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.

  • bygonedays@lemmy.worldOP
    0·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
      0·
      1 month ago

      Oh, well that sounds completely outside the law and completely immoral. I can’t believe that judgement stood, since it was so obviously wrong.

      • bygonedays@lemmy.worldOP
        0·
        1 month ago

        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.