Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Australian Politics » A judge named Sue…

A judge named Sue…

Ah here we come to the vexed subject of rape and on this occasion form a somewhat different angle because the women in question here is the perp rather than the victim. Now I know that her crime has not been described as rape in the News piece below but up here in Queensland precisely the same offences would be classified as rape. Changes to the definition of the crime up here by the Labor governemnt is something that I am happy to endorse.

click for source

Of course I am rather keen to know just what the feminists are going to say about this conviction, for one thing but more importantly the manifestly inadequate sentence handed down here, two years suspended for not one offence but four!

Further why is Laura O’Donnell not being put on the sex offenders register?

That is almost unbelievable.and if the genders had been transposed I could not imagine a man getting less than a ten stretch for the same sort of offences. This was (by definition*) non-consensual sex and therefore rape. I am totally flabbergasted that  the judge has mitigated the punishment into meaninglessness. But then again what do you expect ?

Look at the judge’s Christian name… Sue…

Clearly not named under the Johnny Cash rationale

Sadly not surprised by this Comrades

*Children under sixteen can not legally  consent to sex.

.


22 Comments

  1. Tired of all the crap says:

    You are correct. Laura O’Donnell is a child rapist by any common-sense definition, but common sense is not common among our “elite”. If Laura were a man, and if the Judge were a man, then the sentence would have been more than 10 years—and the leftist, feminist media would have been screaming obscenities at the male child rapist. But we have exactly the opposite situation, and this female child rapist with PRIORS walks free. SICK.

  2. Rochelle R says:

    What is the World coming too?

  3. Ray Dixon says:

    Seems to be not enough information in that report to really form an opinion, Iain. On the surface, yes, I agree it looks like a ridiculously soft sentence but I’d like to know more before I screamed “one law for men another for women”. Maybe, um, just maybe, these 14 & 15 year old boys were more than willing participants? I mean, what 14 or 15 year old would say no to a root with a 19 or 20 year old girl who looks like that?

  4. GD says:

    Ray, I was going to say the same thing. Well, I’ll say it now. Most teenage boys would jump at the chance to have sex with an older girl, or even any girl.

  5. Max says:

    It’s extraordinary to read comments like Ray’s and GD’s. Is a 12-year-old child “jumping for the chance to have sex”? Wow! If that’s your thinking, then I’m from another planet because that’s not what I was thinking at 12. I doubt few 12-year-olds think that. And even if you find one thinking that, the act of having sex with him is still statutory rape. That’s the law. And for damn good reason—what are the long-term problems for a child who is physically, emotionally, and psychologically immature and exposed to such behaviour?

    Now, according to your logic, a 12-year-old girl may also be thinking of having sex, so it’s okay for a 20-year-old man to have sex with her because “she’s looking for it”. Any man who did that would be in jail for a long, long time—and for damn good reason. So really what you are agreeing to is two laws: one for men and another for women. Punish the men, forgive the women. What a load of crap.

    Give me a break with the retarded, anything-goes “progressive” ideology. Start thinking for yourself for a change, instead of lapping up the tripe served by our media, academia, politicians, and judiciary system. There is black and white, and there is right and wrong. But people “educated” to be “enlightened” just see everything as “relative”—no right, no wrong, it’s all about perspective, man. From my perspective, however, I see people with no moral compass whatsoever.

  6. Angel says:

    They sure would GD, especially as it was a foursome. Sounds fairly consensual, though I do think 12 is too young to be drunk and partaking.

  7. GD says:

    yep, Angel 12’s too young. Perhaps that changes the story.

  8. Ray Dixon says:

    Max, I said 14 or 15. Yes there was a 12 y.o. and I agree that looks dubious. But don’t go holier-than-thou please – you know nothing more about this case than the brief report.

  9. Ray Dixon says:

    Oh, and “Max”, please pick one name and stick to it. Your first comment was under “Tired of all the crap”. Then you posted under “Max”. What are you trying to do, support your own comments? And use an email address please – fill in the box.

  10. Alex says:

    It has nothing to do with whether or not the boys wanted to do it. At say 12 or 13, would I have loved to have sex with a 20 year old: yes. would it have still been rape on her part: yes, even if I were 16 (depending on the state). Ray, if someone manipulated a child from an early age to want to please them sexually, the child would want to have sex with the adult, but would you be ok with it? would it still not be rape? in circumstances like this, motive or who seduced who is irrelevant, the only relevant question is did she sleep with four boys under the age of consent? and yes she did, therefore she should have been jailed and labeled as a sex offender. and as to whether or not if she were a man praying on girls would the sentence be different, I would assume so. And I do not think any feminist group will speak in protest because, generally, a very strong (I don’t want to say radical because of the implications associated with the word) group which seeks equality never actually stops at equality. People want to be “more equal” than those they were originally “less equal” than.

