Did rape trial serve public interest?
The Crown Prosecution Service's attempts to convict primary-school children of rape have consistently failed. According to court statistics, they have tried six times in the last decade and six times the 10-or-11-year-olds in the dock have been acquitted of that charge.
Yesterday, two more small boys were found not guilty - a divided Old Bailey jury instead convicted them of attempted rape. Their names have been placed on the sex offenders register, a status that is likely to have repercussions on the rest of their lives. They will be sentenced in eight weeks.
Chief Crown Prosecutor, Alison Saunders, stood outside the court yesterday afternoon to justify putting the boys and their eight-year-old victim through the ordeal of a full trial.
"The decision to prosecute was not taken lightly," she insisted, reminding reporters that the CPS has a "duty to prosecute where there is sufficient evidence to do so and a prosecution is in the public interest". This morning, however, some are questioning whether the public interest was served.
Writing in the Daily Telegraph, columnist Philip Johnston asks whether there is "any other country in the world where the pre-pubescent fumblings of children would result in a rape trial?" He regards it as "astonishing" that the little boys were convicted "but even more amazing is that it even came to court at all". It is a view echoed by other commentators today - see this round-up of responses.
Prosecutors in England and Wales are certainly under pressure to take more alleged rapists to court, particularly those accused of unlawful intercourse with a minor - statutory rape. Guidance states that "the public interest requires the prosecution of an offence of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13 unless exceptional circumstances exist".
So were there "exceptional circumstances" in this case?
Some would argue that the fact the alleged perpetrators were only 10-years-old was just that. The law of statutory rape was clearly not devised to criminalise very young children whose first sexual encounters go too far.
Many rape statutes specify that statutory rape occurs when the complainant is under a certain age but also that the perpetrator is over a certain age. No such distinction applies in England and Wales.
In a speech last year, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, reminded staff that "the Code for Crown Prosecutors makes clear that the interests of a youth must be considered" when deciding whether it is in the public interest to go ahead with the prosecution of a young child. He also said that prosecutors are obliged by law to "have regard to the welfare of any children appearing in court, whether as defendants or not".
He pointed out that "England and Wales has one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility in the world, much lower than in the majority of our European counterparts".
Few other Western nations would even consider prosecuting a 10-year-old for any crime, never mind statutory rape.
"For example in the Scandinavian nations the age of criminal responsibility is 15, in Portugal and Spain it is 16, and in Belgium and Luxembourg it is 18," Mr Starmer said. Having taken the decision to treat very young children as criminally responsible for their actions in Britain (the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is currently eight), the youth prosecutor "makes important decisions regarding outcomes for very young offenders that are made by care and social services agencies in most European countries," Mr Starmer told his audience.
The fact that the boys were accused of "statutory rape" raises further questions. The issue of consent from the eight-year-old girl did not apply in this case because the law assumes she is too young to give it. The jury did not need to consider whether this was a game of "doctors and nurses" that got out of hand, or even whether the girl had participated or encouraged the activities.
Their conclusion was simply that the boys tried and failed to have intercourse with her. With very young defendants there must be a question as to whether they can be expected to have an understanding of the complexities of the law in this area. It is one thing to "know right from wrong" but another to understand that the criminal justice system would regard touching private parts with a play-mate as potentially a matter which risks years in jail and a lifetime on the sex offenders register.
The CPS code reminds prosecutors that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 states "it shall be the principal aim of the youth justice system to prevent offending by children and young persons". The reason for taking children to court is primarily to stop them breaking the law in future, not simply for retribution or to punish misdemeanours in the past.
As the act makes clear, that preventive approach "provides a new guiding principle to which all agencies and individuals can relate their work and responsibilities". So a further question for the CPS is whether prosecution in this case made it less likely that the two boys will re-offend.
"I don't think anyone who has sat through this trial would think for a moment that the system that we employ is ideal," the judge, Mr Justice Saunders, said. He was reflecting on the proceedings but his remark has been seized upon by those who think the case should never have come to court in the first place.
I'm 
© 2012~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~41~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
It is important to know how this incident ended up as a police and prosecution matter. Presumably the victim's parents refused possible options of a programme of specialist counselling/re-education for both parties which would have avoided the inevitable trauma all round. It is absurd that the convicted now face a future on the sexual offender's list and whatever is devised as a sentence for 10 year olds.
Complain about this comment
Not commenting on the appropriateness or not of the prosecution but interesting to see the media now portraying the "little boys" as the victims...interesting how the language changes when the media changes their mind!
Complain about this comment
When I was at school (many many years ago) two twelve year olds (both boys) were "caught" engaged in sexual activity by a teacher. Both immediately blamed each other, "he forced me to do it". In this case the two were seriously admonished, their parents informed and that was that. Wonder if this happened today whether the CPS would prosecute both students. Will both be put in the sex offenders register? What would be the situation if one of them was a girl but they were of the same age (and both blamed each other)? Also what would happen if one of them was a bit younger than the other - would the younger one go scot free?
Complain about this comment
Conversely, should a young victim be denied protection simply because her attackers were also young? You describe it as fumblings, but is that what happened? Or was more coercion used?
Complain about this comment
It angers me greatly that these boys were taken to trial. I am a primary school teacher and every day I see children do and say things which if they were adults would result in criminal proceedings. But we understand that children are still learning the boundaries and we support the injured parties and teach the perpetrators what they can and can't do. That these children were prosecuted reflects in my view an unhealthy preoccupation with childhood seuality: a school of thought that says that all children should be sexually innocent, they must be protected from any sexual experience and that those that aren't innocent must be punished. (Compare the overwrought obsession with CRB checks). But look at the clothes that little girls wear...
There were I think also procedural inadequacies - I heard one commentator say that the girl's evidence was so flawed and contradictory it should have resulted in the trial being abandoned, and certainly would have done had she been an adult.
Shame on the police force who brought the prosecution, shame on the judge who didn't stop the trial, shame on our society for its sickening double standards.
Complain about this comment
You are right to describe the youngsters' actions as fumblings. Not for the first time the CPS displays its complete lack of common sense in bringing this case to court "in the public interest", whatever that might mean. Quite absurd. We really should spend a little more time tackling the drunken debauchery that takes place in our city centres every weekend rather than criminalising the innocent gropings of 8-10 year olds.
Complain about this comment
This case has been a travesty.
Laws intended to protect children
have put two more children on the sex offenders register
It is fortunate for many of the adults in the world that this kind of action did not occur when we were children or it would be simpler and more practical to have a non-offenders register.
Complain about this comment
This was an absurd situation. At 10 years old, how can these young boys understand what they are doing? They are probably not even going through the full force of puberty yet. It sounds like this was a situation where the kids were playing around, and things got maybe overly animated as none of them knew what was happening. When I was young sex play happened, between boys, girls, mixed, same sex. It doesn't mean much, for the most part no-one involved knows the slightest thing about what they are doing.
Let's next assume they hurt her. Ok, that's not good. However, kids hurt each other often at that age. Yeah, we deal with it but never in the courts, unless it's serious like with a knife, which is very rare. A few kids beating up another kid? If this was a crime, well then half my peer group should have been charged.
So, if you then put both together, they hurt and had sexual contact with her, is that enough to justify rape charges? I don't think so.
Complain about this comment
I think that this is a good thing that these boys were prosecuted for the offence of rape. We as a society look too much at the offenders and their rights, forgetting all too often the rights and suffering of the victim. Having a girlfriend who was raped and abused as a child, that was never discussed until recently, even with family and never reported because of the shame and humiliation felt, I have seen the effects that something of this nature has on a person, physically, emotionally, and psychologically, and nothing will ever be able to take that away from anyone who has been subjected to the trauma and violation of such. It will stay with them and affect them through their life, leaving them feeling inadequate, inferior, and in a lot of cases unable to form close bonds or relationships to anyone, even parents and other family members. The fact that these "boys" will be tarnished with the reputation of exactly what they have done to this girl, is nothing compared to what she will have to suffer through her life, and is the least we as a society should do to protect those around us from being subject to such crimes. We need to send the message that this behaviour will not be tolerated by anyone, immaterial of age, colour, race or creed.
Complain about this comment
This is a truly bizarre case where the two boys were basically convicted (and branded sex offenders for life - despite being children) on a legal technicality for what was (it seems) pretty much a consensual game of doctor and nurses gone too far.
The UK is going to end up with a massive number of child "sex offenders" if this is indeed the legal standard we are going to have in the future.
It seems there was more interest in hitting rape prosecution targets than either the welfare of any of the children involved, or indeed what actually occurred (as opposed to was is legally deemed to have occurred).
Complain about this comment
Very depressing. This is the state complying with the cultural and commercial sexualisation of children, by prosecuting them as adults in a watered down adult court for adult crimes. The victim is deemed too young to be able to understand what consent means, but the CPS reason that the "perpetrators" who are just a few years older are mature enough to take criminal responsibility. Crazy. The CPS should be ashamed of their decision, but we should all feel ashamed that they think this reflects public interest and opinion. Sadly I feel we have destroyed childhood for at least a whole generation.
