One day's jail for 'underage sex'
By Rod McGuirk
October 08, 2002

AN Aborigine who had sex with his 15-year-old promised wife has had his jail sentence reduced to a single day in recognition of his cultural tradition.

Jackie Pascoe, 50, had been sentenced by a Darwin magistrate to 13 months' jail for unlawfully having sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 plus firearm offences.

But Northern Territory Supreme Court Justice John Gallop today reduced the sentence for the sexual component to one day.

That sentence is to be served concurrently with a 14-day sentence for the firearm offences.

"It's well accepted these days that courts have regard to Aboriginal law," Justice Gallop said.

The girl from Maningrida in Arnhem Land had been promised to Pascoe at an early age and Pascoe, as her promised husband, had made payments to her family, the court was told.

She was 15-years-and-three-months-old when her family decided she should become Pascoe's wife and took her to his outstation east of Maningrida on August 20 last year.

The next day, the girl wanted to go back to Maningrida with friends.

But the friends drove off without her after Pascoe discharged his shotgun.

Pascoe pleaded guilty to discharging an unlicensed shotgun and being an unregistered holder.

North Australian Aboriginal Legal Service lawyer Gerard Bryant argued that Magistrate Vince Luppino had gone outside the boundary of the facts in sentencing.

Mr Luppino had commented that there was an element of compulsion in the relationship and he did not like the age difference.

He included a general deterrent in the sentence to dissuade future arranged marriages with underage girls.

Justice Gallop found the magistrate had gone outside the facts in sentencing for a crime less then rape.

He found the firearm offences were more serious than the unlawful sexual intercourse.

AAP

More... (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,5251120%255E1702,00.html)

Political correctness is pure bollocks. I hate the way it screws over my country like a disease. Those annoying small lobby groups who rant in front of TV cameras and make these things happen should be lined up against the wall and shot. While I'm against violence, killing them all would be for the greater good of Australia, and would protect people like that young girl.

why not go after the real perps? why kill the messengers?
are the lobbyists fucking 15 yr olds? or is it the abos?
on with the genocide brother adam

i think it was about a year ago i copulated with a almost 17yr old(cali law is 18yrs) that makes me a pedophile huh? (brickhouse, coudnt resist her advances..........!)

;)

Why does Australia have legal age at 16?

Why does the US have it at 18?

I don't really care about the legal age bit. The problem is, this young girl was shoved into some old grot's bed by some bullshit sticks-and-stones tribal culture which should not be allowed to exist. It's the same crap as in Pakistan recently.

I do know that 16 is legal in Kentucky but only if your age 16-18. Or something like that.

But yes Adam I agree, out with the old, in with the new. The old ways are well, the old ways. Maybe it was okay 500 years ago to have sex with 15 year old girls to help propagate the species but now its just wrong.

dont teenagers fuck nowadays?

They certainly do. But what about when they are forced into the bed of a grotty old man by a tribal culture that would beat her senseless for any argument?

I think each ethnicity should live by its own rules. Of course, this entails separating them and leaving aborigines to develop their own technology, but I'm a big fan of not having too much technology anyway.

http://www.anus.com/anus/db/linkola_pentti/

i have to concede that this particular case is rather distasteful. infact these arranged marriages are kinda whacked but i rather not impose my culture and morality on others

why is sex so taboo? i mean look at hollywood, you can kill, maim, eat... but sex!!!! in your world adam, sex can carry the death penalty. stop straddling the fence and choose an ideology
1 live and let live
2 live my way or else

;)

Sex is not taboo in my world. Forcing it on someone is. I've never straddled any fence on that. I don't give a damn what your culture or history is, I see that as not allowed.

Originally posted by Adam
While I'm against violence, killing them all would be for the greater good of Australia, and would protect people like that young girl.

the above is straddling

How so?

Originally posted by spookz
i have to concede that this particular case is rather distasteful. infact these arranged marriages are kinda whacked but i rather not impose my culture and morality on others

why is sex so taboo? i mean look at hollywood, you can kill, maim, eat... but sex!!!! in your world adam, sex can carry the death penalty. stop straddling the fence and choose an ideology
1 live and let live
2 live my way or else

;)

Live and let live, if adopted, should apply to al-Qaeda and Iraq.

