digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Female Judge: 10-year old Girl Probably Agreed to Gang Rape

theaustralian.news.com.au — 9 males who pleaded guilty last month to gang-raping a 10-year-old girl at the Aurukun Aboriginal community on Cape York have escaped a prison term, with the sentencing judge saying the child victim "probably agreed" to have sex with them.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • samurimaster, on 12/10/2007, -4/+154"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
    • sotopheavy, on 12/10/2007, -26/+6They should be forced to reenact 2 girls 1 cup. Including the judge.
    • joshhan, on 12/10/2007, -8/+6Of course; money talks, BS walks.

      In other news, pedophiles are suddenly changing their vacation plans from Thailand to Australia. Tell all your friends!
    • fadetoone, on 12/10/2007, -9/+7Finally! A judge who understands the mindset of kids these days!
    • uhbeta, on 12/10/2007, -8/+14why does it matter that this was a female judge?
      • gandhii, on 12/10/2007, -3/+3I agree.. wonder why some have dugg this question down?
      • kurtergad87, on 12/10/2007, -3/+4I could imagine some people would find it worse if it was a male judge, but I don't know.
      • WesleyRiot, on 12/10/2007, -2/+9i guess people expect women to be less tolerant of underage sex/rape?
      • MorbenDK, on 12/10/2007, -4/+11Because 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.
        • TeacherOfHeroes, on 12/10/2007, -0/+9How 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
      • jgzman, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2One expects a female to have more sense when it comes to sexual issues like this. Not always, mind you, but guys are more likely to try to excuse sex with a 16 year old hottie then a woman is.
      • deadmann, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1In before the feminists pipe up.
    • kgmurray, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2Hmm. Powerful aboriginal families. An oxymoron if I have ever heard one. Must be different in AU than in Canada.
    • deadmann, on 12/10/2007, -5/+3You can't put them in gaol because it separates them from their sacred connection to the land, beating a girl with a boomerang and then raping her is okay because they simply don't understand our customs.
      • smayers, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5they understand enought to fillout all the paperwork to get the dole.
    • Tahiri, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2Someone posted this below:
      Here is the judges email address associate.bradleyjdc@courts.qld.gov.au
    • themastersb, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2I wish I were rich
  • redsfaithful, on 12/10/2007, -14/+122This is one of the more disgusting things I have read in a while. I really hope the judge gets hers at some point.
  • MikeonTV, on 12/10/2007, -7/+246How can you agree to a rape?
    • DesertDude, on 12/10/2007, -23/+10It's just this judge's own version of "you can't rape the willing". Once it stops being funny to her, I'm sure she'll retract it and hand out a real sentence. I'm sure.
    • PleaseJustDie, on 12/10/2007, -7/+84Doesn'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.
      • s0nicfreak, on 12/10/2007, -15/+4digg down
        • HentaiJeff, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1dugg for saying that with shota cat, would have been better with pedobear though
      • chalkboy, on 12/10/2007, -8/+4You do realize that other countries have different laws. In the US that is true. It may not be in other countries.
        • DayBringer, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2PleaseJustDie was citing Australian law, it mentions the law right in the article.
      • phazon88, on 12/10/2007, -0/+0I heard some guy on the radio talking about this and he said she couldn't agree because you can't give consent if you're under 12. o.O So 12 is age of consent in QLD? If so I think pedophiles will want to move to QLD.
      • J4k3, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1And who exactly is this powerful being who says "girls under x years of age are not allowed to have sex"? Hmm? Go ***** yourselves, little bitches. You know you enjoy it.
    • simonpainter, on 12/10/2007, -0/+24Read 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.
      • jgzman, on 12/10/2007, -0/+9If her state of consent is irrelevant, then why are they wasting time trying to determine whether or not she consented?
    • s0nicfreak, on 12/10/2007, -7/+3You can't, which is why rape doesn't really exist.
      • WesleyRiot, on 12/10/2007, -2/+10remember, it's not rape if you shout "surprise!" first.
      • AdamGeld, on 12/10/2007, -0/+4Excuse me?
      • psykiv, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2Well, in some states, technically, there is no such crime as "rape". For example, in Florida, it's called sexual battery.
        • worldgate, on 12/10/2007, -0/+4I thought it was called 'putting your penis where its not wanted'?
    • MWeather, on 12/10/2007, -1/+3It's easy to agree to a rape when it's only a rape because of age, not lack of consent.
    • jmaxwell, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1when it is not really rape, it is just surprise! sex
    • ettin, on 12/10/2007, -5/+4Its not rape if she cums.
    • worldgate, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1Well, its easy.

