A JUDGE has refused to jail a 21-year-old man for having sex with a 13-year-old girl, saying today’s youth do not realise underage sex is a serious crime.
"A JUDGE has refused to jail a 21-year-old man for having sex with a 13-year-old girl, saying today’s youth do not realise underage sex is a serious crime.
District Court Judge Rosemary Davey’s comments have sparked calls from child protection authorities to teach all school students about the laws of sex and consent, and that they risk imprisonment for having sex under the age of 17.
The South Australian Association of School Parent Clubs president Jenice Zerna said the state’s education curriculum must work to combat the sexualised imagery bombarding children every day.
“We would also like to see schools provide ‘are you aware’ letters to parents when they contact them about upcoming sex education classes,” she said.
“It is as important that parents know the laws as it is for students and young people.”"
Just when you thought you'd read it all - seen all the p**s poor excuses under the sun, along comes a story that goes one better. Rather than concentrating on the offense and offender, what does this case concentrate on? Pointing the blame fair and squarely on the thirteen year old victim.
The age of consent in S Australia, as highlighted in the article, is 17. The victim, was 13. Four years UNDER the age of consent. Equivalent in the UK of raping a girl of twelve! And he walks free from court, after being told to "be good" !! Couldn't make it up !!
The thing that this article and case refuses point blank to acknowledge, let alone even point out, is the responsibility lies 100% with Sasha Pierre Huerta (offender). As a twenty one year old, who is quite obviously old enough to know the illegality of his actions, he and him alone, has the control to get himself out of this sort of situation. Saying "he thought she was 14" is absolutely no excuse whatsoever - this being still three years under the AoC in S Australia. It matters not how she was dressed, it matters not if the thirteen year old victim was "looking for a sexual encounter", it matters not if she was "partying and putting herself out there" - he thought she was fourteen, therefore under the AoC and the blame lies with him and he should have got a proper custodial sentence. If she had been a 73 year old instead of a 13 year old "throwing herself at him" what would he have done? Gone "with the flow", or got out of the situation? No guesses there!
As for the rest of Judge Davey's comments, you have to read them to believe them. Rather than blaming the youth of Australia for adults who choose to take advantage of them as she has continually done, maybe she should concentrate on coming down hard of the offenders instead. Of course teenagers will experiment with their sexual development, but to put the onus of the actions of such predators and the burden of criminality on them in this way is inexcusable.