Rapist not imprisoned

I can't believe that he didn't know it was illegal to have sex with a minor. He may have been taught in an Islamic school (where incidentally he would have been taught that sex outside of marriage is forbidden), but surely in all his 18 years has he never read a newspaper or seen or heard a TV or radio report about some pervert who had sex with someone under 16 and was imprisoned for it?

It looks like this 18 year old has been interviewed and assessed by several professionals, including psychologists and probation officers who specialise in sex offender work. The judge will have been persuaded by their assessments and recommendations, knowing the starting point is imposition of a prison sentence. Whatever was in the assessments has led him to suspend the custodial element of the sentence. I agree no 13 year old can give informed consent - that's why he's been prosecuted. He says he didn't know it was illegal till he told a relative further down the line. He didn't deny it. It came to light because she told friends. Was he that naive that he divulged what he'd done, not expecting a legal reaction? He would know that sex outside marriage is not condoned in Islam, but it isn't illegal. The papers don't tell us enough.

I agree Movedalot and I also worry about the message it gives to the girl. She may have thought it was consensual sex but she was 13 for goodness sake! The defence said that he had been taught that 'women are no more worthy than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground'. Well, congratulations to this judge who has now confirmed that view and in fact has confirmed that not only women, but also children are 'no more worthy than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground'. I am incensed by this judgement.

I think that sentancing should not only be about ther perpetrator but also about the message it gives to others. For that reason this worries me.

Surely if he had been to a strict Islamic school, he must have known that sex outside marriage was not allowed. Or is it in Islam?

The judge agreed that he was an exceptionally immature 18 year old, lacking in knowledge and misinformed by those who educated him, and also living in closeted crcumstances, therefore there was room for manouevre in not imposing an immediate prison sentence. Usually, a 4 year age difference, when one young person is over the age of consent and the other is under, is used as a guideline where it has been consensual, but it was accepted that this could be relaxed in view of the circumstances. He will be supervised by probation and has a 9 month suspended prison sentence that could be activated if he does not comply with a treatment programme to address the offence.

It was consensual, but when a child is under age - and 13 is definitely under age, it is rape.

But the judge gave him a non-custodial sentence because he had gone to a strict school and did not know about ages of consent.

The main point is that I have always understood that ignorance of the law was not a valid defence so the judge should not have taken this into account when sentencing.

Did he actually rape her, i.e. force her or was it "consensual" with someone too young actually to give consent? I haven't seen anything about this so will have to consult today's newspapers – not yet bought – for further information as this all sounds a bit odd.