i'm not really sure if the anger is over the sentence or the reasoning, and i have to confess i don't have any idea about what actually happened.
But for the sake of argument if the man involved genuinely thought that the girl concerned was 16 surely that has to be taken into account when sentencing? I'm not sure if this is the correct usage of the term (ill defer to the lawyers present), but those who are most outraged seem to be advocating a strict liability for these kinds of offences where the actual circumstances are irrelevant.
If the rape was a 'statutary rape' ie she 'consented' but was below the age of consent, and the man thought she was of legal age and
had consented - why shouldn't that result in a lesser sentence?? surely the culpability is reduced??
Threaded Mode