Paedophilia Charges overturned in Italy, as the 11 Year Old Involved was "In Love"

Vince524 said:

However, there may be facts that we don't have. Such as the way the law is written, there may be something in the statue that states that consensual/non forced sex can be taken into consideration in cases of statutory rape.

Click to expand...

If that is the case, then the law is wrong, and not just this one appeal for this case.

Celia Cyanide said:

If that is the case, then the law is wrong, and not just this one appeal for this case.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but the judges don't set the law.

Like I said, it may have been intended to avoid say a 18 year old guy going to jail for sleeping with a 17 year old girl when there's less than a weeks difference between their ages. But it might have been worded in such a way that it has to be allowed as a defense. Now that might a loophole that needs to be closed. One of those unintended consequences. But hopefully in the end it'll all work out.

I still say a 5 year sentence is too low.

Vince524 said:

However, there may be facts that we don't have. Such as the way the law is written, there may be something in the statue that states that consensual/non forced sex can be taken into consideration in cases of statutory rape. It may have been written with teenagers in mind when there's not such a dramatic difference in the age, but depending on how it's written, it may legally apply.

Click to expand...

This is what I was thinking.

I can't imagine this is the first case of this kind to be tried in Italy. If there really is something specific in the law to allow this justification for a retrial, then it should have come up in previous cases, providing plenty of opportunities for it to be corrected.

So if this is the case, I retract my previous statement and condemn the legal system in Italy as a whole.

It may be that the defense is supposed to be allowed to present that to the jury and they didn't or weren't allowed to for whatever reason. But who knows. We need Mark to go over to Italy, get his law degree there and then explain it to us.

And soon please.

It's been a while since I've done any research in this area but my recollection is that Italy's law of statutory rape has a "close in age' exception, applicable where the alleged rapist and the victim are no more than three years apart in age. I don't think there is a "but they were in looooovve" exception written into the statute.

In any event, the essence of a statutory rape law is that below a certain age, a child is legally not capable of consenting to a sexual relationship. So the Italian Supreme Court ordering a retrial to determine if the girl consented is an absurdity, and a complete negation of the law. "Your Honor, my client can't be guilty of having sex with someone too young to legally consent, because she consented!" cannot logically be the basis of overturning a conviction for having sex with someone too young to legally consent.

robeiae said:

I can't imagine this is the first case of this kind to be tried in Italy. If there really is something specific in the law to allow this justification for a retrial, then it should have come up in previous cases, providing plenty of opportunities for it to be corrected.

So if this is the case, I retract my previous statement and condemn the legal system in Italy as a whole.

Click to expand...

Word.

Ketzel said:

It's been a while since I've done any research in this area but my recollection is that Italy's law of statutory rape has a "close in age' exception, applicable where the alleged rapist and the victim are no more than three years apart in age. I don't think there is a "but they were in looooovve" exception written into the statute.

In any event, the essence of a statutory rape law is that below a certain age, a child is legally not capable of consenting to a sexual relationship. So the Italian Supreme Court ordering a retrial to determine if the girl consented is an absurdity, and a complete negation of the law. "Your Honor, my client can't be guilty of having sex with someone too young to legally consent, because she consented!" cannot logically be the basis of overturning a conviction for having sex with someone too young to legally consent.

Click to expand...

Did this really fall under a statutory rape law in Italy? That in itself is disturbing.

cornflake said:

Did this really fall under a statutory rape law in Italy? That in itself is disturbing.

Click to expand...

Sorry, that was my American legal education expressing itself. The Italian penal code has a catch-all term of "sexual abuse" that governs everything from rape with violence to unconsented touching with a sexual purpose. Included in the prohibited acts is what most US jurisdictions define as "statutory rape," i.e. sex between a person who is of age and a person who is below the age of consent. It also carries an enhanced penalty if there is a relationship of particular influence or authority between the victim and the defendant (parent, teacher, etc.)

You guys seriously need to calm down, like all they're saying is that this 60 year old dude, who groomed and raped a prepubescent child might have a point when he says they were hardcore in real, valid love with each other.

We need to Wait For The Facts™ before finding such a thing morally repugnant.

Ketzel said:

Sorry, that was my American legal education expressing itself. The Italian penal code has a catch-all term of "sexual abuse" that governs everything from rape with violence to unconsented touching with a sexual purpose. Included in the prohibited acts is what most US jurisdictions define as "statutory rape," i.e. sex between a person who is of age and a person who is below the age of consent. It also carries an enhanced penalty if there is a relationship of particular influence or authority between the victim and the defendant (parent, teacher, etc.)

Click to expand...

