I'm generally in favour of not going totally mad with juvenile offenders. You know six year olds who pick up Dad's gun and shoot someone. I don't hold them responsible. I don't believe in locking kids up when they're too young to know what's going on. This is a little more sinister though, I saw it over at Feminist Law Professors. A group of teenage boys (ages 15 to 17 at time of crime) ganging up on a teenage girl, raping her, filming it, distributing the DVD and not even getting a custodial sentence?
And they don't use the word rape either, they say "procuring sexual penetration by intimidation". If anyone understands Australian law better than me I would love to hear how those two crimes differ. I know we've been talking on here recently about rape conviction rates and the difficulties faced by courts in getting convictions, but surely showing the jury the DVD would clear the matter up. Plus the perpetrators pleading guilty. Surely that's enough for more than a lightly slapped wrist?