Complain about this comment
This case sets a very dangerous precident. Now every boy caught playing 'you show me yours & I'll show you mine' is at risk of being branded a sex offender. I am shocked that this even got to court. In my experience rape victims are actively dissuaded from trying to report this crime because, in the case of spousal rape, it is too difficult for the CPS to bother to get the evidence to prosecute. Had a fully grown woman given the evidence the little girl did in this case, it would have been thrown out of court. I hope the boys legal team has advised them to appeal, the consequences of these convictions for the boys could very well destroy the rest of their lives. I do not see how this case was "in the public interest".
Complain about this comment
This is a disgraceful & insane combination of draconian laws and political correctness resulting in a terrible result for all. The Old Bailey???? What???? What was the judge thinking when he allowed a majority verdict? What are the prospects for appeal? The officials involved in this should be sacked.
I'm ashamed of the UK - it used to be tolerant, civilised and humane.
Complain about this comment
Whilst I agree that a ten year old shouldn't be made to sign the sex offenders register, as this will be something that will affect them when they are much older even though they may not have had developed cognitively enough to understand their actions, there are some things about this article which are highly offensive.
First off, comparing the attempted rape of a child to "pre-pubescent fumblings of children". This is literally abhorrent. Whilst I will concede that the children may not have understood exactly what they were doing, they are in no way 'fumblings'. They committed an act which may have negative, even harrowing psychological effects on the victim throughout her life.
In fact, throughout this entire article, you focus on the defendants, and how their lives may be ruined by their crime, forgetting the victim almost entirely. Whilst she may not understand exactly what was done to her now, in the world we live in today, I doubt it will be long before she realises the extent of which she has been violated. Whilst the welfare of the perpetrators is significant, we shouldn't forget that a young girl was almost raped.
Complain about this comment
Also, the perpetrators weren't much older than those whom attacked Jamie Bulger, but the media has no problem in demonising them. Whilst I will say that the two crimes are very different, in one way they are comparable. The children were too young to be fully aware of the consequences of their actions, but a victim suffered due to their actions in terrible ways. Surely, we shouldn't demonise one pair and pity the other?
Complain about this comment
Glad to see so far that the comments reflect my surprise that this case was taken to court in the first place. Was expecting a "holier than thou" response from a lot suggesting death penalty or such for these dispicable evil children but alas.
I hope the legal team for the defendants appeal.
Nothing against the alleged victim but ten years is no age to understand the future consequences of such actions.
Complain about this comment
'The jury did not need to consider whether this was a game of "doctors and nurses" that got out of hand, or even whether the girl had participated or encouraged the activities.'
Regardless of whether or not the boys should have been prosecuted, the sentence written above by Mark Easton demonstrates an incredibly scary and prejudicial attitude which is still prevalent throughout society in the UK. If a woman/girl participates or encourages a sexual activity then really it's partly her fault that she has been raped and therefore this should go some way in mitigating a defendant's guilt.
This is why rape convictions are so low in the UK. This is why women are scared to come forward and report a rape to the police - for fear that because they may have initially consent to kissing or merely have flirted with someone during an evening, they have somehow brought it on themselves.
If this was a case of doctors and nurses gone wrong, the game has clearly crossed a line where it started as a bit of fun and developed into a situation where the 8 year old child was scared and yet the defendants continued with the 'game'. The Prosecution Service will not have just looked at this and flippantly decided to prosecute. There are clearly details which warranted the severity of the action taken.
Complain about this comment
#14 - I don't read the article or any of the comments as dismissing this as a serious incident. Clearly it needed to be addressed and all parties treated with proper care, but the adult criminal justice system is not the way to do it. Who has gained anything out of this? There are a range of more appropriate responses between a criminal trial and taking no action at all.
Complain about this comment
Those who think children can't do bad things - really horrible things - have not spent much time with offenders.
I think you miss another side to the trial issue.
The problem is this....
If you are officially caring for a child who has allegedly raped a little girl, but has had no trial, how do you manage them?
Do you just ignore that alleged act, treat them like any other kid? Then shortly afterwards you learn they have abused another little girl at your childrens home. Or walked out of the non-secure facility and attacked a little girl down the road. The consequences for that little girl are horrendous.
On the other hand, what if you treat them on the assumption that they have raped a little girl and apply the necessary safety/security measures. What if, in terms of ground truth, they have NOT raped anyone: they are innocent. How can you justify treating them as 'dangerous' when they deny they ever did anything?
You present a trial as a terrible imposition - but the flip side of a trial is protecting people from wrongful treatment if they have not done anything. I would suggest that there must be a proper mechanism for deciding these issues: we call that 'a trial'
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I am appalled that any of these children should have been subjected to this form of insane adult abuse. It can not have been of any benefit to the girl or either of the two boys to have attended the Old Bailey Criminal Court, even if the trial was adapted to suit children, to be subjected to extensive examination of childrens's touching and fumbling over a trial period of several days and a pre-trial period of months.
What is the point of signing the sexual offences register in this case? What possible benefit will it serve anyone to have on record that two 10 year olds were becoming aware that boys and girls are different and that they were very naughty. To say that the girl was abused is true, but by having to relive what happened to her and having to explain games they were playing to adult strangers. I doubt whether she will be able to forget this ever again. And as for the boys, I doubt whether they will be able to develop normally and will be in fear of any sexual contact even when it is lawful.
Complain about this comment
The CPS, courts and governments are basically saying "children, thou shalt not explore your sexuality. Thou shalt repress any human urges on that basis that they are wrong until we deem they are right! Thou shalt listen and adhere to feminist thinking".
Society - stuff you!
If the boys were threatening, then they should be treated as any young bully ..... but not a sexual deviants.
Complain about this comment
Why 'all the hoohah' over two boys convicted of attempting to rape an 8 year old girl? Is it because this case concerned male on female sexual violence rather than male on male sexual violence? Have the media conveniently forgotten how they demonised two boys who were recently convicted of subjecting a younger boy to sexualised torture? The media instead of attempting to claim the two convicted boys had engaged in 'play which got out of hand' blatantly portrayed these boys as 'violent thugs who had a history of terrorising their neighbourhood.'
Do not forget justice has for once been served wherein two boys have been convicted of attempting to rape an 8 year old girl and yes boys as young as 10 are fully capable of committing sexual violence against female children.
But clearly when the crime is one of male sexual violence against a female child, our male supremacist society goes to great lengths to excuse/justify and even exonerate the male perpetrators.
Remember the Bulger case? Yet again this was a case of male on male violence and again the two male perpetrators were demonised by our hypocritical male-dominated media.
What does this tell me about the media? Why that male on female sexual violence is not a crime but instead it must be excused/justified or minimalised. Whereas male on male sexual violence irrespective of the age of male perpetrators is always demonised.
No this case was not one wherein boy on girl 'play got out of hand' - because the two boys planned their sexual violence and we must not forget these two boys imprisoned the girl in order to carry out their attack with impunity. It is irrelevant whether or not the boys' penises actually penetrated the girl in this case, what is vital is the fact these boys attempted to rape a girl.
Anyone remember there was a victim involved in this case and she is only 8 years old? Apparently not, because now we have media claims the 'girl told lies and hence like all women and girls is an innate liar.' How convenient then that once again the misogynistic myth of the sexually insatiable female has reared its ugly head. Not too long ago our male supremacist society believed male sexual violence committed against female children happened only rarely because the perpetrators were always 'sexually insatiable little girls who supposedly "seduced" poor innocent men - primarily fathers, male relatives and even brothers!'
This is why rape convictions are appalling in the UK because our male supremacist society refuses to accept that male sexual violence against women and girls is rampant and all too commonly dismissed as 'just normal male heterosexual aggression and male sexual entitlement to women and girls.'
Yes the court procedure with regards as to how female children continue to be routinely subjected to intense cross examination by defence counsels who are determined to discredit female rape survivors' evidence needs to be changed. Remember 20 years ago (yes it was 20 years ago) that recommendations were made concerning how children should give evidence in court. It was recommended that an independent court arbitrator be appointed to be the only person to ask both prosecution and defence questions to the child witness. This would prevent the child from being subjected to intense cross examination and would also ensure the child's rights were protected. Having an independent arbitrator would ensure the questions were asked in an appropriate manner and wherein the child could understand the questions. I am not surprised this 8 year old girl contradicted herself and even the judge pointed out to the court this girl's answers eventually became a litany of 'yes, yes and yes' to every question the defence counsel levied at her. Clearly the child was mentally worn out by such intense cross examination and this is how adult female rape survivors are also routinely subjected to when they have to endure defence counsel questioning.
But perhaps the crime of rape should be down-graded to a less serious crime since the vast majority of rapes continue to be committed by males against females and hence it is never as serious as male on male sexual violence.
Complain about this comment
Surely the only legal question is was she coerced in any way? If she was its a criminal matter, and most if not all the ten year olds I've ever met would know the rights and wrongs of that one.
If she wasn't, well you still have a problem to deal with but its not really a legal one is it?
Complain about this comment
Pre-pubescent fumblings of children? This is not the sort of phrases that I expect to come out of any intelligent and responsible adult? When does the term 'fumblings' become unacceptable or indeed unlawful behaviour? Try telling an adult that her attempted rape is only a fumbling gone to far? What is the difference between the unwillingness of a young girl to participate in these boys' playful activities to a woman's unwillingness to participate in full sex? The only difference is that these young boys were too physically immature to do any actual raping.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps before condemning the CPS we should ask how it became aware of this incident. Did the little girl herself call in the police, or was the juggernaut started off by an adult who should now be asked to explain their actions?
