R.I.P. Scout26
This was a Viennese rape case that received quite a bit of coverage a few months ago, mainly because of the accused's defense that he was undergoing a "sexual emergency": Like almost 80 per cent of "refugees", Amir is a fit young man. He'd scrammed out of the country leaving his wife behind and therefore had not enjoyed conjugal relations for four months. Hence the "sexual emergency":QuoteWhen the youngster went to the showers, Amir A. allegedly followed him, pushed him into a toilet cubicle, and violently sexually assaulted him.Following the attack, the accused rapist returned to the pool and was practising on the diving board when police arrived, after the 10-year-old raised the alarm with the lifeguard.The child suffered severe anal injuries which had to be treated at a local children's hospital, and is still plagued by serious post-traumatic stress disorder.Amir was convicted of rape and serious sexual assault of a minor and sentenced to six years. However, the Austrian Supreme Court has now quashed the verdict. But hang on, didn't the guy confess? Ah, yes, but...QuoteThe Supreme Court yesterday overturned the conviction, accepting the defence lawyer's claim that the original court had not done enough to ascertain whether or not the rapist realised the child was saying no...You might think the screams would have been a clue there, but apparently not:QuoteThe appeal court said the initial ruling should have dealt with whether the offender thought that the victim had agreed with the sexual act, or whether he had intended to act against his will.
When the youngster went to the showers, Amir A. allegedly followed him, pushed him into a toilet cubicle, and violently sexually assaulted him.Following the attack, the accused rapist returned to the pool and was practising on the diving board when police arrived, after the 10-year-old raised the alarm with the lifeguard.The child suffered severe anal injuries which had to be treated at a local children's hospital, and is still plagued by serious post-traumatic stress disorder.
The Supreme Court yesterday overturned the conviction, accepting the defence lawyer's claim that the original court had not done enough to ascertain whether or not the rapist realised the child was saying no...
The appeal court said the initial ruling should have dealt with whether the offender thought that the victim had agreed with the sexual act, or whether he had intended to act against his will.
So no question as to whether or not the attacker bothered to find out if the victim consented or not. Just whether he would understand the answer if he did.
And no question of whether a 10-yo is even capable of giving consent.
Do mash the link to read it in total, as it is worth your time.
This doesn't mean the rapist necessarily goes free. The article isn't clear but it looks like the sort of technical thing that will lead to a new judgment.