply so they can't be funny with what the rapist will get.
It needs to change like 3 decades ago.
We have dumb laws, lots of them but they're usually not upheld unless in rare cases like that.
e:Apparently the last time we codified the law for rape was in 1992 when Pierre Beregovoy was Prime Minister and Pierre Vauzelle was Garde des Sceaux (Justice minister).
 

shadowkat

Unconfirmed Member
Mar 28, 2013
11,060
0
0
For the tenth time, title is misleading, justice didn't consider she gave consent, the guy is indicted for having sex with the girl.

How is the title misleading? It says that the prosecutors argued that she didn't fight or there was no violence thereby it was consensual, which is how their law is worded. They also used a loophole in the law because it doesn't take into consideration anyone under the age of consent with is 15.

Sure, he's being indicted for having sex with the girl but it's how they managed to use the law as it is written to throw out the rape charge.

The law needs to change and be updated.
 

Koren

Member
Mar 11, 2005
9,345
1
0
So he's charged with statutory rape but not "rape rape", and the reason was, they claim the girl consented because she didn't fight hard enough.

Misleading or not, this is still supremely fucked up. Rape culture y'all
Why?

Sex with sub-15 is illegal, easy to prove. Rape in legal terms can lay to discussions.

Noone said if was a lesser crime than a rape, and everyone will consider it that way. It just legal wording...
 

Keri

Member
Nov 24, 2011
3,319
0
0
Why?

Sex with sub-15 is illegal, easy to prove. Rape in legal terms can lay to discussions.

Noone said if was a lesser crime than a rape, and everyone will consider it that way. It just legal wording...

They are literally saying it's a lesser crime than rape. That's what the "legal wording," in this case means. You really can't say "everyone will consider it that way," when the law is specifically saying it's not rape, because the eleven year old didn't fight back against the 28 year old man.
 

TS-08

Member
Mar 27, 2012
3,359
1
0
Why?

Sex with sub-15 is illegal, easy to prove. Rape in legal terms can lay to discussions.

Noone said if was a lesser crime than a rape, and everyone will consider it that way. It just legal wording...

It's almost certainly a lesser crime than if they were able to prove one of the required elements under the law for rape. I'd be stunned if it wasn't and would wonder why the law even makes the distinction it does if so.
 

Mohonky

Member
Jan 19, 2007
12,051
1,938
1,585
For the tenth time, title is misleading, justice didn't consider she gave consent, the guy is indicted for having sex with the girl.

The title is factually correct, its just many posters take to topics with a sledge hammer, no one ever actually looks at the nuances they take what they want from the title or topic and run with it.

Most of the posters in this thread read '28yr old man has sex with 11yr old, prosecutors totally ok with it' instead of what is actually happening and where the problem is.