What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
303 Comments
- MikeonTV, on 12/10/2007, -7/+249How can you agree to a rape?
- samurimaster, on 12/10/2007, -4/+156"They and the adults come from some of the most prominent and powerful Aboriginal families on Cape York".
Of course that had nothing to do with it - MTessa, on 12/10/2007, -5/+133Outrageous. This excuse for a judge is saying a 10 year old 'consented' to being gang raped. What else do you call a rape by 6 guys including an adult? Did anyone else catch them saying teens and then one is 26??? WTF? And then two more joined in to say they were guilty when they realized they weren't getting jail time. I couldn't be more angry after reading that story. Let's get this straight you excuse of a judge (Bradley), a 10 year old consented AND you can allow a 20+ something adult be tried as a minor because you don't want a 'ring leader' in the crime. He's not a minor you dumb S$yt!!!!
So they are all from prominent families and she goes in to foster care. Unbelievable. Someone fire this idiot! - redsfaithful, on 12/10/2007, -14/+124This is one of the more disgusting things I have read in a while. I really hope the judge gets hers at some point.
- PleaseJustDie, on 12/10/2007, -7/+85Doesn't really matter if she did agree to have sex with them, she's 10, she doesn't have the legal right to agree to have sex yet. So even if she did "Consent" which she can't legally do, its still statutory rape, or at the least Carnal Knowledge, because she's below the Age of Consent. They should still serve some jail time.
- phaseblue, on 12/10/2007, -1/+76In other news, the judge "probably agreed" to a community beating.
- eridius, on 12/10/2007, -3/+51They have laws against it there too - in fact, the 26 year old was already a sexual offender for having "unlawful carnal knowledge" of another 10 year old. But apparently this judge just didn't care.
- TLAKABM, on 12/10/2007, -1/+46The judge handed out the sentences asked for by the prosecution, something that is even more disturbing.
- oreonblade, on 12/10/2007, -3/+45"The girl involved was not forced and she probably agreed to have sex with all of you." "...I will impose a sentence of imprisonment but it will be wholly suspended so you do not go to jail today."
I do not know how the judge seems to see the assailants as the victims. What she needs a good kick in the ass...one that'll knock her off the bench. As for the guilty party, justice may just get meted out by the family/supporters of the victim. - jeremyduffy, on 12/10/2007, -4/+44It doesn't matter if she agreed to it or not. She's 10.
- brentcatoe, on 12/10/2007, -2/+38Here is the judges email address associate.bradleyjdc@courts.qld.gov.au
- gjscds, on 12/10/2007, -3/+30Ok--this is making me sick. Saying that a 10 year old agreed to something just doesn't cut it. Anyone can get any kid to pretty much agree to anything--or at least say that they agree to anything. In no way does this remove the responsibility and accountability from adults.
- Amazetbm, on 12/10/2007, -1/+28That judge needs to be removed from the bench and disbarred.
- simonpainter, on 12/10/2007, -0/+25Read TFA!
In most countries there is a concept of 'age of consent' and a child under that age of consent cannot legally consent to sex. If an individual (or group) has sex with someone who is unable to legally consent to sex then it is treated as statutory rape regardless of the victim's wishes. If, for example, the age of consent is 16 and you meet a 15 year old girl who is willing and happy to have sex with you then it may be rape even though the girl is agreeing to it.
In the article it explains that the judge was clarifying this to the acused and saying that you cannot have sex with a girl under the age of 16 as it will be classed as rape regardless of whether the girl agrees or not. It is up to the evidence to determine if the girl was forced or agreed to have sex with the men however the law clearly states that regardless of the wishes of the girl the fact that she is under 16 makes is rape. - NaziHatinChimp, on 12/10/2007, -11/+35That's why in America we have laws against ***** ten year olds. That's ridiculous.
- Sebaul, on 12/10/2007, -4/+28A slap on the wrist; don't do it again; off you go -- What the ***** is that!?
- Darkhacker, on 12/10/2007, -1/+24“Under Queensland law a child under 12 cannot give consent to sexual intercourse.”
Damn. I've heard of 12 year olds who haven't even started masturbating yet. It's a little crazy to expect a 12 year old to fully understand the consequences of sex isn't it? I'm not the kind of person to shout pedophile at 17 years and 364 days old, but at 12... I think I'm going to say that's rather pedophiliac and the law should be changed. - aak4, on 12/10/2007, -0/+21This will be overturned on appeal.
But seriously, how did that woman become a judge? Who appointed/elected her? I wonder if you can impeach a judge in Australia . . . - Amazetbm, on 12/10/2007, -1/+21They have laws to. But just like in America the rich and/or politically connected tend to get light sentences for their offenses that would land an average joe some serious jail time.
- SpicyViper, on 12/10/2007, -1/+21The issue may also be complicated by the issue of tribal law. I believe under the Racial Discrimination Act, the court is obligated to consider tribal law in the case of indigenous offenders. Just last year for instance, an Aboriginal elder was sentenced to only one month's jail for having anal sex with a 14-year-old promised as his wife. The sentence was based on the man's belief that under tribal law he had the right to teach the girl to obey him.
I seriously believe we should have one law for all people, it's outrageous that this kind of thing can happen today. - JuCee, on 12/10/2007, -5/+22First of all, where the hell did that come from, and second of all, name one liberal who believes anything of what you said. Do you know anything about liberals, or are you just using every opportunity to express your irrational hatred?