      May I rape you?
      Well, alright.
    • DesertDude, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1You can't rape the willing.
  • Spartan900, on 12/10/2007, -69/+21Unfortunately many lefties consider Aboriginals their "spiritual pets". Any wrongdoings committed by them are because they are an "oppressed minority". In some aboriginal communities there have been reports of endemic child abuse, but instead of widespread support for exposing and fixing the problem, many lefties want it ignored because they feel intervention is taking a "racist judgemental stand".

    So to avoid exposing a problem, we now see judgments where an atrocious rape gets explained away with a "10 year old giving consent" Shocking.
    • RedHerringHack, on 12/10/2007, -22/+8I think there is some truth to what spartan said.
    • JuCee, on 12/10/2007, -5/+21First 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?
    • poidh, on 12/10/2007, -14/+4The funny thing is that Spartan is correct, but since this is Digg, the majority of the users of which being towards the hard left (which is a form of religious-like way of thinking), he is being dugg down.
      We are seeing a similar problem here in the UK: surgery is being provided by the state so that Muslim girls can pass themselves off as virgins on their wedding night, polygamy is being ignored, etc, because it would be "judgmental" or "ethnocentric" or "racist" to not allow these people to carry on with their Dark Ages practices.
      • WesleyRiot, on 12/10/2007, -0/+4ok that thing about muslim girls was news to me. how did i miss that one?
        • poidh, on 12/10/2007, -6/+0Because you never read any sites concerned with the global jihad.
    • CheeseburgerBro, on 12/10/2007, -1/+7Dear 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
    • deadmann, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Were there actually any Australians among those digging this down?
  • syroncoda, on 12/10/2007, -50/+7only in ***** australia (a kiwi strikes again bitches!)
    • TLAKABM, on 12/10/2007, -2/+9Hey, you guys elected a woman for your prime minister. Choice, bro'.
    • GliTCH82, on 12/10/2007, -3/+2My goodness gracious this thread is just filled with all sorts of preposterous remarks, chaps. Why don't we let bygones be bygones and just all sit down and enjoy a nice cup of tea and some crumpets. Splendid, then, I look forward to meeting all of you in 20 minutes, and I would most certainly appreciate it if you aren't a minute late. Cheerio!

      (a yankee strikes again, yes indeedy)
  • rabeidoh, on 12/10/2007, -15/+22Welcome back to the dark ages everyone!
    • kgmurray, on 12/10/2007, -5/+2I thought all the animals worked under Sharia law protection. WHo needs it when you have courts like this already!
      • kgmurray, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2Who the hell would digg down a comment like this? How many muslims can there be in here? Apparently, four so far. Sharia was a reference to the archaic laws some backwards muslims still follow.
    • AdamGeld, on 12/10/2007, -0/+4We never left.
  • sapphicbeats, on 12/10/2007, -5/+13ugh. i have nothing more i can say to this.
  • Sebaul, on 12/10/2007, -4/+26A slap on the wrist; don't do it again; off you go -- What the ***** is that!?
  • oreonblade, on 12/10/2007, -3/+43"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.
  • MTessa, on 12/10/2007, -5/+131Outrageous. 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!
    • sherrife, on 12/10/2007, -11/+3Can I ask what good it would do to imprison these guys for 25 years?

