Outrage: Teens aged 15,14 and 16 charged for Statutory Rape for Consensual Sex!

South African politicians and parties are outraged by a decision of the Public Prosecutor to charge three teens for statutory rape.
When the story broke (about last week) it was claimed that a girl (aged 15) had been drugged and raped by two boys (14 and 16) in a high school in a "disadvantaged" black township around Johannesburg.
Furthermore, the rape was reported as filmed on a cellular phone.

This Thursday it was reported that the girl had admitted in court that the sex was consensual.
This was supported by the absence of any "rape-drug" in her blood-tests.

But then came the crunch!
All three were charged for statutory rape, including the girl!
They have all been placed on a "diversion program".
Wouldn't that have sufficed?
We all agree that they deserve some punishment and counselling - but a charge of statutory rape?

OK, maybe the law is the law.
However, especially in SA and some widespread customs that refuse to recognize Western ages of consent, I really think there are bigger fish to fry.

Well, the law says that sex with a minor (under 16 in SA) is an offense, even if the sex is between minors!

I'm all for protecting minors, but this is ridiculous!

See: www.news24.com...

Well, it appears that especially the women's movements have taken note that an alleged rape victim (a 15-year-old girl) is charged with statutory rape!!!
www.care2.com...

How is this handled in other countries?
It seems to be a touchy subject everywhere.

If the sex was consenting, should the girl get a lighter treatment than the boys?

That's retarded!

If all three were charged with statutory rape....who's the victim?

reply to post by nerbot

Apparently none.

But isn't the very nature of "statutory rape" that there are only perpetrators, even if they "rape" each other?
It sounds insane doesn't it?

It means that anyone who has sex under a certain age is not able to consent, and thus it is immediately "rape".
So mutual underage experimenting, or minors in other cultures are "de jure" raping each other!

This is absurd, another example of Govts. deciding on rediculous BS just because it seams the only way they can cover their own asses. A great example of all that is wrong in the world.

reply to post by halfoldman

I find this so upsetting.
I mean we have this chaotic culture where 12 year olds are abused and taken as wives by old men.
We have a clash of Western "liberal" law and cultures with other ideas.
We have rape and pedophilia.

And how do the liberals in their "ivory towers" solve our serious problems?
They criminalize three kids.

That is so typical: the law does not protect our basic human and environmental rights, or prevents real crime; instead they apply the letter of the law to petty and ridiculous instances. The "nanny state" indeed.

reply to post by halfoldman


Agree with you, it's pretty messed up and can actually be termed 'retarded'.

On the other hand, (playing Devil's advocate):
The law must be enforced where possible.
If we make a distinction between ages for statutory rape, then a 15 year-old can sleep with a 12 year-old?
It's got some kind of logic, but adult statutory rape should be divided from undesirable sex between minors.

I mean if we treat teens and children as equals before the law as "rapists", then why have the law and distinction?
Minors should be protected, also from adult law.

Originally posted by halfoldman
South African politicians and parties are outraged by a decision of the Public Prosecutor to charge three teens for statutory rape.
When the story broke (about last week) it was claimed that a girl (aged 15) had been drugged and raped by two boys (14 and 16) in a high school in a "disadvantaged" black township around Johannesburg.
Furthermore, the rape was reported as filmed on a cellular phone.

This Thursday it was reported that the girl had admitted in court that the sex was consensual.
This was supported by the absence of any "rape-drug" in her blood-tests.

But then came the crunch!
All three were charged for statutory rape, including the girl!
They have all been placed on a "diversion program".
Wouldn't that have sufficed?
We all agree that they deserve some punishment and counselling - but a charge of statutory rape?

OK, maybe the law is the law.
However, especially in SA and some widespread customs that refuse to recognize Western ages of consent, I really think there are bigger fish to fry.

Well, the law says that sex with a minor (under 16 in SA) is an offense, even if the sex is between minors!

I'm all for protecting minors, but this is ridiculous!

See: www.news24.com...

edit on 19-11-2010 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-11-2010 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

What kind of bull# is that? Can you say a waste of tax payer money?

reply to post by Secularist

Yeah, probably.
The media is outraged, but cautious.
But this is the same ANC government that wasted R60 billion on an arms deal.
We all feel the especially girl minors need more protection in SA, and that a strong message needs to be sent to all that sex before 16 is a crime.

I mean if you murder before 16 it is still murder (especially in parts of the US).

Seems the person most guilty here is the public prosecutor. OK, so maybe the girl has gone from an "I was raped" to an "I agreed" stance, but it wouldn't be the first time it's happened an should certainly have been taken into account. Is it possible the prosecutor felt their time was being wasted and threw the book at ALL of them?