:)
on mr smith side of the fence you are against violence
on mr peters side of the fence you are slaughtering left, right and center

I don't like the "live and let live" idea. If that idea was acceptible, nobody would have stood up against the NAZIs. Responsible human beings need to kick arse now and then to protect each other from people who would do things like force sex on yopung girls or burn entire populations. That doesn't mean we should enjoy doing such arse-kicking.

I don't like violence. It should not be required. But often it is required, because unfortunately humans prove again and again that they are incapable of governing themselves.

Originally posted by Adam
I don't like the "live and let live" idea. If that idea was acceptible, nobody would have stood up against the NAZIs. Responsible human beings need to kick arse now and then to protect each other from people who would do things like force sex on yopung girls or burn entire populations. That doesn't mean we should enjoy doing such arse-kicking.

I don't like violence. It should not be required. But often it is required, because unfortunately humans prove again and again that they are incapable of governing themselves.

If humans are not capable of governing themselves, why are they capable of governing others?

adam

your interpretation of "live and let live" has been taken to absurd heights
it is used mostly in a cultural and societal context

Some humans are capable of governing themselves and others. Many aren't. The fact that we still have nations, borders, and police forces demonstrates that in general, humans can't simply behave in a civilised manner.

Originally posted by Adam
Some humans are capable of governing themselves and others. Many aren't. The fact that we still have nations, borders, and police forces demonstrates that in general, humans can't simply behave in a civilised manner.

So not all humans can govern themselves. How do we then know that those taking the lead in governing others, such as the JCSA, are not those who cannot be governed?

Also, if a government is democratic, why would it not extend that democratic right to other nations?

It's a big smokescreen; none of the theories as to why we are "free" but should govern others make any sense. The only defensible positions are anarchism, which is illogical, and some form of dictatorship, which is... taboo.

Minds are controlled.

I'm quite certain most of those currently doing the governing should not be doing so, that they are not fit for the task. At our current stage of development, I think democracy is a bad idea and we should have a benevolent dictatorship.

Why does Australia have legal age at 16?

Why does the US have it at 18?

US is only 18 in some states. Average age of consent here is 16, some states go as low as 14.

http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

I honestly don't see a problem with 15. I know that I and most kids I knew then and know now were perfectly capable of consenting at that age. So I guess I don't see a problem here.

I live in King County, Washington. When I was a senior in high school, this allegedly civilized corner of the country ranked third nationwide for reported sexual abuse of children. (We always comforted ourselves with the word reported, if that makes any sense.)

Quite frankly, if they want to throw a fifteen year-old girl into the bed of a grotty old man she's supposed to marry anyway, I'm hard pressed to be any more upset about it than the necessity of prostitution.

For perspective: there are how many young girls being forced into their father's or uncle's or grandpa's beds in my county alone ...? I just can't muster the energy to be upset at some explotative cultural condition; after all, the lack of symptomatic conditions lends the idea that there is no exploitative culture going on around here, which is utter flaming bollocks.

Entire cultures need to chill out about sex. And I live among the chief of them.

One of the reasons we're so shocked is that we're prudish about sex. But it's part of the good ol' American tradition that the age of consent used to be 10 years of age, and that you could lie, cheat, or buy your way between a young girl's thighs.

It's all wrong. But I can't be shocked or even particularly unsettled by this kind of thing. It's small change as sex crimes go.

And while an exploitative culture may need to end, so, too, does the prudish.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I guess we're quite different then. I don't see any such things as small change crimes, and I'm pretty sure the victims don't either. The perpetrators should all be punished with death.

So you're pro death-penalty, now?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Sometimes. Some days yes, some days no. Seriously, I've been trying all my life, since I was like 4 or 5, to figure out this whole morality thing. And to be honest I still have more questions than answers.

get on with it adam

if you are still a soldier or going to be someone who's decisions will impact others, have a clearcut sense of where you stand on moral issues!
capriciouness is not a human quality that i would strive for

this is all of course, inmho

;)

In my opinion it is a mistake to settle on some clear, global view of right and wrong. It seems dangerous to me. There are some things I see as 100% wrong in all cases, but not many. I think development and advancement requires the ability to change, most importantly to change the things that matter the most, such as our principles, when need be.

i wont argue with that

Hmm, 15 years of age and 50 years of age, that doesn't sound right to me. It was a theft of her youth. I doubt it was love. How do you punish such a crime?