I've tried belive me . to keep my mouth shut about this one, firstly because the details were yet to unfold, and secondly because I know better than to jump to conclusions.It seeems though the Gods of journalism, are beckoning, and i can no longer fight them.This story is inescapable(alcatraz) I swtich on the radio, i hear ppl bitchin about it(ignorantly), Iturn on the T.V i keep seeing more of it.So i'm gonna breeak it down for those of you not in the know, from a legal point of view and calm eveyone ther fuck down in one fell swoop.
Two boys were charged with raping a girl from their high school, after video captured on a mobile phone of the alleged rape, started making the rounds. The boys aged 14 and 16, the girl aged 15. There was first an uproar from the community as the incident took place on school grounds, and the fact that the school was considering letting the pupils write their year end exams. People were livid.
Several days later stories started to surface , with some teachers and a few pupils saying she deserved to get raped, and others saying the whole thing didn't surprise them.The video of the rape was made available for download and purchase from a cellphone media content provider. At this point your spider sense should be tingling, telling you all is not as it seems with this case.
Last week Tuesday the case was thrown out of the Magistrates court for insufficient evidence. The NPA declined to elaborate on the nature of the evidence " due top the age and sensetivity of the complainant."
 |
| You're abou to get woken up |
BEEP BEEP BEEP Motherfuckers South Africa has this rule it applies to all sexrape and sexual assualt cases.
This rule merely states that, " the courts excercise additional care when assessing the credibility of a rape survivor, particularly when the story is not corroborated." S.A law of evidence envoke this cautionary rule on the grounds that"distinct and peculiar dangers" abound in the form of " hysteria that can causea neurotic victim to imagine things that did not occur."
That's the rule people, we can argue about it's correctness some other time. Based on that Rule, and the fact that they are all minors and the technical application of video footage as evidence, it wasn't hard see why this case was thrown out.
This week instead all parties in this case were charged with Statutory Rape by the NPA.
"Advocate Menzi Simelane came to the conclusion that both the two minor suspects and the girl who had been complainant...should be charged with contravention of the sexual offences and related matters act."According to NPA spokesman Mthunzi Mhaga the act read that consensual sex with a minor was still a prosecutable offence.
A new law in the Child Justice Act stated that where sex occurred between people under the age of 16, arrests for both parties could be made for statutory rape.
This happened because, the evidence for the rape case did not hold up, so the next best thing tio do was go with this charge. I know some of tyou are thinking hiow is this fair that she gets charged for underage sex ewhen she was allegedly raped?
Firslty i don't know if the wording was incorrect form the media or the NPA,but minors who engage in sexuakl acts are charged with Consensual Sexual Penetration. Meaning they did it conensually, but did it at an age where it's illegal for them to do it..
As of yesterday the case has been diverted from the Criminal Justice System, and all parties ordered to go on a diversion programme.
The courts can't be clogged up with cases of young ppl having sex that was agreed upon therefore this makes sense.
Loko at the law and you'll see that it was applied to the T, which is what some say is wrong with the law. These cocessions are made to protect the innocentand falsely accused. How right or wrong that is isa n issue for another day.
Yeah i aint pass the bar but i know a lil bit
L.G
No comments:
Post a Comment