Complain about this comment
Who decided it was in the the public interest? By what right was that decision made? Did the judge have any choice in the matter?
Complain about this comment
Public Interest?
Surely, at the outset there was a personal interest, that of an eight year old girl. Where things fell apart is anyone's guess, and we can say that the girl's interests were neither looked after nor balanced against those of the ten year old boys. In fact we could and should say that this trial echoes in many and several ways the inappropriateness of rape investigation and judicial disposition at adult level.
It is wholly acceptable to protect anyone, male or female, young or old, from unwanted sexual interference however severe in nature, but, in cases where there is a clear ambiguity within an investigation, surely the law enforcement and attorney agencies must use some common sense before pursuing a costly and counter productive trial.
All we seem to be doing right now is putting "potential rape situations" on trial and that is not what the law is required to regulate.
Complain about this comment
I am struggling to get my head around how young boys of 10 can be thought capable of rape. I also struggle to understand how or why they could have the sexual knowledge at such a tender age to even attempt the act of rape. All children experiment out of pure curiosity, but to think that boys of 10 would know how to perform sexual intercourse concerns me greatly. It is of course impossible for me to know what they attempted to do to the little girl, but the fact that a jury was convinced enough to find them guilty of attempted rape is incredible. Surely society is at fault here for giving them too much knowledge at too young an age?
Complain about this comment
Me again.
I cannot believe that the "public interest" or "common good" has been served by crimilising( using the mighty power of the state against) two children sexualy exploring another regardless of the genders involved. I would have thought this could have been better served by educational intervention. It would seem that many now assume that only full blown crown court action can address the actions of a child. Surely public interest decisions are the realms of polititions who should ensure that decisions made by the judicial and police enforcement services are purely based on legal grounds ( common or statute ) and not interpreting what is best for the people.
Complain about this comment
Difficult to blame the CPS, they are doing what parliament and thus the people told them to do.
For quite some time now, since about the mid 80's, a meme about children and sex has grown and grown; "Children should not do sex, any sex is automatically traumatic and will damage them anyone who disagrees is a sick pedo f and should be executed in a slow painful way etc etc"
Also we have seen the rise of overzealous H&S destroy nearly all playgrounds and curtail school outings & the like.
No we may mock and despise those who practice law but we must remember that is what the majority of us felt the law should do.
We want to punish other people's "ferrel" brats who do anti-social things but we also want our special Princess protected; so we have 10yo criminally responsible and a pencil sketch of any one below 18yo private parts (let alone TOUCHING) will put you on the sex offenders register, which kind of defeats the object of the exercise: to give you a heads up about someone with a real problem, not someone with bad luck
Complain about this comment
I wonder how many of the respondents whose comments are along the lines of 'poor little boys' were themselves subjected to forcible sexual abuse by an older child when they were children? I was, and the psychological damage caused was massive and had huge repercussions. If you're being attacked, the last thing that matters to you is the age of your attacker, the crime against you is the same, you are being hurt, you are being terrified, you are being damaged. Yes, of course the age of the boys should be taken into account, but by the judge, when sentencing, not by the CPS nor by the jury.
Complain about this comment
God help this country if we're down the road of putting silly little boys on the Sex Offenders' Register. There should be (and there seems to be building) such a terrible public outcry against this action by the CPS, the judge and indeed the ignorant mother of the girl, an outcry of anger at the dreadful extremes of the nanny state, at the twisted logic Pontius Pilating of the judge, at the smug self-righteous self-justification of the CPS.
How pleased all these must be to have ruined the lives of two little boys and their families. These agencies disgust me - fearful bullies and incompetents.
Complain about this comment
"Where's my comment?All new members are pre-moderated initially, which means that there will be a short delay between when you post your comment and when it appears while one of our moderators checks it"
Excuse me, but I have been a member for years, so why the moderation???
Complain about this comment
Im glad these boys are getting punished for what they done. As a child, I went through a similar experience. The boy who was involved received no punishment.The people who knew about it never went to the authorities because they were ashamed and embarrassed. Growing up I put it out of mind, but it has started to have a big impact on my life. Im still not ready to admit what has happened. I admire this young girl for coming forward and hope she receives all the help and support she needs.
Complain about this comment
As a lawyer, albeit not one who practises criminal law, I never cease to be amazed by the decisions taken by the CPS on whether to prosecute someone or not. The decision firstly to prosecute these two young boys and secondly to try them in an adult court let alone the Old Bailey must go down as one of the most incorrect decisions ever made by the CPS, especially with the benefit of hindsight and having heard all of the evidence. Of course they were convicted of an offence so of course the CPS wil say that of itself is sufficient to justify their decision. I beg to differ.
The alleged victim admitted that she had made the whole thing up so why then did the jury feel it should convict? I'm certainly no expert on what gives a convicted criminal grounds to appeal against a conviction but it certainly isn't enough not to agree with the jury's decision. I would think that any grounds for appeal will lie with arguments on points of law about whether the judge was right to allow certain evidence in or whether he misdirected the jury in any way.
I'm not sure I understand the comments above regarding the alleged difference between male against female aggression and male against male aggression. The law certainly doesn't distinguish between the two.
Complain about this comment
I can only assume that this case was of a much more serious nature than has been reported publicly. However, I worry more generally about the trend for judging children's behaviour by adult criminal or psychological standards. Playground dust-ups become 'assault'. Name-calling becomes 'verbal abuse'. Run of the mill truculence becomes 'authority issues' and a long list of various 'disorders'. My concern is that we lose sight of what is normal and that we end up trying to deal with childhood either through the courts or a therapist.
Complain about this comment
Is it right the victims of these tiny predators suffer as well? What kind of sick minor rapes at age 10, 11, 12, or at all. If it were truancy, the parents would be brought in on neglect charges. If a child so young is already this sexually violent and deviant, what of the parents? Gangs of kids don't 'play doctors and nurses'. Pack behavior is not a 'game'- it is the product of terrible parenting and no supervision. Who is so foolish to believe that good children experimenting with their bodies and fundamentally bad and sick children who need mental help and supervision because of knows what they themselves were subjected to, are lumped in the same bin? The crown prosecution of the latter is right and the only injustice id the parents are not punished as well.
Complain about this comment
15. At 11:51am on 25 May 2010, sarah wrote:
Also, the perpetrators weren't much older than those whom attacked Jamie Bulger, but the media has no problem in demonising them. Whilst I will say that the two crimes are very different, in one way they are comparable. The children were too young to be fully aware of the consequences of their actions, but a victim suffered due to their actions in terrible ways. Surely, we shouldn't demonise one pair and pity the other?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The thing is the girl wasn't raped (hence why they weren't convicted of rape).
They were convicted of attempted rape because the Law doesn't recognise what went on as anything else (even if pretty much every one else does).
If there'd been clear and compelling evidence that the two boys had actually dragged the girl off and forced her into sexual interaction then, yes, there might have been a rape conviction (and probably rightly).
But from the evidence heard (from the girl herself in fact) it seems it was actually consensual activity that purely by a technicality in the Law is deemed "attempted rape".
So it's NOT like the Bulger case, it's more like some children getting into a fight and one then being convicted of attempted murder just because the Law can't recognise anything less.
Which is barmy, frankly.
Complain about this comment
Did the rape trial serve the public interest?
If you're a parent of any young girl child in the same town, then quite frankly yes. You have to bear in mind that one of the responsibilies of the justice system is to protect the public, including 8 year old girls. I hope that the boys take responsibility for what they did and realise that it's wrong, whatever it takes to achieve that will be for their good too.
Complain about this comment
"Few other Western nations would even consider prosecuting a 10-year-old for any crime, never mind statutory rape."
Once again the BBC spurting a load of ridiculous nonsence with "biased" written all over the article. Taking the quote above, I so hope the BBC didn't use this line back in 1990, replacing Statutory Rape with the Murder of James Bulger. Some children can be evil sinister creatures, that's the fact. To let kids get away with murder (in the literal sense) is one of the many many reasons this country is so dysfunctional in this day and age.
Complain about this comment
With my own children, close in age to the children involved in this case I like a few posters am disappointed by the press take on the case.
If as was mentioned by the Daily Telegraph's, columnist Philip Johnston this was "the pre-pubescent fumblings of children" would this really have gone to trial and convictions obtained?
The parents of the victim have had to deal with the effects of this assault (as determined by the jury) on their young daughter. She will also have to cope with this for the rest of her life.
The process of the trial in an adult court is troubling for ALL involved but as a mother I find the lack of concern for the young victim the most worrying.
With regard to the convicted boys, I believe they should be given the chance to remove their name from the sex offender's registrar if they remain no threat once they are over 25 for example & have been out of trouble. In addition their sentence should reflect that they were young at the time of the offensive.
However we must remember that sufficient evidence was produced for a conviction. As noted by jon112uk in No. 19 if we don't bring it to trial how do you deal with such offenders.