This would not be stat rape, or what was stat rape, as it's mostly been done away with, in any U.S. state I'm aware of. That was my confusion.

missesdash said:

You guys seriously need to calm down, like all they're saying is that this 60 year old dude, who groomed and raped a prepubescent child might have a point when he says they were hardcore in real, valid love with each other.

We need to Wait For The Facts™ before finding such a thing morally repugnant.

Click to expand...

Heheh



No, we don't.

This would not be stat rape, or what was stat rape, as it's mostly been done away with, in any U.S. state I'm aware of. That was my confusion.

Click to expand...

Now I'm confused. As far as I know, statutory rape remains a term commonly used, and it refers to the offense of a person above the age of consent having sexual relations with a person below the age of consent. Sometimes I've heard it used as a shorthand where the crime on the books is actually called child rape, or sexual abuse of an underage person, but the meaning was the same. That's still illegal in every state I know of. Do you have a different definition?

statutory rape
n.
Sexual relations with a person who has not reached the statutory age of consent.

From the AHD.

Statutory in the context of the definition means "according to the statutes/laws" in the place where the event took place.

cornflake said:

This would not be stat rape, or what was stat rape, as it's mostly been done away with, in any U.S. state I'm aware of. That was my confusion.

Click to expand...

What are you referring to when you say "this"? What part is not statutory rape?

I don't think Don was referring to language definition, but legal enforcement. According to this link, statutory rape is still recognized at a federal level. That link's for a directive to study its effects, not enforcement. But it shows recognition, at least.

Statutory rape is still very much alive and well in the US. I have two people I know well who went down for it within the last couple of years.

Just saying.

EDIT:

And lest anyone get me wrong - that's how it should be, so long as there's exceptions for people who are really close in age. 16 and 18? I can buy that. 11 and 60? Not so much.

Not at all.

I think there are fewer than a handful of states that still have actual stat rape laws. Most have rolled the non-offensive parts of stat rape (there were states that specified female victims only, etc.) into reclassed rape laws.

Regardless, in states with it, or the statutes that have basically replaced what it was, statutory rape was invented (basically) to deal with sex between someone younger than the legal age of consent who nonetheless consented to sex. The point of the separate laws was to separate out young but consenting from non-consenting, which falls under 'rape.'

There are, in most states I'm aware of, a bottom line and 11 is often going to be under it (especially 11/60, as many will add gaps to the definitions). There's at least one, I think, with 10 as a bottom, though I could be mistaken, but in general, 11 is below the potential for consent, which, in the U.S. would push this into a major or felony rape charge.

For instance, in NYS - what used to be stat rape is covered under statutes like (there are options for everything, bolding mine) -

§130.20 Sexual misconduct.

A person is guilty of sexual misconduct when:

He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person without such person’s consent [this implies below the age of consent - in NYS, 17].

- or, and here's the gap coming in -

§130.25 Rape in the third degree.

A person is guilty of rape in the third degree when:

He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person who is incapable of consent by reason of some factor other than being less than seventeen years old;

Being twenty-one years old or more, he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person less than seventeen years old..

Click to expand...

The crime in the OP however, would likely fall under -

§130.35 Rape in the first degree.

A person is guilty of rape in the first degree when he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person:

By forcible compulsion; or

Who is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless; or

Who is less than eleven years old; or

Who is less than thirteen years old and the actor is eighteen years old or more.

Rape in the first degree is a class B felony.

Click to expand...

The floor in NYS is <11, but the offender in the OP is beyond the gap that makes that cease to matter to place it as a major crime.

This is the same reason abusing a 6-year-old isn't statutory rape, because it's not only rape because of a statute (because the person is below the defined age of consent even if the person consents), it's rape because we agree it's so fucked up as to be just like rape using force or coercion, regardless of whether it "technically" does.

I think we are in danger of confusing the crime with the way that the crime is being handled. Let's step through the actors one at a time.

A 60 year old man has sexual relations with an 11 year old. That is a repugnant crime and he ought to be locked away for a very long time.

He is convicted and sentenced to five years. I have no way of knowing whether a five year sentence is appropriate or not within the Italian legal system. Should it be a longer or shorter sentence? That depends on precedent and any guidelines in Italian law.

The decision is upheld at appeal. Good.

The man's lawyers takes it to the supreme court. We don't know what the defence argument is. Having seen defence lawyers in action, my guess is that they will have used every possible argument either to question the guilty verdict or (more likely) to argue for a reduction in sentence.

The supreme court - for reasons that we do not know - orders a retrial. He is not being declared innocent. The matter will be looked at again.