      Vengeance? Lame, the girl's life would not be improved in any way by such a primitive reaction to the event. Deterrence? *****. Can any of you tell me that you can imagine young adult males deciding not to rape a minor (or sleep with her/him after getting their consent, it's impossible to tell which it was in this case) having considered the severe sentence they would receive if they were to be eventually charged based on this harsh legal precedent? That's not how crime works, everyone knows that.
      • 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?
        • sherrife, on 12/10/2007, -4/+2Do what? Have consenting sex? Yes she's a minor, it's horrible that it happened, she probably had no idea what she was consenting to. But it's not a horrible, violent crime, necessarily (we don't know the facts, the judge does).

          I guess these guys don't sound like dangerous villians, more like chauvinistic ***** (due to traditional cultural stuff maybe? who knows) . Education is the key here, IMO.

          Digg me down, I know this thread is mostly going to attract 'vengeance seekers' and "kill them all"-types.
          • zdislaw, on 12/10/2007, -1/+5Age of consent has something to do with consenting sex. And thank you for inviting me to digg you down. You don't know a damn thing about rape and should do something about that.
          • sherrife, on 12/10/2007, -4/+3@ zdislaw

            No no no, you're right! I don't want to sound like I'm supporting this ***** up incident, the minimum age is there for a reason and I support that.

            I'm just saying that imprisoning people who don't seem _deliberately malicious_ seems a bit counter-productive.
          • AdamGeld, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2How do you know this 10 year old girl consented to having group sex?! Would she not have been out of her mind to agree to such a thing anyway? And you don't even have a problem with people who would do something like that being in the general population? Where did you get your morals from?
        • sherrife, on 12/10/2007, -2/+1You're almost exactly right, I would (almost) argue that, depending on your definition of punishment. Consequences are important, but punitive policy doesn't seem to have been all that successful in eliminating anti-social behaviour in our society (looking at things like murder rates in the US to the Treaty of Versailles).

          I really think we need to take a critical look at the punishment paradigm (sorry, but that's what it is). So lets start looking beyond our instinctive/ primitive/vengeful desires to make the perpetrator suffer, and instead see an actual positive social outcome as the goal of a judicial process focused on allowing victims a space to express themselves and seek proper closure involving all parties.

          This may sound like airy fairy crap, but it works in school settings, so I don't see why it can't work with adults.
        • AdamGeld, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2I don't think you are going to be able to simply tell these rapists not to rape children. Even if this 10 year old girl said, "Rape me damnit!", it's still rape to do that to someone so young. I agree that prison isn't very effective, but you can't convince some people to simply not commit crimes. There are those who enjoy commiting crimes, and who will do it again and again as long as they are able to, because they are messed up.
      • amoirae, on 12/10/2007, -2/+2You are deranged.
      • Tweekster, on 12/10/2007, -1/+3to protect society from them?
      • andshewas, on 12/10/2007, -1/+3It would be good to imprison them so they don't do it to anyone else...duh.
      • Fafnir43, on 12/10/2007, -2/+2Well, it would stop them raping any /more/ ten year olds for twenty-five years... Especially since rape (especially child rape) has one of the highest recidivism rates.
        • sherrife, on 12/10/2007, -3/+1I would be more interested in stats RE repeated incidents of statutory rape, specifically.
        • AdamGeld, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1The guy who raped my friend killed himself because he was so disgusted with himself that he couldn't take it!!! And that's a -good- outcome, most of the time they are so messed up they keep doing it again and again.
          • sherrife, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Although I sympathise with your situation, your anecdote holds no real weight in a debate.

