It's stories like this that make me want to hurl. What possible justification could there be for anyone to rape an eleven year old girl who's going out for a leisurely stroll in the park?
The scary part is, because she was under the ridiculously low age of consent of fourteen, the motherfucker who did this will get off with a misdemeanor sentence -- less than two years. I wrote about the age of consent last August -- and my opinions on it haven't changed. It's not enough to make the age of consent at least sixteen (with an exemption for consenting teenagers). Sexual assault should draw a life sentence, whether it causes bodily harm or not, and whether the victim is of the age of consent or not.
The "closer age" exception needs to be worked on -- but this is one Harper initiative I support in principle. It's time for the nonsense to end. Kids needs to be protected.
UPDATE #1 (3:58 PM EDT, 1958 GMT: The revelant sections are in Part V of the Criminal Code, found here. True, the maximum sentence specified is 10 years, but the minimum is just a measly 45 days, and judges tend to go towards the low end -- the typical sentence is two years less one day which means time in a provincial institution; since two years or higher means federal time in usually tougher circumstances. The most I've heard of anyone getting for statutory rape, at least from what I've heard in various media sources, is eighteen months -- whether there was consent or not. This can be a sticky issue, I must admit, but it just struck a nerve in me when I read it this morning.
UPDATE #2: (5:43 PM EDT, 2143 GMT): To be clear, I think there is a line between what is considered aggravated assault or assault with a weapon; and sexual harrassment (like a buttock pinch). No, I don't think the latter should be punished the same as murderers; but it should still result in a rap sheet. My point was simply the sentences aren't tough enough as they currently stand.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