Complain about this comment
Annamiribilis
Are you suggesting that this should have been basically ignored as being 'children being children finding out about the world' because that's how it sounds in your post. That and the excuse that has been used for men since time began 'the way she was dressed, she was asking for it'. Whilst I don't agree with the way kids, particularly girls, are dressed these days that cannot and should not be used as an excuse. We've seen over the last 36 hours a shift in attitude from feeling outraged that this little girl was subjected to this attack to the perpetrators being portrayed as victims.
They do need help to understand that they can't get away with anything they want to do but I do not believe they were unaware of what they were doing or that it was wrong. Left without some sort of punishment for their behaviour we are storing up more trouble for the future.
Complain about this comment
This has been an absolute nightmre for all involved. Children playing a 'naughty'game get treated like monsters!
How this case ever got to the Old Bailey is a real mystery.
There was no medical evidence of rape so the jury have to drop that charge ( well how the hell did the children get charged with it in the first place?)
Why did the boys not get a chance to tell their side?
If the boys were even considered by authorities and police as a sexual threat why were they allowed home?
This all smacks of stupidity by police and the crown prosecution service?
All three children have had their lives ruined, two of them have been labelled for life and both families have been destroyed by a bunch of idiots.
The whole case needs to be looked into again
This case did not serve anybodys interest. It just destroyed the majority of the publics belief in the police and prosecution service and made this country a laughing stock
Complain about this comment
In order to know the rights and wrongs of this case one would have had to have sat through the proceedings. I had serious concearns about the reporting of this case from the start, it seemed to me, regardless of the outcome, that in was not in the best interests of any of the children for the case to be so widely reported. The media should have waited till the trial was over and they knew the judgement before reporting it, only then could one hope to accurately assess whether it was in the public interest to report it and what line to take. As it is, the outcome, as can be seen from the comments above is still not entirely clearcut, though it could certainly be argued that some reporting is now appropriate as it has has highlighted a need to review how such cases are handled.
Complain about this comment
People who are saying the alleged actions of these boys is just some minor thing - playing doctors and nurses - need to have a look at the definition of rape in the sexual offences act 2003
Exposing themselves or touching a little girl is not rape. Rape of a child under 13 is 'intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis' (and that person is under 13)
To bring a charge of rape the CPS had enough evidence to believe they had a more than even chance of proving there was penetrative sex. That was the allegation, subsequently not considered proven by a jury.
Penetrative sex with a girl of eight, particularly when she is not willing, is NOT a minor thing. That does not change, regardless of who is alleged to have done it.
Complain about this comment
Whoever decided to prosecute or not was damned if they did or damned if they didn't. The Media would have whipped up so much of an uproar if hadn't gone to court. But they will have a field day all the same finding someone to blame, such is the pressure of the media on our lives now.
Personally I think it is a sad reflection of our time that kids this age aren't properly supervised and have that much of a interest in sex. This is the problem to be sorted out. Maybe taking more interest in what your kids are doing by the parents might prevent some of these cases developing in the first place.
Complain about this comment
Do I understand correctly that in case the girl had particiapted willfully in this fumbling, she could also have been convicted for attempted rape of the two boys and would have been put on sex offenders' register? Would not that show how absurd this trial has been?
Complain about this comment
Things like this have happened for just how long? Normally involving someone we know, a contemporary, a family member, one of our peer group, someone we think is in a position of trust. The damage that may or may not be done depends on the particular circumstances of the offence, and yet, it would seem, we are determined to have "black and white" and no shades of grey anywhere, as long as sex is the subject.
That is sad, and echoes a blame ridden society which has forgotten that forgiving is the biggest way to promote healing there is. Tackle those who rape seriously and dangerously but please remember where to draw a line in the sand.
Complain about this comment
I feel really angry about this injustice.
Whatever these two small boys did (and let's face it nobody really knows do they) they certainly did not deserve to be tried for rape or put on the sex offenders register before they've even reached pubity.
I also feel sorry for the little girl but more for the ordeal of the trial she had to face than whatever the boys did.
This needs to be challenged and reversed as quickly as possible but really the only remedy would be for it not to have come to court in the first place.
Complain about this comment
I've followed this case and I must say I'm still not 100% certain of the facts - is anyone? Most of the comments in this thread seem to fall into two camps: 1) those who believe the boys really did do something pretty awful - i.e. in the words reported (on sky.com) to have been used by the girl, they 'put their thingies in me', and 2) those who think this was 'fumbling', juvenile sexual exploration, 'Doctors and Nurses'.
I don't share the views of those who seem to think that, just because they were 10, the boys must somehow be incapable of anything harmful - that they couldn't have understood what they were doing. Unfortunately there are some quite vile 10-year-olds around, and there always have been. The physical act of rape is possible at that age and there are some families in which no boundary is kept between the adult and child worlds, so that children see graphic sexual scenes on video and internet, perhaps even in front of them; some horrible kids are quite capable of re-enacting such scenes with themselves in the 'starring' roles.
Despite this, I don't believe this has been dealt with properly. I can't see how a jury could have been sure about what happened - but I wasn't there and the reporting has been, as usual, fragmentary. Even assuming the worst - that a sex act was attempted or even happened - is this the best way to deal with it for the victim? With the vast majority of crimes, the harm done is obvious. But we must ask, how much can an 8-year-old girl understand about a sexual act? It is no small matter - but one of the consequences of taking it as far as an Old Bailey trial must be to have removed the whole episode forever from any realm in which it could have been dealt with as an act - a nasty and unpleasant act, to be sure - by two bad children against another child. The legal process - courtroom, cross-examination and all, must have made it impossible for her parents to explain what has happened to her in terms that an eight-year-old, in an eight-year-old world, could understand.
You might say, no, the boys did that when they attempted to rape her - and I'd agree with you, but our responsibilities as adults don't stop with the prosecution of the guilty; the welfare of the victim is paramount and we must ask ourselves whether the fact that a little girl's mind, inclined as it was to explain this to herself and others as a matter of naughtiness and horridness and loss of sweeties, must now grapple with some very adult facts indeed, is a price worth paying for the public purposes behind punishing her assailants.
Should this have been dealt with differently? Yes; it should not have gone further than the local police station. For the girl's sake, this should not have got as big as it did. Would that mean the boys getting away with less punishment than they deserved? Yes. And is that a price worth paying for the chance to preserve the integrity of a little girl's world? We're not talking total innocence here, just a manageable magnitude of goodness and badness that allows her to encompass what has happened and get on with her 8-year-old girl's life instead of, perhaps, being utterly swamped and frightened by it?
Yes, in my opinion that would be a price worth paying. We say we value children's innocence; that is why sexual crimes against them are so vile. But if we truly value it we must promote it to the very top of our priorities. There are very few things more important than justice, but kindness is one. Nothing matters more than children surviving.
Complain about this comment
Why is it that so often people jump to the conclusion that a victim of rape somehow should hold responsibility for their terrible ordeal? I find Easton's speculation over whether or not the young girl "encouraged or participated" in these violations disappointing and symptomatic of a general attitude to rape which misunderstands its true nature. Sexual violence in any form, inflicted upon a resisting and unwilling partner, cannot seriously be considered as in ANY WAY comparable with mutual sexual acts. Further, I firmly believe that individuals of any age are aware that these violations are instinctively wrong - minor or not.
Complain about this comment
So, - we now have 3 permanently traumatised kids instead of 2 sensibly ticked off kids.
The families are traumatised.
So you can bet they'll be back again, as their priorly blameless lives contine to be raked over.
The public has been ripped off to pay for this circus.
The Justice System presents as scavenging asinine torturers.
The Crown Prosecutor, Alison Saunders, is obviously going into politics.
Brutal self serving aggrandisement all round.
Complain about this comment
How would children, minus any adult influence at all, have dealt with this in "playground rule"? Would that have been supremely effective in keeping the whole incident in some sort of perspective?
Even the judge struggled with this trial. Sometimes adults just don't get it do they?
Complain about this comment
#52 foryouandme
I agree in a small part with what you write in that "sexual violence" does need to be dealt with if only to deter those who may otherwise offend. The problem, as I perceive it, is that we do not have a great grip on what "sexual violence" is unless, for example, a serial rapist is involved.
In this "trial" even the judge struggled to comprehend what a very young girl was trying to express, whether she was being lead by counsel (on both sides), by her fear of being seen to be "naughty", or simply because she was overwhelmed by a situation that could, and should, have been avoided at all cost. Whether or not this was a clear situation of "sexual violence" is clearly subjective and not objective, given how painful the whole process was for all involved, and it appears that the jury, whilst not wishing to cast all doubt aside, came to a "half way" conclusion.
It is for the CPS and all others involved to determine whether arriving at "half way" indicates that there will a second half nobody wants played out.
Complain about this comment
It's very strange. I agree with this statement,
"Surely the only legal question is was she coerced in any way? If she was its a criminal matter, and most if not all the ten year olds I've ever met would know the rights and wrongs of that one.
If she wasn't, well you still have a problem to deal with but its not really a legal(criminal) one is it?"
One would need to study the court case or ideally have been in court to really have an opinion. Just guessing what may of been said or lied is kinda stupid. I certainly remember that the defendants had been accused of trying to find somewhere private which would suggest coercion. But the age of the children especially the victim make it all very impossible to really know.