            And I wouldn't call the death of a human being a good outcome.
      • Coffeedemon, on 12/10/2007, -2/+1Imprison? ***** that ... theres plenty of great white sharks off the coast there.
      • AdamGeld, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1Impossible to tell? What the Hell is wrong with you?!?! Do 10 year old girls normally agree to getting raped or having sex where you live or something?!? These sick freaks should be put in prison for life so they have to think about why they are in prison everyday, for the rest of their lives.
    • HappyScrappy, on 12/10/2007, -0/+4Read the article. The judge imposed the sentences asked for by the prosecutor. You need to ask the prosecutor why the sentences requested were so lenient.
  • GoKings, on 12/10/2007, -18/+13Only in Americ...
  • SpickSlayer, on 12/10/2007, -43/+5She agreed. I was there.
    • AdamGeld, on 12/10/2007, -2/+4Go to Hell.
    • DeadRepubs, on 12/10/2007, -2/+0Back to stormfront you inbred sodomized right-wing loon.
      At 40 is you're a repug you're a filthy sack of ***** who probably needs to be murdered by black youths.
  • Cowfrommars, on 12/10/2007, -27/+16It's not rape if you yell 'SURPRISE!'.
  • JordanTW90, on 12/10/2007, -13/+1Ask Sublime.
  • NaziHatinChimp, on 12/10/2007, -11/+34That's why in America we have laws against ***** ten year olds. That's ridiculous.
    • eridius, on 12/10/2007, -3/+50They 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.
      • GliTCH82, on 12/10/2007, -0/+3Neither did the prosecution. Maybe they run a child porn ring?
      • dondara, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2Whoa, the 26 yr old with previous bad acts? WTF is going on here? I could see some old dude saying stupid ***** like that but a woman(the judge) should have a more enlightened viewpoint on this issue. There could not be a valid reason for suspending the sentence. My crystal balls say a judge will be getting "retired" soon. And 6 guys will get shot somewhere.
    • Amazetbm, on 12/10/2007, -1/+20They 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/+20The 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.
      • BeefBaron, on 12/10/2007, -0/+6Try and do that and the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders would get all ***** about being discriminated against. Load of bollocks if you ask me.
    • kgmurray, on 12/10/2007, -2/+2Its frightening to think that we will start using American justice systems as a standard!! Remember Kobe Bryant paying cash for his rape acquittal? Remember OJ buying his acquittal?
  • pwnerofnoobs, on 12/10/2007, -32/+4Was she hot?
    • BoneheadFarker, on 12/10/2007, -1/+5You're going to hell for that one. Of course I'll probably be in the seat next to you in that handbasket for an unrelated incident, but you're definately going to hell for that one.
    • Chaoticfist, on 12/10/2007, -1/+11You have so many ***** issues...i do not even know where to start...SHE IS 10!!!
      • ArchangelZLT, on 12/10/2007, -0/+6Perhaps he's 10 too...
        • alkaline213, on 12/12/2007, -0/+0or
          Perhaps she is 10 and A 10.

          Wait, was that in bad taste?