  11. Iain Hall says:

    To be fair to Ray and GD Alex I don’t think that either of them are suggesting that what this woman did is at all acceptable, they are just noting that teenage boys think with their trousers, frankly from my point of view that is a reason to treat women like this one more harshly than male rapists because they are taking undue advantage of the fact they don’t need to use force on their “willing ” victims.

  12. Ray Dixon says:

    Alex, did you even read my comment? I wasn’t saying it was right. I said it appears we don’t have the full facts yet.

  13. Blaze says:

    This sentence does appear to be consitent with current sentencing in Victoria. We do not hear too much in the national media of similar cases involving male perpertrators, perhaps only in high profile circumstances, such as those involving footy players etc. Male perpetrators of this type offence are quite common, and they do receive non-custodial sentences too. This type of crime is the same as statuatory rape in other jurisdictions, it just has a different name. This does not mean that a child under 16 has the abilty to consent with someone over 18, and that is what is being punished here. It is the same as rape, because in the eys of the law and our community, even though the child may have said yes, they are not mature enough to have given consent, therefore that consent is invalid. As for her place on the sex offender register, she will be on it for life, this is something that News Limited failed to mention.

  14. Iain Hall says:

    Firstly welcome to the Sandpit Blaze 😉
    But I would like to know why you think that she will be put on the sex offenders register because as you note there is no mention of this in the news item.

  15. GD says:

    So if a boy is under sixteen he can’t consent to a bit of rumpy pumpy with an older woman, ie 18 or 20?. In a few years that boy is legally able to drive a car, join the armed forces, kill humans in the course of war, vote and stand for parliament. Yet two years earlier he can’t say, ‘yes, please, I would like some sexual experience with a woman older than me.

    He sure must mature a hell of of lot in those few years, from a kiddie who should be protected from a woman getting her kit off and showing him her titties, to shooting to kill in Afghanistan.

  16. Blaze says:

    Thank you Iain for your kind welcome. This is a quote from an Age article “Judge Pullen said O’Donnell would be a registered sex offender for life”
    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/woman-got-boys-drunk-for-sex-20111019-1m752.html#ixzz1bVBpEwuu

    GD it seems you are arguing what the age of consent should be. What i was attempting to explain is why we have an age of consent. The law needs to determine an the age where someone has the maturity to decide when they can make an informed decision about when to have sex. The law in Victoria states that it is 16, for the purpose of protecting the majority, and administering the law. I am not speaking on behalf of any individuals level of maturity, merely stating why there is an age of consent, and what it is in Victoria.

  17. GD says:

    Thanks, Blaze. If teenagers under 16 have sex with others under 16, is that OK?

  18. GD says:

    A copper drives past a car parked on the street and notices two people sitting in the back. An hour later he drives by, and they’re still sitting in the back. He pulls over and approaches the car and sees a young man and young woman, both naked, sitting in the back. The man is reading a newspaper and the woman is knitting.

    He asks for their names. ‘And how old are you Sir?’ Eighteen the boy replies. And how old are you, miss?

    She looks at her watch as says, in five and half minutes I will be sixteen!

  19. Blaze says:

    No worries. According to Crimes Act 1958 – SECT 45 (4)(b) Consent is not a defence to a charge under subsection (1) unless at the time of the alleged offence the child was aged 12 or older and-the accused was not more than 2 years older than the child.

    Hope this answers your question

  20. GD says:

    That sounds reasonable, Blaze. However, if the gap is say, three years, is the teenager charged, or only the older person? What if the older person is under eighteen?

    And more importantly, did you like my joke? 🙂

  21. Blaze says:

    GD, you may have to consult the Police or the OPP to get some more insight on whether they would seek a prosecution in that case. The older child may be responsible in that case, children under the age of 18 do get convicted of child sex offences.
    And your previous post is a good reason why there is discretion in many parts of the criminal justice system, nice work.

  22. rockefella says:

    There is another sex offenders register for women who do things like this and avoid jail.

    register-her.com

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: