|
I agree with you blur that people should jump the gun to, "rape", but I don't think that's the argument here, I think the argument here is strictly around the allegation that they've made a sexual violation by sexual conduct with a young person under 16 years old (the 13 year old [Crimes Act 1961 s134(1) and (6)]).
However, the defence could be that they didn't *know* she was 13. [Crimes Act 1961 s134(a)(1) subs(a)(b)(c)].
But then there's the roundabout argument of whether a 13 year old is impaired enough to understand the sexual conduct or the decisions about sexual conduct and so on. [Crimes Act 1961 s138(6) subs(a)(b)(c)(d)]
Section 131B is also relevant. Section 128(a) also talks about how allowing sexual activity does not amount to consent in some circumstances.
While I agree that this vigilante mob mentality has jumped the gun to rape straight away, these guys haven't done themselves any favours by plastering themselves all over Facebook and gloating about their exploitations. It's hard for a reasonable person to put emotion to one side and judge solely on the facts, especially when most of the "facts" have come from the sensationalised media.
|