Posts
5:28 AM
Unknown
Jail threat for incest sex offender who broke order
As we know, where consanguinamory is still criminalized, "incest" can mean a variety of things. Unfortunately, the text of the article doesn't shed much light on the situation.
A REGISTERED sex offender who failed to comply with his reporting conditions before missing two court dates now has two months of jail hanging over his head after facing court.No more information about the original case is given. In 2008, he was 18 years old, give or take. Assuming the original case was about something that happened in Queensland, it isn't criminal to have sex with someone who is 16 years or older unless "sodomy" is involved or unless they are closely related, which are ridiculous restrictions. So, it is entirely possible this man to have been convicted of "incest" for having had consensual sex with a 17-year-old sibling, half-sibling, nephew or niece, whether they were raised together or not. If that is what happened, it shouldn't have been a criminal matter in the first place, he shouldn't be a "sex offender," and nobody should care that he didn't report.
The 24-year-old man, who can not be named, became a reportable offender in 2008 after being convicted of incest.
On the other hand, he could have been molesting or assaulting a 3-year-old, in which case he shouldn't be walking free at all right now.
But we have no way of knowing, because "incest" is applied to both situations, and the journalists who put this story online were probably just repeating what an insufficient court announcement said, without anyone asking for clarification.
"item"'>
Jail threat for incest sex offender who broke order
As we know, where consanguinamory is still criminalized, "incest" can mean a variety of things. Unfortunately, the text of the article doesn't shed much light on the situation.
A REGISTERED sex offender who failed to comply with his reporting conditions before missing two court dates now has two months of jail hanging over his head after facing court.No more information about the original case is given. In 2008, he was 18 years old, give or take. Assuming the original case was about something that happened in Queensland, it isn't criminal to have sex with someone who is 16 years or older unless "sodomy" is involved or unless they are closely related, which are ridiculous restrictions. So, it is entirely possible this man to have been convicted of "incest" for having had consensual sex with a 17-year-old sibling, half-sibling, nephew or niece, whether they were raised together or not. If that is what happened, it shouldn't have been a criminal matter in the first place, he shouldn't be a "sex offender," and nobody should care that he didn't report.
The 24-year-old man, who can not be named, became a reportable offender in 2008 after being convicted of incest.
On the other hand, he could have been molesting or assaulting a 3-year-old, in which case he shouldn't be walking free at all right now.
But we have no way of knowing, because "incest" is applied to both situations, and the journalists who put this story online were probably just repeating what an insufficient court announcement said, without anyone asking for clarification.
Posted in: 
0 comments:
Post a Comment