          Sick Bastards
    • Lennster, on 12/10/2007, -8/+2You sick bastard! Anyone got her number?
    • AdamGeld, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1Only in your mind, you sick bastard.
  • EvilMoose, on 12/10/2007, -30/+5Women shouldn't hold positions of power because they always lie, cheat or steal. This Judge was obviously a female.
  • dumpyhumpy, on 12/10/2007, -16/+7The Australian Aborigines are treated in a way similar to how the Native Americans were treated and how African Americans were treated in the 60's. They are completely treated like ***** by the Aus Government.
    • 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.
      • SpicyViper, on 12/10/2007, -0/+4Dumpy, the offenders were Aboriginal and I doubt they would complain about their treatment.
      • dumpyhumpy, on 12/10/2007, -2/+2Ummm... there are not huge reparations being paid out in the US
      • Monolith4, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2Dumpy, giving indians vast tracts of land isn't considered "reparations"?
      • smayers, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1I am Aboriginal and i work for a living without the gov and their money not all of us are like that
  • 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.
    • bosssmiley, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1The judge is an idiot and should be debarred forthwith for not knowing the law. Under Australian law (similar to British law) a minor is legally incapable of giving their consent to have sex. This makes *any* sexual activity with someone under the age of consent de facto rape.
      All the adults in this should never show their faces in civilised society again.
      • Fight4Eire, on 12/12/2007, -0/+0I agree that it is wrong for a minor and an adult to have sex (exeptions being 17+18, and MAYBE 16+18 or MAYBE 17+19), but I don't think we should look to Britain for our moral compass, for if we do this world will get really effed up really fast.
  • coffee200am, on 12/10/2007, -13/+4We should not interfere with the customs and lifestyles of indigenous peoples. It's not our place to tell them what to do with themselves.
    /s
    • pyronik, on 12/10/2007, -1/+4Ok so if they murder you we'll just give them a pass
    • Hartrain, on 12/10/2007, -1/+8We should never condone barbaric behavior under the guise of "indigenous customs and lifestyles."
      • coffee200am, on 12/10/2007, -1/+3No. Look at Iraq. It was peaceful and loving before we got a hold of it and tried to change the way they conducted their society. Now look at it. /s
        • pyronik, on 12/11/2007, -0/+0If by peaceful and loving you mean run by a sadistic ruler who gases his own people .. then yea.. it was just peachy
        • Fight4Eire, on 12/12/2007, -0/+0I wouldn't say "peaceful and loving" (not by a long shot), but a helluva lot better than after Bush's War OF Terror.
  • jt28, on 12/10/2007, -5/+3i don't even know where to begin on this one...wtf?
  • phaseblue, on 12/10/2007, -1/+75In other news, the judge "probably agreed" to a community beating.
  • aak4, on 12/10/2007, -0/+20This 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 . . .
    • MrWhite7, on 12/10/2007, -3/+2I heard Romney appointed her and Huckabee told her to let them go.
    • flair1, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Can you appeal this? In the US you can't try someone twice for the same crime.
    • hogger84, on 12/11/2007, -0/+0No the judge gave what the prosecution asked for, so who will appeal
  • jeremyduffy, on 12/10/2007, -4/+43It doesn't matter if she agreed to it or not. She's 10.
    • Waterrat, 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.
    • sherrife, on 12/10/2007, -2/+2It might not matter in the sense of what crime the offenders are prosecuted with, but it does matter in the sentencing phase of the trial. That's where the side issues and concerns can be taken into account.
  • Lolerdong, on 12/10/2007, -9/+0That hansel is so hot right now.
  • 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."
    • darkened, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2"Justice" is largely doled out on probably's.
      • Icupnimpn2, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2Most court officials have the decency to at least pretend otherwise. We have that whole "beyond a shadow of a doubt" ideal in the USA. How often does that actually happen? Not very, I'm sure. I'm a realist. But it's nice to at least try to prove something one way or another and not hand out sentences and verdicts based mainly on assumptions. The word "probably" as used by this judge sounds to me like she didn't have much to back up her decision.
        • smayers, on 12/11/2007, -0/+0did we all forget they pleaded GIULTY
  • aelias, on 12/10/2007, -7/+3Giggity?

