My husband of 17 years is a judge. Recently multiple people have come out publicly with their stories about my husband because all the complaints they have filed with the Council which deals with this have been ignored throughout the years - no investigation opened. My husband has always kept me in the dark about his work - finances, so let’s just say I have my reasons to believe the allegations. The most horrific one I’ve heard is my husband ruled that a 12-year-old consented to having sex with an adult (legal age of consent at the time was 15 in our country), so there was no conviction. The accused in this trial was wealthy. I didn’t know about this until now. Frankly I’m completely disgusted with him.
I’m very confused, though. If there is an age of consent, and anything below that age is rape, then why is there a charge for “sex with a minor,” a supposedly lighter charge? It seems like the law does distinguish between forcible and statutory rape (though in cases of children it shouldn’t) and your husband leaned toward the latter.
To be clear, I am not arguing that getting a lighter sentence or believing a 12-year-old can consent to sex with an adult is anything but rape. I’m just stating that your country may have a legal separation between the two that your husband might have followed and still been within the law.
That is if I’m reading what you’ve written correctly.
Because back when this case was ruled the age of consent in our country was 15, as I’ve said, but the age 13-15 had specifications that it can, in certain situations, be argued that it’s not rape, but sex with a minor (so implying that the minor had some ability to consent). More clear: under 13 - always rape. 13-15: sex with a minor if the judge sees fit; semi-consent ability. 15+ - ability to consent with anyone. So the establishment of consent by a judge at 12 was outside the law. Now the laws have changed and absolute minimum is 14 (max 4 year age gap), and 16 for unrestricted consent.
Oh, well that sounds completely outside the law and completely immoral. I can’t believe that judgement stood, since it was so obviously wrong.
Yeah, the family’s lawyer was shocked as well. But I guess any ruling will stand if the higher courts refuse to hear an appeal for whatever reasons. This was the lawyer who really sniffed extreme corruption, as after this case he got very angry and started researching past cases / rulings of my husband, and the pattern was that if the accused is wealthy / has influence / could be useful in the future (quid pro quo) - then these nonsensical rulings will be made; but he also has really logical and law based, fair judgements as well - there’s a clear bias depending on who the person is.
I feel for you.