Article

2016-10-25 Europe

Austrian court overturns conviction of refugee over rape of 10-year old due to question about consent

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Besoeker 2016-10-25 02:16|| || Front Page|| [7 views ] Top

#1 Europe, it is lost.

Posted by Besoeker 2016-10-25 02:33|| 2016-10-25 02:33|| Front Page Top

#2 The judge could use some violent buggery. Might change his perspective.

Posted by Black Bart Glutch4583 2016-10-25 04:23|| 2016-10-25 04:23|| Front Page Top

#3 This is the whole point of defining sexual assault via consent. Retroactively removing denial of consent was the other shoe waiting to drop. The Left has now fully politicized sexual activity and will apply this new weapon according to its needs.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2016-10-25 10:34|| 2016-10-25 10:34|| Front Page Top

#4 So all those German (and post Anschluss Austrians) where not guilty of rape in the East cause they didn't understand that the women were saying 'no' in their native tongues?

Posted by Procopius2k 2016-10-25 10:43|| 2016-10-25 10:43|| Front Page Top

#5 Before we jump to conclusions about Europe being lost and all that, let's investigate this case.

What happened is this: In Austria (and Germany), there is no such thing as "statutory rape". Sex with a minor younger than 14 years will be treated as sexual abuse of a child (Kindesmissbrauch), but not automatically as rape.

Now in this case it was both sexual abuse and rape, but it seems that the verdict didn't describe the action in a way that would qualify as rape (an error of the lower court). The higher court therefore had to overturn the rape verdict and send the case back to the lower court.

Since it clearly was rape, the lower court will now certainly meet the definition required and confirm the rape conviction.

It's a mere technicality, unfortunately to the detriment of the victim. But the way this crime was committed place there is no doubt that the rape conviction will stand.

Posted by European Conservative 2016-10-25 16:16|| 2016-10-25 16:16|| Front Page Top

#6 While I realize that lawyers are ethically required to mount a vigorous defense for their clients, if I were Amir's lawyer, I would have to grow a beard. I couldn't look at myself in the mirror.

Posted by Rambler in Virginia 2016-10-25 16:26|| 2016-10-25 16:26|| Front Page Top

#7 EU, I find your definition of "technicality" quite disturbing. However, as I am not so knowledgeable as to how your justice system works (and am jealous that one still exists in the EU as compared to our current situation here in the USA) I am curious as to your overwhelming confidence. Do you have precedent to back up your confidence?

Posted by Rex Mundi 2016-10-25 16:40|| 2016-10-25 16:40|| Front Page Top

#8 EC, please accept my apology if you were offended by #1.

Posted by Besoeker 2016-10-25 16:43|| 2016-10-25 16:43|| Front Page Top

#9 Since it clearly was rape, the lower court will now certainly meet the definition required and confirm the rape conviction.

Thank you for explaining, European Conservative.

Posted by trailing wife 2016-10-25 16:43|| 2016-10-25 16:43|| Front Page Top

#10 By "technicality" I mean that the actions were not appropriately described in the rape part of verdict. This forced the Upper Court to overturn this part of the verdict. The judge did nothing wrong here. Note that the rapist was not exonerated. He might even face a stiffer sentence at the Lower Court now.

Posted by European Conservative 2016-10-25 17:11|| 2016-10-25 17:11|| Front Page Top

#11 Rex Mundi

I'll try to give you an easy and less emotional example of said "technicality".

Let's say a person ripped a handbag from a lady. That would be robbery because force was used.

The verdict says that the defendant is guilty of robbery. It then goes on by describing the action as: "The defendant took away the handbag." That would not meet the criteria of robbery, only theft (which carries a milder sentence).

An Upper Court would be forced to overturn that verdict and send the case back to the Lower Court.

Posted by European Conservative 2016-10-25 17:16|| 2016-10-25 17:16|| Front Page Top

#12 Thanks EU. That verdict certainly was as self contradictory as it was craptastic. However, my original observation stands, as the wording of the verdict makes clear. You place a lot of confidence in the upper courts. We shall see and I am hoping that you are correct.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2016-10-25 17:30|| 2016-10-25 17:30|| Front Page Top

#13 with apologies to EC - which is what I intended and not EU!

Posted by Rex Mundi 2016-10-25 17:31|| 2016-10-25 17:31|| Front Page Top

#14 Don't know about confidence. But if a Lower Court really screws up the Upper Court will usually set it right. Of course sometimes it's the other way round.

Posted by European Conservative 2016-10-25 17:34|| 2016-10-25 17:34|| Front Page Top

#15 I truly hope that is the case. Many thanks again for your input, EC.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2016-10-25 17:38|| 2016-10-25 17:38|| Front Page Top

#16 Welcome!

Posted by European Conservative 2016-10-25 18:09|| 2016-10-25 18:09|| Front Page Top

#17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Plauche

Posted by Glenmore 2016-10-25 19:57|| 2016-10-25 19:57|| Front Page Top

23:17 Procopius2k
22:34 USN, Ret.
21:27 SteveS
20:16 Blossom Unains5562
20:15 Frank G
19:57 Glenmore
19:34 phil_b
19:00 gorb
18:51 3dc
18:34 Pappy
18:27 Blossom Hupager6063
18:25 Pappy
18:09 European Conservative
18:02 JohnQC
17:53 JohnQC
17:50 Grusose Jinetch1147
17:49 JohnQC
17:46 JohnQC
17:41 JHH
17:41 JohnQC
17:38 Rex Mundi
17:34 European Conservative
17:31 Rex Mundi
17:30 Rex Mundi