    How does this make sense to anyone with even an elementary grasp of justice?
  • FatherVic, 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?
    • aak4, on 12/10/2007, -0/+6Seriously, how can a minor be legally able to consent to an abortion but not to sex. The left wing pro-choice people think that anyone should be able to get a tax payer funded abortion at any age, for any reason, at any time, without any restrictions whatsoever. And if the physician refuses, he should be sued for denying her "the standard of care." They're pro-choice for the patient but say that the physician should have no choice. I wouldn't want to be an ob/gyn in this day and age.
    • BeefBaron, on 12/10/2007, -0/+3Age of consent is 16 if the other partner is 17 to 18, otherwise age of consent is 18.
    • ivosilva, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2In the USA you can own a gun but can't drink a beer if you're under 21... So....
  • uziko, on 12/10/2007, -5/+12it's disgusting that they got off like that
  • blueire, on 12/10/2007, -3/+19Heres hoping the judge "agrees" to being gang raped by an elephant herd.
  • exinco, on 12/10/2007, -6/+2this is not dark ages. this is only happen in super modern civilisation, could be everywhere
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/10/2007, -0/+4*tries to parse*
      FAIL
    • BeefBaron, on 12/10/2007, -0/+4Sorry Exinco but your comment looks like it was google translated a few too many times...
  • Aitese, on 12/10/2007, -2/+6Sometimes comments are just not even needed...there's nothing to even debate here...wrong is wrong.
  • zaii7, on 12/10/2007, -8/+2Ain't No Fun (If The Homies Can't Have None)
    -Snoop Dogg'-
  • Amazetbm, on 12/10/2007, -1/+28That judge needs to be removed from the bench and disbarred.
  • thinkart, on 12/10/2007, -1/+7clicking that i "digg" this article makes me feel a little sick. however, people need to see this. national media attention is the only thing that could eventually right this horrific WRONG!
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/10/2007, -0/+3It's front page news in Australia and being discussed on every talk radio station. Everyone disagrees with the verdict and the Judge will mostly likely have to resign.
      • dondara, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Good. I expect stories like this from the usual backward *****-holes but not Australia. Please post the news report of the judges tar and feathering when you get a chance. Thanks
    • thinkart, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1media attention received! http://digg.com/world_news/FOLLOW_UP_Aborigine_10y ...
  • Hartrain, on 12/10/2007, -3/+7This really renews my trust in the Australian justice system.
    • Fafnir43, on 12/10/2007, -0/+7To the clue-impaired: the above is clearly sarcasm.
    • RikkiTikki, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2At least the flaws in the Australian justice system doesn't make international news every week like the U.S'.
    • deadmann, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2This is only the Australian justice system as it applies to Aboriginals.
  • 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 ¿
    • iPissExcellence, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1?
    • CondoleezzaRice, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1Even if we ignore the erroneous assumption that the girl did NOT consent to the sex, there is a flaw in that analogy, and it is that the girl did not lose anything from the incident. In fact, she didn't even report it. It's bogus, created crime like how the NYPD drop purses on the ground and arrest good samaritans that pick it up to return.
  • 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.
  • applescruffs, on 12/10/2007, -3/+2what?? is this a frickin joke???
  • uziko, 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.
    • Curlz31, on 12/10/2007, -2/+5Statutory rape includes underage willing intercourse as well as forceful intercourse. On the other hand, rape, by dictionary definition usually does not include willing intercourse no matter what the age of the participants.
      • uziko, on 12/10/2007, -3/+2that's what i said
        • Curlz31, on 12/10/2007, -1/+3No, you said "Non statutory gang rape would be forced". Which is wrong. Forced gang rape is still statutory rape, but it also fits the dictionary definition of rape. Statutory simply means that it is outlined in a statue (i.e. a law).
    • sherrife, on 12/10/2007, -3/+3Post of the thread :)

      This seems to be a horrible incident, but it doesn't negate the fact that it was statutory, not violent. Of course that matters when sentencing.... On top of my earlier point about the futility of prison as an institution.
      • liquidpele, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Okay, fine. Then where is the charge of "first-degree sexual assault of a child" ??
        I don't care if she agreed. She's 10. You can get a 10 year old to agree to anything.
        • CondoleezzaRice, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1"assault" implies violence. and no you cannot get 10 year olds to agree to anything
        • Tahiri, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Yes, you can get 10 year olds to agree to anything for pretty much a Klondike bar.
    • cynicalliberal, on 12/10/2007, -0/+4What defines rape is the absence of consent. A person cannot give consent if they are under threat of force/violence, incapacitated by drugs/alcohol, mentally impaired, through coercion, and/or under the age of consent. Statutory rape is a type of rape, it is not a separate entity.