This is leaked by one local newspaper and re-reported around the world in terms that make it look as if the man has been set free or his conviction quashed on the grounds that "they were in love". We have headlines like the title of this thread: Paedophilia Charges overturned in Italy, as the 11 Year Old Involved was "In Love"

Except that the charges were not "overturned" as most people would interpret it. There will be a retrial. This man is not walking away free. And we don't know to what extent the retrial was ordered because they "were in love" or other arguments brought by the defence lawyers.

In other words:

• a repugnant crime
• whipped into a scandal by exaggeration in the press and on the internet
• and (probably) defended by lawyers who know their client is guilty.

Nothing excuses this man for what he has done. But we may find that the retrial has been brought about by some smart-alec defence by the man's lawyers rather than by the Italian supreme court being swayed solely by the fact that "they were in love".

Once! said:

I think we are in danger of confusing the crime with the way that the crime is being handled. Let's step through the actors one at a time.

A 60 year old man has sexual relations with an 11 year old. That is a repugnant crime and he ought to be locked away for a very long time.

He is convicted and sentenced to five years. I have no way of knowing whether a five year sentence is appropriate or not within the Italian legal system. Should it be a longer or shorter sentence? That depends on precedent and any guidelines in Italian law.

The decision is upheld at appeal. Good.

The man's lawyers takes it to the supreme court. We don't know what the defence argument is. Having seen defence lawyers in action, my guess is that they will have used every possible argument either to question the guilty verdict or (more likely) to argue for a reduction in sentence.

The supreme court - for reasons that we do not know - orders a retrial. He is not being declared innocent. The matter will be looked at again.

This is leaked by one local newspaper and re-reported around the world in terms that make it look as if the man has been set free or his conviction quashed on the grounds that "they were in love". We have headlines like the title of this thread: Paedophilia Charges overturned in Italy, as the 11 Year Old Involved was "In Love"

Except that the charges were not "overturned" as most people would interpret it. There will be a retrial. This man is not walking away free. And we don't know to what extent the retrial was ordered because they "were in love" or other arguments brought by the defence lawyers.

In other words:

• a repugnant crime
• whipped into a scandal by exaggeration in the press and on the internet
• and (probably) defended by lawyers who know their client is guilty.

Nothing excuses this man for what he has done. But we may find that the retrial has been brought about by some smart-alec defence by the man's lawyers rather than by the Italian supreme court being swayed solely by the fact that "they were in love".

Click to expand...

They're not, from the article, discussing his sentence, as, as of now, there is no sentence, because he's not guilty of anything.

His conviction was overturned.

No, he wasn't 'declared innocent.' I don't know if Italy does that but the U.S. certainly doesn't. He is, at the moment, as far as I can tell, not guilty of a damned thing as his conviction was overturned. I don't know if he's been released, but it'd seem likely.

This is not, very clearly, about the length of his sentence. It's about the validity of his conviction.

I'm still not understanding how we "don't know the reasons" for the retrial. It seems that everything we have read so far indicates that it is because the verdict didn't consider the girl's "feelings of love."

_Sian_ said:

I think that's all we know atm, but I also think Once's point is that the court isn't allowed to tell us why they ordered the retrial. The media says it has the answer, but we don't know what the defence argued.

I still stand by my point that there shouldn't be any argument that would justify a retrial in this case.

ETA: I got my names mixed up. Apologies. Also, I'm only interpreting what Once said, and Once could have meant something else entirely. That's just how I read it.

Click to expand...

The court isn't allowed to say why it ordered the retrial? Why not? Where is that info?

I absolutely don't agree there shouldn't be any argument that'd allow for a retrial. If there was an error, or there's new information, or whatever, yes, there should be grounds for appeal, or to void the conviction and retry or whatever. Same as here. If the prosecution makes an error, no matter how egregious the case, well, tough.

As far as has been reported, the conviction has been overturned because her amorous feelings weren't considered.

I don't know how that jibes with Italian law, but that seems pretty clear on its face.

_Sian_ said:

I think that's all we know atm, but I also think Once's point is that the court isn't allowed to tell us why they ordered the retrial. The media says it has the answer, but we don't know what the defence argued.

Click to expand...

My understanding of this is that it is based on the court's decision, which was made public back in early December.

I'm all for more info. That's always a good thing. But the idea that we don't know why the court ordered a retrial is incorrect. We do know. It did so because it bought the argument offered in the appeal, that the consensual nature of the relationship was not properly considered:

But the Italian supreme court ruled that the verdict did not sufficiently consider "the 'consensus', the existence of an amorous relationship, the absence of physical force, the girl's feelings of love".

Click to expand...

And that's fucking bullshit, in my humble opinion.