I wouldn't put them on the sex register and I hope they appeal. However if in 3 years down the line one of the accused ends up in court on similar or worse charges the media would go mad and lynch the justice system anyway. So unfortuantely it's a lose lose situation.
Underlying problems must have been a reason for the case been taken to court be it from any of the children involved having a troubled family life. Particularly unfair if this is case.
Complain about this comment
As a parent I do have a problem with a word in Mark Easton's piece?
.. 'Yesterday two more (small) boys were found not guilty'.
Why would Mark Easton add his 'small' not on the court record? Very disappointing.
Complain about this comment
Many families saw this case unfold via - media/publicity operating while this horrendous case was on trial?
The whole so-called justice system/CPS and judges live in a bubble; along with Ministry of Justice, police, social workers and parents too?
The whole issue of 'child on child' crime has to be reviewed as our children are 'exposed' to so much crap on the internet and certain satellite channels too?
It takes, today, more effort to protect, educate and care for our children. But parents, grandparents, step-parents must look at every aspect of security of their computers too?
There are many free programs to block harm and avoid harm to you and your family? Sadly, too many parents are too uninformed/stupid to protect themselves from internet harm? Grow up everyone - whether you have children or not!!!!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Ludicrous. Preposerous. When will it be that we commit ourselves to protect ALL of the children?
Complain about this comment
I am deeply troubled by the actions of the Chief Crown Prosecutor, Ms Alison Saunders, especially in light of the remarks by the DPP last year. You have to ask whose interest she was serving, for it seems from reading reports from the trial that the evidence was scant at best, and downright unreliable at worst.
The accused children were 10 - is Ms Saunders really trying to say that the boys had a clear and unequivocal understanding of the crime of statutory rape. In all probablity the boys knew they were misbehaving, and not in a trivial way, but rape! Are we now to criminalise all boys who engage in prepubescent "show and tell". Surely, a charge of sexual assault is relevant in such circumstances, probably more pertinent, and easier to prove. Can we now expect a crackdown by police on any and all such activity in future, with the full weight of the justice system brought to bear on each and every offender? What about a girl who engages in such a practise with another girl? What if a there is a gender mix and the girl is older than the boy?
Why bring a criminal charge against children that at its core assumes the defendants have a full and untrammeled understanding of the crime from an adult perspective, and yet allow evidence from a child whose testimony, if given by an adult, would have resulted in the trial being abandoned. Can justice be seen to be done in such circumstances - a hallmark, we as a nation, like to believe our system has at its core.
Ms Saunders needs to be more explicit in her explanation of what she hoped to genuinely achieve. Certainly I saw no benefit to the 8 year old girl, and the boys names on the sex offenders register sounds the death knell for their future lives - blighted at ten does not seem like an equitable outcome for justice.
In the realm of one rule for all, one wonders when Ms Saunders will decide what actions, if any, will be taken over the death of Ian Tomlinson last year during the G20 protests. The delay, in my opinion, is wholly unreasonable and does not serve the public interest. The action taken in these two cases (or not as yet in the latter) point to glaring inconsistencies in the due process and execution of justice by the CPS. That, in my opinion, is the real problem, and it is not acceptable.
Complain about this comment
I could not agree with you more Mark; this case is clearly not in the public interest, neither is it in the "victims" or the other two childrens best current or future interest.
Just what has been gained by this prosecution and conviction?
How has it made anybody's life better?
Is this court case, in some perverted way... supposed to make up for all the occasions when agencies have failed to intervene and children have been abused or killed?
Complain about this comment
I think this case was perfectly fine to go through and that the fact it went to court actually is a bonus.
Having being raped myself when I was 15 and only feeling confident enough to go to the police last Oct to report it and the whole police process and CPS taking just about 7-8 months to go through, and the CPS continually pushing the dates back while they decide what to do. Only recently have I found out that it will not be going to court because they don't think there is any point as they feel that they won't win because they feel a jury is mor likely to be convinced by the defendent, who was at the time a 30 year old man, than a 15 year old girl.
It is actually a rarity that rape cases go to court and even rarer that they defendents are found guilty. Out of the huge amount of rapes that are actually reported, which is said a small proportion of actual rapes commited, only a tiny percentage go to court, and even a smaller percentage of that go on to be convicted.
Also including the way in which the media reports all these the government really need to start looking at how they can protect and look after the victims and survivors of rape and start bringing the conviction rates up alot more!
I do not feel sorry for these boys in the slightest, as one person has commented before, what they might have to 'deal with' for the rest of their lives is nothing compared to what the girl will endure the rest of her life. And as for being proposterous, we see little kids at age 10-11 with knives out and being in gangs etc, so I cannot see how these are 'poor little boys' when so many children now-a-days are desexualised and decensitized.
Complain about this comment
Can I please make the point that the role of the Police changed significantly over 20 years ago. There was a time when the Police would gather the evidence and then also directly prosecute (or assist in the prosecution) of the suspect. However, with the creation of the Crown Prosecution Service and indeed some more recent significant law changes, the role of the Police was drastically changed and indeed, some might say, diminished. So, to the person that says 'shame on the Police, I would say the following, if you made a complaint to the Police of a similar sexual nature, would you expect the Police to investigate or ignore? These days, the Police act as impartial evidence gatherers, their sole aim is to put the facts before the Crown Prosecution Service, and it is for the CPS to decide whether or not the case is prosecuted. Believe me when I say that there are many, many occasions when the investigating Police Officers would dearly like to see a suspect prosecuted, only for this to be declined by the CPS. So, it's not 'shame on the Police', but well done to those investigating officers for gathering sufficient evidence to enable the CPS to prosecute. And we all know that the CPS will only prosecute when a conviction seem all but certain...
Complain about this comment
Of course prosecution was the right decision. These two boys were NOT playing 'doctors and nurses' or whatever. They attempted to RAPE a little girl. The future demands their supervision and re education as to appropriate behaviour in our society.
Maybe if people in authority were less 'PC' and more cynical of inappropriate behaviour, these boys may have been stopped before it got this far.
in light
supajohnny
Complain about this comment
If a girl under 13 can not give consent "because she is too young to give it" persuably becasue she is too young to understand the implications or consequences of her actions, how can a boy under 13 be any better able to be understand the implications of their actions, or for-see the consequences.
Complain about this comment
What happened to 'beyond reasonable doubt'?
It is possible that the boys knew what they were doing, possible but very unlikely that they were physically capable of rape. We will never know what actually happened. Regardless, there were no witnesses and the girl changed her story. Surely if the story went from 'they put their thingies in me' to 'I was naughty and wanted sweets', that provides reasonable doubt and the boys should not have been convicted. An adult trial, the outcome of which seems to have ignored adult rules.
Complain about this comment
I have little faith in the judiciary or the process that bought these BOYS to court. I wonder how many children of that age never played doctors and nurses. To be criminalized at such a young age does not serve society or the public good. To be labbled now at such a young age will tarnish these boys for ever.
It beggers belief that this is the judicial system we have when it is not seen to be looking long term at both the victim and the assiliant? Whilst we do this no amount of money can rescue society of its ills.
Are there no individuals who understand the development process of children, the influence that parenting has who could have spoken out against this trial. What must have been an unpleasant experience for the young girl is now ingrained in memory because we made such a big deal of it. I wonder in time If this unpleasant experience (if thats what it was to her) could posibly have been so ingrained as not to stain her future or that ofthese boys.
Complain about this comment
If we are to believe the accounts of the evidence that were reported in the media - There was:
NO abduction,
NO force,
NO sexual activity,
Just three small children playing 'Doctors and Nurses'
So as a result of this case we have three traumatized children, two of whom are now classed as criminals and branded as 'Sex offenders' for the rest of their lives.
Can anyone believe that justice was REALLY done?
Complain about this comment
I've looked back at all the press reports of what was said by whom and to whom. The only explicit quote I can find that even suggests these boys may have raped the girl, is her mum's statement to that effect. No statement from the girl herself, confirming it, has been reported.
To all intents and purposes, it looks like she didn't "lie" to the police or even to the court; rather it was the adults working hell for leather to prosecute these two boys and apparently even ignoring their own witness in the pursuit of that end, who may have been playing fast and loose with the facts in order to satisfy a political or ideological assumption.
Over ninety children were wrongly removed from their parents in the 1980s, in one massive scandal where it was later found that the investigative processes were all deeply flawed, and centred around an erroneous assumption by a maverick paediatrician which was treated as though it were unimpeachable fact.
We've just had, this week, a doctor struck off for making assumptions about MMR. For the better part of a decade, people believed him implicitly even though he has failed to provide any credible evidence to support his assumption.
If a charge fails to convince a court, there's no point blaming the witnesses or the defendants or the judge, or even the jury for it.
It's not their fault.
But we do need to know, as a society, that the prosecution case was brought on good faith and because the evidence merited it and because it was in the public interest - not because someone very early on made an assumption and everybody else followed it.