Maybe there's more to this than we are being told. Is there another motive for such an illogical decision or is this just a simple case of someone who isn't fit to be in charge of life changing decisions and upholding the law, particularly for young people. Maybe personal issues or beliefs helped lead the prosecutor to make such a controversial choice in which case they are not qualified to do the job. Having said that, how many public prosecutors could also fit that profile.

I'm sure more will come to light and I hope those kids don't suffer too long and unnecessarily because of one ignorant mind.

Sheesh!

reply to post by nerbot

Maybe there's more to this than we are being told. Is there another motive for such an illogical decision

Well yeah, there's lots of sensitivities in the ANC and how they are perceived.
A recent E-News program "Third Degree" exposed the custom of "Ukuthwala".
www.tvsa.co.za...
This is part of rural African tradition, and includes the kidnapping of the girl.
It is technically illegal, but many politicians and the police agree with it.
It was always controversial, but the girls are getting younger.

We also have an epidemic of (pre-) teen pregnancies.

The ANC doesn't deal well with black social scandals, or HIV.
So this seems like a psychological diversion.
It's like these kids are something emblematic they want to punish and hopefully banish.
It's also been muted that this is a test case for future prosecutions.

However, that being said, the issue is hardly clear-cut in other states and countries.

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by Secularist

 

Yeah, probably.
The media is outraged, but cautious.
But this is the same ANC government that wasted R60 billion on an arms deal.
We all feel the especially girl minors need more protection in SA, and that a strong message needs to be sent to all that sex before 16 is a crime.

I mean if you murder before 16 it is still murder (especially in parts of the US).

So you support this?

Why do you think sex before 16 should be a crime? They are teenagers. Theyre going to do it one way or another, whether you want them to or not. They do with everything else. This is the kind of thing that would ruin their lives. Theyll be labeled as sex offenders for no reason.

reply to post by Secularist

No, I certainly don't support this!
I try to make sense of it.

Why the magical age of 16, I don't know.
When I grew up just before 1994 and the end of apartheid we didn't hear of things like that.
The ages of consent were 19 for gays, 18 for hetero men, and 16 for women.
'Romeo and Juliet" laws provided marriages for teens.

Originally posted by nerbot
That's retarded!

If all three were charged with statutory rape....who's the victim?

Keep in mind that the very term "statutory rape" explains it. It is "rape" only by merit of "statute" (law). There are no "victims" in the classical sense as it was consensual. The law simply states that a child below the "age of consent" of not legally capable of giving consent.

It is time the law adjusted to the fact that our children are maturing earlier.

This is so wrong.

The law needs to be changed immediately.

reply to post by rogerstigers

Yeah, from what Wikipedia has to say on statutory rape, mentally retarded people cannot consent either, and may face similar charges, even amongst each other.
en.wikipedia.org...
It all depends regionally, or the choice of the prosecutor.
Some people are written out of "consent".

I wonder, what would an Islamic or Old Testament court have done here?
Would it be more sane - would it recognize them as "minors"?

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by Secularist

 

No, I certainly don't support this!
I try to make sense of it.

Why the magical age of 16, I don't know.
When I grew up just before 1994 and the end of apartheid we didn't hear of things like that.
The ages of consent were 19 for gays, 18 for hetero men, and 16 for women.
'Romeo and Juliet" laws provided marriages for teens.

19 for gays?? Oh man, that means those twink years are almost up. Thats awful! 18 is the best time to be gay.

These kids arent hurting anybody. No ethical codes have been breached. Theyre of the same age. I agree that teenagers should be a bit more prepared before having sex but then again so should most people when it comes to having sex Condoms, condoms, condoms. There are much better ways for the South African government to promote teenage abstinence then to arrest them and label them as sex offenders for the rest of their life. The story made me lol.

Oh, and not to mention that by doing this the South African government is also contributing to the rise of HIV/AID's and other STD's in its territories because no teenager that wants to have sex with her boyfriend is going to go and buy condoms for fear of being arrested for it, so they are going to be having unprotected sex, which means more babies as well, babies probably born with HIV/AID's.

If i had a fifteen year old daughter having sex with anybody i would want them prosecuted. If i had a fourteen year old boy that was being used for sex, i would want her prosecuted too. AIDS and HIV and pregnancy do not respect youth. They all have life altering effects that last a lifetime. Just because you are physically capable of performing the sex act does not mean that you are capable of supporting your mistakes. Society must demand that reproductive children be responsible for their actions, their offspring and their medical expenses. You don't like it? Too bad, you're having sex with peoples children.