- funkytaco, on 12/10/2007, -1/+18And robbery victims probably agree to give up their wallets, their watches, their purses....
All I can say is ¿ - blueire, on 12/10/2007, -3/+19Heres hoping the judge "agrees" to being gang raped by an elephant herd.
- Icupnimpn2, on 12/10/2007, -2/+17"probably" eh. Good enough, I guess? I'd like to see some more of that judge's verdicts.
"This man probably isn't the killer."
"This man probably isn't the father."
"This woman is probably insane." - pdarg, on 12/10/2007, -1/+16I dont know about Australia, but in America raping a 10 year old girl, regardless of the circumstances, would result in years of ass pounding in a high security prison.
"Judge Bradley said [26 year old] Woolla was the oldest and should have known a lot better." - this statement pretty much sums it up - gamabunta, on 12/10/2007, -0/+11Since she is a minor she couldn't consent to anything. This judge needs to get her head out of her ass.
- inactive, on 12/10/2007, -3/+141. Judge is a complete tool. 10 year old may have agreed to sex... but she is ten and these guys knew it. - age of consent is 16
2. In Australia a minor does not need parental consent for an abortion.
In which direction should the consistency flow? - inactive, on 12/10/2007, -1/+12Im pretty sure he left the a off for a reason.
- Chaoticfist, on 12/10/2007, -1/+11You have so many ***** issues...i do not even know where to start...SHE IS 10!!!
- jgzman, on 12/10/2007, -0/+10If her state of consent is irrelevant, then why are they wasting time trying to determine whether or not she consented?
- inactive, on 12/10/2007, -1/+11i wouldn't want to be checking her email right now
- WesleyRiot, on 12/10/2007, -2/+11remember, it's not rape if you shout "surprise!" first.
- TeacherOfHeroes, on 12/10/2007, -1/+10How is it an affront to women's rights and equality? I seem to recall a story on digg not too long ago about a male judge who dismissed a statutory rape case where the boy was 12 or so because the Judge was sure the boy "wanted it".
Seems to me like its not so much a gender issue as it is a "we have revolting, insensitive morons for judges" issue - inactive, on 12/10/2007, -15/+24Welcome back to the dark ages everyone!
- sapphicbeats, on 12/10/2007, -5/+14ugh. i have nothing more i can say to this.
- inactive, on 12/10/2007, -8/+17She didn't actually get gang raped. She got statutorily gang raped. There is a difference. Non statutory gang rape would be forced, she consented therefore it's statutory not actual rape. It would have been worse if they forced her to have sex against her will. Still pretty sick though being that she was 10 years old.
- WesleyRiot, on 12/10/2007, -2/+10i guess people expect women to be less tolerant of underage sex/rape?
- TLAKABM, on 12/10/2007, -2/+10Hey, you guys elected a woman for your prime minister. Choice, bro'.
- rykthia, on 12/10/2007, -0/+8Well I for one just sent off a "you should be ashamed of yourself" email to this judge, and I would encourage others to do the same.
Also,
- The girl appears to be slightly mentally impaired
- She contracted an STD from the rape
- She was previously sexually abused, removed from her home and placed in foster care, and then returned to her original home again (apparently so this 9 person gang rape could occur).
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197 ... - BeefBaron, on 12/10/2007, -0/+8Try and do that and the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders would get all pissy about being discriminated against. Load of bollocks if you ask me.
- MorbenDK, on 12/10/2007, -4/+12Because its a slap in the face to women's rights and equality.
You're right that its despicable from any judge, but the fact that is was a female judge makes it even more odious. - SoundJudgment, on 12/10/2007, -3/+11* rimshot! *
- inactive, on 12/10/2007, -0/+8Even if she agreed, which she can't do, she would not have had a full understanding of what the implications were till it was too late to stop the scum bags from doing this.
The males should be castrated and put away for a VERY long time...it will take years of therapy to help this girl lead a normal life. - inactive, on 12/10/2007, -5/+12it's disgusting that they got off like that
- Hartrain, on 12/10/2007, -1/+8We should never condone barbaric behavior under the guise of "indigenous customs and lifestyles."
- CheeseburgerBro, on 12/10/2007, -1/+8Dear Spartan,
Do you honestly find it useful to divide people into "lefties" and "righties"?
Follow-up question: does doing so actually help an analysis in any tangible way? If so, please explain. And show your work. Spelling counts.
Love,
Cheeseburger Brown
http://cheeseburgerbrown.com - Fafnir43, on 12/10/2007, -0/+7To the clue-impaired: the above is clearly sarcasm.
- zdislaw, on 12/10/2007, -2/+8By your reasoning, nobody should be punished for anything because punishment doesn't work. How prison terms being about putting them somewhere they can't do it again?
- tzustrategy, on 12/10/2007, -1/+7Your comment lost a digg, but I'll never get my IQ point back from reading that.
- Monolith4, on 12/10/2007, -1/+7Not exactly... if you were to say that the way they were treated was roughly equal in the 60's id agree with you. But now, like in the states, aborigines are given huge reparations. Land, monthly stipends, etc. Just like in the states how everyone with even a smidgen of indian blood in them wants to declare it to get in on the casino action; so is the case in australia.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 304 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is