Complain about this comment
You have to believe that the CPS isn't just stupid, and that they considered the appropriateness of the charge before trial proceedings began. For them to have proceeded with a trial must mean that there was much more to it than a game of 'doctors and nurses'. I am appalled and ashamed at the way the media and some people have rushed to defend the actions of the two little boys, sparing not a single thought for the poor girl who actually had to suffer this sexual assault. Does anyone of these people even consider how this could affect her in later life? Of course not. It doesn't matter, does it? Someone above has suggested the boys deserved a 'ticking off'. Others have suggested that it was simply a childish game. I disagree. It is a sad society where we have so little respect for our women and girls that we condone their sexualisation and abuse. We have even engineered our society to encourage girls to become more willing to participate in sex - with no strings that might inconvenience men. Our music objectifies them, our media objectifies them, and we encourage them to become more sexualised all the time. Of course we do. It suits us men to have women willing to have sex without wanting anything like commitment in return. Marriage? No thanks, just the sex! Children? OK, it gives me macho points, but don't expect me to help in any way! And women are encouraged to behave like this all the time. Then they are blamed and the men escape it all. Unbelievable. Is it any wonder that young boys become infected by this, and see women as sexualised objects at younger and younger ages? And our legal system has always been stacked against women. Until we learn some respect for women as fellow human beings, we will be faced with an increasing number of incidents such as this. I am glad that the CPS has taken this decision, but expect it to be overturned by a biased judiciary. After all, we can't stop 'boys being boys', can we?
Complain about this comment
"Chief Crown Prosecutor, Alison Saunders, stood outside the court yesterday afternoon to justify putting the boys and their eight-year-old victim through the ordeal of a full trial."
Is this the same Alison Saunders who glowed in the publicity of the Barry George conviction with "the conviction showed that circumstantial evidence taken together could, despite common misconceptions, be used to build a strong case." Which in layman's terms means it's possible to nail any poor sod without evidence, if you can confuse the jury sufficiently and find a picture of Jill Dando in a Radio Times, amongst 100's of of other years old publications strewn about the house.
What is this woman still doing in employment?
Complain about this comment
LippyLippo wrote:
You have to believe that the CPS isn't just stupid, and that they considered the appropriateness of the charge before trial proceedings began. For them to have proceeded with a trial must mean that there was much more to it than a game of 'doctors and nurses'.
.........................................................................
This is the same Alison Saunders, who after the conviction of Barry George for the murder of Jill Dando, quoted:
Alison Saunders, a crown prosecution service lawyer who led the work of the prosecution team, said the conviction showed that circumstantial evidence taken together could, despite common misconceptions, be used to build a strong case. "Many people believe that circumstantial evidence is not as valuable as direct evidence, such as forensic evidence. But in this case, each bit of circumstantial evidence was like a piece of a jigsaw, which fitted together to build up the complete and compelling picture."
These bits of the jigsaw being that he lived within 1/2 mile and was identified clearing a windscreen in the middle of the road several hours previously. The fact he had never driven a car or considered a license, along with the 1 of 4 identification being 6 months down the line, did not seem to matter. There was no need to shave the edges of these jigsaw pieces or use a hammer to get them to fit, because they were just dangling in fresh air!
Complain about this comment
A number of posts seem to believe that because the CPS brought a charge of rape against two 10 year old boys, it must be true, irrespective of the fact that there was a distinct lack of evidence at trial to back it up. The feeling would appear to follow the line of belief that the CPS would not commit its precious resources to a prosecution unless they were sure of their facts - ergo, the boys must be guilty. I don't believe the CPS is worthy of such blind faith in their methods, or their intentions and motivations. As commented elsewhere, Ms Saunders would appear to have made other mistakes in the past where the basis of her judgement has been notably called in to question.
The endless repetition of an allegation does not, in and of itself, make it unassailably true - either by the CPS, or those who have posted elsewhere who conflate allegation with fact. Such reasoning belongs in the same court as "there is no smoke without fire". Since when has this been the way justice is prosecuted in this country?
Nothing in this trial has served the real issues faced by women (and girls) when dealing with the genuine evil of sexual assault and rape. Further: (a) claiming that the age of criminal resposibility is not low enough; (b) that a significant number of children are feral (if not entirely evil) and capable of commiting the most appalling crimes at will and without a scintilla of conscience; (c) and are not being punished harshly enough, harks back to the Dickensian era of justice where capital punishment applied to the most minor of offences (see the preface to Barnaby Rudge for a true account of baraborous nature of our judicial system of old). Children are the product of the society around them, and the adults closest to them - it is here ones needs to start to search for reasons, before looking for answers - especially those that rely rely on the time honoured knee jerk solution of "hang 'em, and flog 'em".
Justice should be about redemption, not retribution, otherwise we make ourselves no better than those we are told we should revile. That does not mean that criminal behaviour should be tolerated in the slightest, but neither should it result in an almost animalistic cry for blood.
Complain about this comment
Squible re #64:
"Only recently have I found out that it will not be going to court because they don't think there is any point as they feel that they won't win because they feel a jury is mor likely to be convinced by the defendent, who was at the time a 30 year old man, than a 15 year old girl."
I don't think there's anybody in the land who wouldn't feel exactly the same as you if they'd been a victim of ANY crime and found out the police did all they could but the CPS wouldn't take it further.
However, the problem is still that the police must take every complaint at face value, but no matter what the complaint is, if it is the sort of case that goes to a court and is put before a judge and jury, the only certainties are:
1. The prosecution team has to PROVE the case against the defendant
2. The defence team has to CAST DOUBT on the prosecution's account
This imbalance exists because of the presumption of innocence.
If a prosecution team do not have a cast that's so strong the defence team cannot pull it to pieces, what's a jury to do? They are instructed, when sworn in, to consider ONLY the evidence given in the courtroom.
Some people think the burden of proof should be reversed. Consider though, this case shows what happens given that we already in effect do exactly that for boys between the ages of 10 and 12.
It's an anomaly in our legal system, that boys between the ages of 10 and 12 are legally capable of rape at the same time that they're deemed both physically and mentally incapable of having consensual sex. It's a bit of a contradiction, but then the law is riddled with contradictions, that's why it's so complicated.
If you think the girl was bamboozled in the dock, what of a boy in that age bracket who's reported by an angry parent of a serious sexual offence against their daughter, and is told by the interviewer, "just tell us the truth and it'll be okay" and thinking it's all been a misunderstanding replies, "me and my girlfriend were just fooling about".
The way the law stands, right now, that response, however honest, is an admission of guilt of a serious sex offence, in all but name. If the girl says exactly the same as him when she's questioned all she does is validate his "confession".
Should it go to court, the prosecution just ticks four boxes: boy older than 10, girl younger than 12, boy and girl were fooling about, therefore boy is guilty of sexually assaulting a minor. Mitigating factors: None. Conclusion: Guilty.
Take a look at the sexual offences conviction rates for boys in this age bracket, it's higher than the conviction rates in the situation you found yourself in. But that's because (a) the boys are encouraged in effect to convict themselves, (b) they're no more capable of understanding they're being bamboozled into confessing any more than a victim of the same age is capable of understanding how cross-examination by a defence attorney can undermine their evidence.
The final perversity is when you have two people of similar ages, in a relationship, having sexual contact, a third party alleges one raped the other.
For anybody over 16 in this position the specific events that took place are vital to the prosecution and if the alleged victim says "no I wasn't raped" then case closed.
For an eleven year old boy and girl in the exact same position, their opinions are irrelevant; conviction's a matter of ticking boxes.
Complain about this comment
When I was about 8, a 9 year old girl from a few doors down, wanted to play "Doctors & Nurses" with me. The play took on a direction that was aggressively sexual. So much so that I got scared and ran away. I was mocked for months after, but then we moved away and the incident was forgotten about. 40 years later, I'm wondering what would happen if that had occured today. Would I be on a Sex Offenders Register? Possibly. Would she be on a Sex Offenders Register? (Unlikely, as I suspect my version of events would be disbelieved, certainly by the CPS).
I thank my lucky stars I'm not a child in today's world.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The charge of rape in itself in this case is very difficult to understand. If you go by the text book example, all is very simple. But how do you differentiate between rape and bullying with a 10 year old? When there is no sexual motive but a fascination for the unknown, fuelled by glimpses and rumours from the adult world? After speaking to several middle aged men, we all had some form of "sexual" experience in our very early years. None had any real clue what they were doing and most importantly, gained no sensual benefit from the whole thing, apart from doing something that was pretty much accepted as wrong, although not totally defined as such.
One thing I feel we have got totally unbalanced is the distinction between rape and violence. Where in cases, severe violence can have equal or greater trauma than rape. I am not advocating sentencing for rape to be lighter, but greater parity in the two crimes.
This then leads back to these two boys, if they gained sexual pleasure from this experience, then rape is possibly correct. Otherwise they are just bullies and should be treated as such. But nowhere have I seen any proof that sexual gratification was established, rendering the crime of rape totally meaningless without the motive.
Complain about this comment
Well it obvious Philip Johnson, Mark Euston and many of the posters here sat through the whole trial. The jury was obviously stupid and had no common sense. What does it matter that two boys, small boys that is, attempted to rape an eight year old girl. Oh! I'm sorry that should read pre-pubescent fumbling of an eight year old girl. Similar to the Jamie Bulger case really a game of bullying with pre-pubescent fumbling that got slightly out-of-hand. But did the trial of Thompson and Venables serve the public interest? Obviously not.