      I don't know much about the case, but I sincerely doubt that a ten year-old would willingly agree to have sex with nine men.
  • 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
    • ibeetle, on 12/10/2007, -3/+7You left two key words out of your statement.
      "...,but in America raping a RICH 10 year old WHITE girl,..."
    • vermax, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1and nobody sees a problem with that hypocrisy. rape is rape, it's not "justifiable", no matter how many times you spit up on yourself blabbering wrong wrong wrong. and I wasn't there, i don't know the situation, and i don't know who the girl was. if she consented, and wasn't traumatized, then all your shrill lockstep comments are just so much typical noise. this zero tolerance crap never ever has a place in rational society, but on this subject people will always turn into screaming bloodthirsty mobs.
    • BeefBaron, on 12/10/2007, -1/+4If an Rep/Dem Senator raped a 10 year old girl they would probably just be "asked" to resign, and then continue to hold the position. Same with any of the rich and powerful.
  • Johntp, on 12/10/2007, -13/+4Key phrase. A WOMAN JUDGE.
    • tzustrategy, on 12/10/2007, -1/+7Your comment lost a digg, but I'll never get my IQ point back from reading that.
  • brentcatoe, on 12/10/2007, -2/+38Here is the judges email address associate.bradleyjdc@courts.qld.gov.au

    • uziko, on 12/10/2007, -1/+11i wouldn't want to be checking her email right now
    • AdamGeld, on 12/10/2007, -2/+4I wrote... it... a letter. One of my best friends was raped when she was 12, and it ruined her life. I hope this judge gets her throat cut for saying that this girl probably wanted it.
      • dartmanx, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1I really hope you weren't stupid enough to tell HER (the judge) that.
    • faskippy, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1SENT...
  • SKyStrikerX, on 12/10/2007, -19/+6Pics or it didn't happen!
    • objectcode, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1get your kiddie porn somewhere else
  • ateves, on 12/10/2007, -0/+5I cannot believe this. Sick world, really.
  • tracker198x, on 12/10/2007, -8/+2Let Operation Aussie Freedom begin!!! We MUST free the oppressed australians from their bad judicial system!!!!!!!!!
    • protium, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2Australia has no oil.
      • CondoleezzaRice, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1The defense contractors get their money anyway.
  • tzustrategy, on 12/10/2007, -6/+5"Female" judge? Why not just "judge?"
    • codesuidae, on 12/10/2007, -3/+1Because any male judge is obviously incompetent to rule in cases involving female sexuality. Duh.
    • 4U55l3NlNJ4, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1because women are supposed to be the maternal sex, why do you think child support is mainly given to the woman from the man and not the other way round?? women are supposed to have more compassion, obviously this female judge has less compassion than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does towards fudge packers.
    • Tahiri, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1It was make it seem more ridiculous
  • tmcdigg, on 12/10/2007, -7/+1Aboriginal? This is what? Australia?
    Australia-- land of the kangaroo, RIAA MPAA antipiracy death squads and laws that allow 10yr olds to be gang raped, literally and it's mostly legal under a technicality. Well they tie for first place with some Asian countries. Canada is #2. Is this why Austrialia slang for the country is "OZ" as in wizard of oz fantasy land?

    Puts a whole new meaning to the Outback Steakhouse slogan: no rules. just right.
    /sarcasm
    • GhandicapXRS, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1I have no idea what it is you are trying to say.
    • BeefBaron, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Hes trying to come off as insightful by bringing up as many Crocodile Dundee references as he can, believing it to be a most knowledgeable source of information about Australia.
  • 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.
    • codesuidae, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2Perhaps there is some issue with two underage partners? Like if a 13yo and an 11yo get together, perhaps the 13yo is still in trouble in spite of also being underage?
  • ladalang, on 12/10/2007, -0/+3So corrupt legal systems aren't just in the US.
    • ibeetle, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1There is nothing wrong with the system. It is those occasionally in power that are corrupt.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 119 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.