when is it to young?

[FatB]

i wonder if their nationality played a part in the jurys decision to convict?

.................

A pair of boys aged 10 and 11 have become two of the youngest convicted sex offenders in the country after an Old Bailey jury found them guilty of the attempted rape of an eight-year-old girl.

 

But the boys, who cannot be named for legal reasons, were both acquitted of two charges of rape at the end of what the judge called an "extremely difficult" trial today.

 

The case has reopened the debate on how the courts treat young people, with the children's charity Kidscape saying it "reflects horribly on our whole system". The NSPCC said it showed "we still have a way to go to make sure courts work in the best way for children".

 

The judge, Mr Justice Saunders, also admitted earlier in the trial that the provisions for dealing with child witnesses were "not ideal".

 

The boys, who had sat next to their mothers in the well of court seven of the Old Bailey for the last two weeks, showed little reaction as the verdicts were returned.

 

As a concession to the defendants' age, the judge and counsel had dispensed with wigs and gowns for the case, and reporters were asked to spread out around the court rather than congregate in an intimidating huddle on the press bench.

 

Proceedings were also kept short to help the boys follow what was going on, with the day divided into sessions designed to mimic a primary school timetable.

 

But despite the special housekeeping arrangements, and Mr Justice Saunders' patient and avuncular manner, the prosecution had told the jury of six men and six women that it would hear evidence of a most serious crime committed last year in Hayes, west London.

 

"This case concerns rape by two boys still at primary school of a girl even younger than them," said Rosina Cottage.

 

"Together they took her to different locations near where they lived in order to find a sufficiently secluded spot to assault her.

 

The events leading to the alleged rapes all took place in and around a block of flats and they ended in a field."

 

On 27 October last year, said Cottage, the girl's mother went to look for her daughter and was told by a little boy that she was in a field with two boys who were "hurting her and doing really bad things".

 

The prosecution said that the boys, both 10 at the time of the incident, had repeatedly assaulted the girl in a block of flats, a lift and a bin shed before taking her to the field and raping her.

 

The jury was also shown a recorded interview shot by specially trained police officers the day after the alleged assaults.In it, the girl played with a teddy bear she had named Mr Happy while she told one of the officers how the boys had exposed themselves, pulled down her pants and raped her.

 

However, the girl's story changed radically when she was cross-examined via a videolink.

 

She said she had lied to her mother because she had been "naughty" and was worried she would not get any sweets.

 

In a series of questions, she was asked if any parts of her body had been penetrated by the boys. She replied each time: "No."

 

But the judge refused to throw out the case, saying it was up to the jury to decide whether a witness could be trusted.

 

The problem, said Chetna Patel, counsel for the younger boy, was that there was "no useful medical evidence, no DNA evidence and no forensic evidence; nothing" to support the prosecution's case.

 

Linda Strudwick, defending the older boy, told the jury the case was about a children's game gone wrong.

 

"Maybe it went too far, maybe it went to touching, maybe they were doing something they had seen on television, maybe they were playing that age-old game, doctors and nurses," she said. However, the jury disagreed. After deliberating for nearly a day-and-a-half, they convicted the boys on two charges each of attempted rape by majorities of 10 to two.

 

Thanking the jurors yesterday afternoon, Mr Justice Saunders said: "It was an extremely difficult case, no doubt it was traumatic for you in this case as well."

 

The judge then released the boys on conditional bail and adjourned sentence for eight weeks while reports are prepared.

 

He also invited views on how the case had been conducted, adding: "At some stage I will be sending my views about procedure to those most concerned with it. That is not to indicate there is anything wrong, but we should do everything we can to improve how we deal with these things by looking at the lessons we can learn."

 

The Crown Prosecution Service was quick to defend its handling of the case today, saying that the girl had made very serious allegations and was entitled to same legal protections as an adult.

 

"The decision to prosecute was not taken lightly," said Alison Saunders, of the CPS. "This was never going to be an easy case for a court to hear but that does not absolve the CPS of its duty to prosecute where there is sufficient evidence to do so and a prosecution is in the public interest."

[SeeKer]

Originally posted by FatB:

i wonder if their nationality played a part in the jurys decision to convict?

What is their nationality? I must have missed it......I am not sure what the court was playing at. If she was allegedly assaulted why didn't they follow through with a rape kit? That she switched her story is all the more reason to throw out the case. :rolleyes:

[Archdemos]

^^^Hear, hear

[Faheema.]

^I find your Avatar disgusting/disturbing and distracting.

 

SeeKer, I think the two boys are Non-white.

 

Regardless of whether it's rape...What I find most disturbing is the act and behaviour at that age.

[Archdemos]

i've had this avatar for a while now and your the first person to have complained about it.

 

 

BTW, whats distrubing about a person (Brandon boyd) picking their nose and pretending to eat their bugger

 

anyway if it offends your sensibilities, consider it gone amigo.

 

its just a bit of fun deleted

 

Ps! i'm in the process of finding a more suitable avatar.

[Faheema.]

^LoL, it's just in your FACE avatar, difficult to concentrate eventhough he's not actually licking the finger he used to pick his nose in

[Nin-Yaaban]

Originally posted by SeeKer:

quote:Originally posted by FatB:

i wonder if their nationality played a part in the jurys decision to convict?

What is their nationality? I must have missed it......I am not sure what the court was playing at. If she was allegedly assaulted why didn't they follow through with a rape kit? That she switched her story is all the more reason to throw out the case. :rolleyes:

And that's whats exactly wrong with the system. A women can come out and accuse you of rape and they'd lock you up in a heartbeat and throw you in jail before even getting your side of the story. Even if later they found out she lied, or it was consentual its too late by then becuz you've already spend some time in jail, and had ur whole reputation tarnished. Sucks.

[Blessed]

^Rubbish! Read research on the subject before you comment on it, you'll find the opposit is true. 1 in 20 of the 15% of rape cases that lead to a trial ends in confiction with serial rapists escaping trial because of the way rape cases are handled.

 

As for these kids, the manner of the trial is wrong, even cross-examning the little girl. Goodness! British kids are nasty though, I'm not surprised...

[Nin-Yaaban]

Well there have been many cases of wrongful convictions too. There was a story not long ago on the Internet where this women accused this man of rape, and sure enuff he goes to trial and is found guilty. 3 months later chick comes out and says she made the whole story up becuz she was afraid she'd get into trouble with her husband. He got released from prison, and nothing happened to the chick. WTF kinda thing is that. I am all for killing or stonning to death men accused of rape (if its proven beyond reasonable doubt), but the system doesn't work like that.

[Buuxo]

When I was their age , I did not know anything of the sort and was sucking my thumb.

 

I blame the parents and the society in part.the kids are innocent and just copying what they see in their homes, television and in public places.