Complain about this comment
The public interest is served by having laws that apply equally to everyone. Not allowing politicians to pick and choose how people get treated based on what the press is reporting from day to day.
So - from one point of view - this trial did serve the public interest. If you are going to set the age of criminal responsibility to a ludicrously low age, then you have no choice but to put people above that age on trial when their crimes are so serious you can't deal with them any other way. (And I think, regardless of where you stand on this specific trial, most people agree rape is a serious offence). If there was enough evidence to try them, then the two boys had to be tried as adults, had to be punished as adults and had to be treated as adults throughout the process.
But that is all predicated on the age of criminal responsibility being set at the right age, and I don't believe it is. And it hasn't been for a long while.
The simple fact that a number of experts say that a child of ten could not have fully understood what was going on in the court room suggests that 10 years old is too young to try someone as an adult. We don't let ten year olds drive, get married, vote, enlist or do anything else you associate with adulthood, and yet somehow the legal system assumes that a child of ten is as fully conscious of the rightness, wrongness and consequences of their actions as someone twice or three times their age.
If the two boys had been nine, they would have been dealt with in an entirely different way. So why does a few weeks here or there suddenly mean they have the wit and wisdom to be treated as adults?
Treating children as adults undermines the justice system, and makes those in power either look like monsters for tormenting children or idiots for not knowing any better. And neither of those can be in the public interest. But until the age is changed to one more sensible, I don't see the situation changing, and trials like this will keep happening, regardless of whether they are a good thing or not.
Complain about this comment
What a country we live in! Where two young boys are damned for life for doing something wrong, where a young girl of 8 will also be stigmatised and damaged throughout her life, and where a millionare politician can screw the system of a £1000 a month for years and a benefit cheat goes to jail.We are the seat of justice, supposed to be, where is the justice in these cases. Why could those three children not have had counselling, are we reverting to the victorian age where justice was only for the rich, Shame on us all,Shame on us the British people.
Complain about this comment
Very very sad that these boys had to go through this especially, as some have already said, the girls testimony kept changing.
The overall trauma of the trial for all of them will be the reason this whole episode scars them for life - not their actual actions which probably would have forgotten.
Yes some children are way beyond their years and have an understanding of what they are doing is very wrong, take the Bulger killers, yet many are not.
What i would like to know though, if the boys had done the accusing of the girl, would anyone have been in the least bit interested in prosecuting her? I doubt it.
Complain about this comment
@ marthajane #82.
Well said, couldn't agree more.
Complain about this comment
I would like to ask all of you who appear to come down on the side of the perpetrators of this obvious crime, 'How you would feel if this little girl was your daughter?' I don't believe you would be so outraged at the court case, or by the decision that the jury arrived at.
I find myself thinking about offenders like Peter Sutcliffe 'The Yorkshire Ripper', and Steve Wright, recently dubbed 'The Suffolk Strangler', and wonder if there were incidents in their pasts that could have been comparable with the recent case? Do people suddenly change at a certain point in their lives, and start to abuse, hurt, torture and kill members of the female sex, do you think? Or perhaps they've always had those tendencies and inclinations that have just increased in intensity as their age and bravery has proportionately increased too? I'm no psychologist, but I don't, for a single moment, think it's something that just suddenly happens for no reason, or with no history.
I truly believe that these two boys have been caught, reprimanded, and punished in the appropriate fashion, and in proportion to the acts that they committed. With a bit of luck, some proper guidance, due diligence and education, they may come to realise that they have perpetrated an awful act on a vulnerable little girl ( who could have been their own little sister), and that they will learn how wrong those actions were.
Perhaps the system will work for once, and they won't turn out to be just like Peter Sutcliffe and Steve Wright, who both should have been caught, and had help years ago.
I hope this message might get through to some of you who just seem to think they should be let off scot free - (there's no smoke without fire) because without proper help and guidance - (albeit it maybe in a secure unit) - these two young boys may well turn out to be more dysfunctional and dangerous than they already appear to be.
Let's hope it works for both of them, and their victim too.
Fanackerpan
Complain about this comment
aaah! 'poor, poor boys'! Shame on apologists of rape! When it's your little girl who's raped, remember how you cried for these 'poor, poor boys'!
With adults encouraging this kind of behaviour, is it any surprise that boys are now becoming rapists? If you want to find the root cause, look no further than some of the comments on this page!
The bottom line is: if they are capable of rape they are capable of taking the consequences.
Endof!
Complain about this comment
To all of those stating it's not in the public interest because they are 10 years old I have never heard such rubbish. You cannot or should not have a mandatory age of culpability - it's ok to commit the crime 1 day before your birthday but not 24 hours later? Ridiculous.
Each case should be examined on it's merits and a thorough examination of whether those accused understood the illegality of their actions undertaken. I believe this is something the court examines anyhow in such prosecutions and may well be why previous prosecutions have failed. That is an issue for the CPS when determining whether to prosecute or not.
Let's not get knee-jerk on this but also let's not forget than James Bulger's killers were also 10 at the time. The age should not be a defining factor.
Complain about this comment
I am not able to understand why people care so much for offenders. Offenders should be punished. People fail to realise the effect on the victims. How can kids indulge in activities like rape!. They should be punished so that they won't think of repeating such a monstrous act again.
More over strict rules will be a deterrent for future crimes. Kids should behave like kids .
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Abhishek wrote: I am not able to understand why people care so much for offenders. Offenders should be punished. People fail to realise the effect on the victims. How can kids indulge in activities like rape!. They should be punished so that they won't think of repeating such a monstrous act again.
.............................................................
What exactly was this monstrous act these kids perpetrated? Was it poking a stick in a hole to see what would happen or sexual gratification for personal pleasure and dominance? The only way that question could be answered was not in a court of law, but by independent experts interviewing the boys and girl to come to a conclusion. Only once the sexual gratification was reasonably proven, should this have moved onto a court of law. Just because this was a sexual act, does in no way mean it was sexually driven, when it comes down to 10 year olds.
I am surprised that amount of middle aged men who have had some form of sexual investigation at such an early age. With the most common conclusion being that this did not even register as anything sexual. I heard of one case nigh on identical to this, but with coercion being substituted by two pineapple chunks. This had such an effect that he only just managed to experiment again before leaving his teens behind.
Just how many of us as kids tried smoking when we were in single figures? And how many of those can explain why they did it and the distinct lack of pleasure it gave at that age! Not everything that kids do have the equivalent adult explanation. If you want to try these kids as rapists, first ensure that their intentions fit that adult explanation. This is something that can never be performed better in a court of law and should only presented to a court of law once reasonably proven.
Complain about this comment
As this case involved children really think that it could have been dealt with much more reasonably. Am surprised, and dismayed, that the CPS has tried this 5 times before, and that in a jury 8 of 10 convicted these children for 'attempted rape'. Even if it was sexual, even if the children did something bad, the fact is that all those involved are children and still developing and there must be more reasonable and effective ways of dealing with this sort of issue. It might involve the parents, school and social services/ psychologists, but to make it a criminal matter seems a real over reaction and also counterproductive. Now there 3 children, at least two of whom needed some real guidance, who are now likely traumatised and less likely to be better guided. As the issue of children trying to deal with sexuality is a difficult issue, especially if it has harmful consequences, then it needs to be dealt with in as effective a way as possible, but putting it though the courts means this is not done and this problem is not really dealt with.
Complain about this comment
I find it surprising that people are defending the children involved. Maybe everyone has forgot Jon Venables and Robert Thompson. They too were only 10 when they killed a toddler.
I suppose that, as they were only 10 years old, then they shouldn't have had a trial either.
Complain about this comment
Tumdurgal, above, in citing Venables and Thompson is missing the point! There is a great deal of difference between a violent act of murder and naughty under aged sexual curiosity. The psychological damage now done to both the two boys and the girl in this case could scar them for life. Dealing with the issue through the courts in this way is a bit like repairing a watch with a sledge hammer! I agree totally with Michael, above. A much more balanced, caring and mature response.
Complain about this comment
As a counsellor of some years in dealing with young people, the most traumatic aspect of many sexual abuse cases is the endless stream of questions, examinations and other invasions of privacy.
In many cases where the abuse was from not only consensual but also from a similar aged person, it is usually the legal process that results in the mental health issues - NOT the incident themselves.
Let us be clear that in this example, the girl in question regarded "loss of sweeties" as her chief concern of the day - NOT the doctors & nurses game.
To make the boys go through this ordeal - especially after the girl admitted lying - was cretinous even by UK court standards.
This was in the interests of no-one - or at least no-one with a functional brain and at least the vaguest concept of probable outcome.
We now have two more lads that think "messing about as millions of children before them have done" has turned them into some filthy deviants - to say that their chances of having a healthy approach to sex in the future has been greatly diminished is a bit of an understatement.
Still, I am sure someone with a degree to tell them how clever they are, thought it had to be done. After all the law is the law (unless you are a law-maker and then it doesn't really apply)....
Complain about this comment
"92. At 02:19am on 01 Jun 2010, Tumdurgal wrote:
I find it surprising that people are defending the children involved. Maybe everyone has forgot Jon Venables and Robert Thompson. They too were only 10 when they killed a toddler.
I suppose that, as they were only 10 years old, then they shouldn't have had a trial either."
No they shouldn't! It was ridiculous to try thompson and venables as adults, they were children and should of been treated as such.
And look at the result? One of them a paedophile and the other a heroin addict.
Yeah the criminal justice system did a great job turning those boys around, NOT.
What is it with people like you? Your brain sees the words:-
'they killed a toddler'
And it computes that the best cause of action is the harshest without ever considering or caring what the outcome will be for both the children convicted and society as a whole.
Complain about this comment
"The alleged victim admitted that she had made the whole thing up"
Whatever happened to the time-honoured principle that witnesses must tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
As far as I am concerned, once a witness has admitted to lying (Perjury) then the ENTIRE testimony of that witness has been discredited, and cannot form the basis of a trial.
Complain about this comment
If there was evidence that these boys intentionally took this girl to various places and attempted to sexually assault her then they should be prosecuted end of. the age of criminal responsibility in this country is 10 therefore is a person of 10 or over commits a crime they should be punished under the law. The 'public' is the first to complain when enough isnt done to prosecute gangs of 10, 11, 12 yr olds who terrorise neighbourhoods and complain even more when the police say they cant do anything if the children are under 10. Someone suggested social services should have dealt with tese boys. when did it become social services job to deal with criminal behaviour? social workers have enugh to do protecting the children they now have the responsibility for, if you want to add every person under the age of 18 who commits a criminal act to their already over burdened caseloads i'll tell you now thee will be more incidents like Baby P. having been a field social worker i didnt have enough time in the month to do all that i had to, i was lucky if i actually spent 2 hours a month with each of the kids i was responsible for. While i am all for protecting children from harm, treating them as if they 'can do no wrong' is idiotic. i have witnessed kids as young as 8 throwing bricks through car windows and turning to the owners and saying 'you cant do anything i'm to young'. yes children have the right to be protected but they also need to take responsibility for their actions! if we leave it til they are 18 then they have reached that age being able to do what they like with no consequences then suddenly they get arrested for the same thing we will have created a generation who have no clue about the contract of social responsibility and will have no clue that actions have consequences.
Complain about this comment
I really can't imagine how a criminal trial is in any way appropriate in this case. Not only did the little girl prove to completely unreliable, but there was as far as I am aware no evidence to suggest this was anything more than playing. Surely the parents should have just told their children not to take their pants off in future and left it at that. I really doubt that the boys had any intention to rape the little girl, and from knowing young children I would not be at all surprised if the it was the girl who instigated the 'exposing'. This really was a waste of time, money, and will disadvantage these boys for a long time for no obvious reason. Unless there is a massive chunk of hard evidence that we have not been informed of, I can only feel sorry for the poor boys.
Complain about this comment
By the age of ten, one would expect children to have been taught enough about such sexual activities to know that what they did was very wrong. At the same time, the girl seems to be have been almost a willing participant. However, children of these ages are not really taught by society about the rights or wrongs of this kind of behaviour - quite the opposite if we look at some of the stuff our Media supplies them with.
The main influence regarding sexual behaviour and how this is taught to young children are naturally the Parents, But once again, UK Parenting is still leaving a lot to be desired. Many Parents are simply not raising their children adequately - and are probably inadequate themselves. If children only get their sexual 'education' from friends and the Media - then we are bound to get problems such as these.
Schools AND Parents are the ONLY remedy for these kind of problems...
Complain about this comment
I was caught playing 'Doctors and Nurses' at 10 years old with a neighbour's boy by my Nan - she sent him home, clipped me round the ear and warned me I must never play that game again. 40 years later, I am left wondering - why on earth were the adults involved in the above case not so level-headed? It did me no harm at all - my first boyfriend became my husband of 27 years until his death four years ago, so I'm hardly promiscuous, and we enjoyed a very healthy sex life, so not inhibited, either, and I wasn't made to feel dirty or put off of later sexual contact at all. Mind you, I never really went in for role-playing in the bedroom, either!
However, can any of these kids look forward to the same joys after a harrowing court case for what amounts to playing the same game? I doubt it very much indeed!
Complain about this comment
As a younger member of society myself, i would have thought that the sheer inadequacy and lunacy of the current legal system with regards to consent is both obvious and unacceptable. A law designed to protect the young can now be used by over-zealous parents and prosecutors to ensure a conviction of illegal sexual acts, regardless of age or consent.
If two 15 year olds have sex, it is technically illegal, and, theoretically, both could be put on the sex offenders register, as both have had sexual intercourse with a minor.
If a 16 year old has sex with a 15 year old (and lets be reasonable, the difference between these can literally be months or weeks) said 16 year old can be put on the sex offenders register.
But no right-minded person would view these two as having such feelings towards each other as being wrong? Nobody would view two 11 year olds fancying each other as being wrong, and yet, because of their age, if anything untoward does occur, the consent is meaningless.
Only the three children involved know the full extent of what went on, and as such I am only willing to comment on the facts at light. I disagree with those who say that such actions are commonplace among children, and, being less then a decade older then those involved, I would be inclined to comment that when I was their age, I remember nothing anywhere near as untoward happening amongst me, or any of those I knew at the time. It would also be fair to point out that if, as I have read reported, the girl did not in fact protest or object, then supposedly, SHE could be tried under the same law. but she never will. Who could dream of a sweet innocent little girl doing such a thing? But who really knows if she did anything that the boys didn't do?
Complain about this comment
Rape trial can only serve the sun newspapers to boost its circulation.
Complain about this comment
If these boys actually did what they were charged with, then our system to protect children is failing terribly. To the point that children would do this and it is in no way protecting the victim of this crime.
I find it disturbing that people would try to protect these children by saying "They don't understand". What absolute nonsense if they don't understand then they are psychopathic if they understand then they should have been punished to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of age.
At 10 years old I knew right from wrong and there is, absolutely, no way I can accept that they do not understand rape is wrong. Anyone who finds against that runs a dangerous president of further punishing the victims of these disgusting crimes. My heart goes out to the poor victim and there family
Complain about this comment
What amazes me is all the talk is about the "victims" being the "attackers"... Typical comments from the people of this country where the real "victims" are the ones ignored.
How many times have we read how modern day serial killer and rapists all had history of this sort of activity as a child but it went ignored. Well this time it hasn't gone ignored. The will have to stay on the register for life, and so they should!!! Their attempt to blame each other shows they knew they'd done wrong.
And to the "locomotivator", people like you worry me, always justifying the actions of the attacker and blaming the victim for encouraging it!!!
Complain about this comment
95. At 12:43pm on 02 Jun 2010, bigsammyb wrote:
And look at the result? One of them a paedophile and the other a heroin addict...
--------------
Yes exactly... so the law got it right then in taking these off the streets!!!!
This might seem like "innocent fumblings" to some of you, but don't be surprised if in 10, 20 years time they've gone on to much worse things. And then I guess you'll all be bleating that this wasn't picked up sooner...
Complain about this comment
rape is rape
murder is murder
do-gooders help crime florish
Complain about this comment
There was an article in a paper yesterday, that said that teenage gangs are raping members, and recording it on their phones. And, it said that kids don't think it bad to see sexual violence on the TV. In some places, even in the UK, it is very unwise to say no to an abusive courter and there is great social pressure on girls to sleep with abusive men, the argument being that it would be unsociable not to. This is ironic, as the men putting on the pressure are generally very unsociable! Intitutions encourage it, favouring these types of men and even the police, in rare occasions, can.
Complain about this comment
"Sledgehammer" and "Nut" come to mind when reading reports about the circumstances surrounding this gross over-reaction by the extremely PC people running the PCS (pun intentional). If any charge was due against the two boys involved, it should have been limited to "Assault" for the fact that they removed the girl's underwear forcibly instead of using the age-old "You show me yours and I'll show you mine" ploy.
When I was their age, it was fairly common practice for kids (without brothers, sisters or other family members to observe at bath time) to innocently play 'Doctors and Nurses' with their friends. Among other naughty experiments, this was to find out why girls had to sit while boys could stand when needing to pee. It was also the essential "SexEd 101" lesson that most kids had to undertake to keep up with their peers in families with multiple children.
How on earth "Attempted Rape" reached the charge sheet totally escapes me. At 10 years old, damned few boys are yet capable of attaining the physical attributes required to make them capable of such an act - so the charge seems somewhat malicious as well as over the top. The girl herself told the court that her original statement was an exaggeration made to defer her mother's wrath. How much of her subsequent evidence was given to agree with the spin and leading questions of the police and her mother's comments at home during the period of delay before the charges and trial?
The whole case, its findings and sentences, need to be quashed and consigned to the trash can of excessive zeal. Twisted adult thought processes were used to milk a reasonably innocent encounter between very young children into a headline-grabbing paedophile trial at the highest criminal court in the land. A black day indeed for the British Justice system.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps courting and acceptable behaviour should be taught from infant school, too, alongside the biological bits.
They are in some cultures.
Complain about this comment
But a 'no' should not lead to injury. That would not be justice.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
View these comments in RSS