The following article, Elizabeth Grove man spared jail for having sex with 12-year-old is from AdelaideNow. I came across the story when Hoyden About Town talked about it today and I was horrified.

All emphasis is mine.

AN “immature” 24-year-old who continued a sexual relationship even after learning his girlfriend was just 12 years old has narrowly avoided a prison term.

The District Court today suspended Jarrod James Hean’s two-year, 10-month sentence on condition of a two-year good behaviour bond.

Hean, who is now aged 25, of Elizabeth Grove, pleaded guilty to three counts of unlawful sexual intercourse and nine counts of breaching his bail conditions.

In sentencing, Judge Wayne Chivell said Hean had met his now-former girlfriend in March 2007.

She was 12 years old at the time, but lied and said she was 16 – Hean, who was 24, lied and said he was 20.

“When you learned she was 12, you continued to have a sexual relationship with her,” Judge Chivell said.

“By that time, you say you were in love with her, and somehow convinced yourself it was appropriate to continue.

“That was immature and irresponsible on your part, but I accept that you were not acting as a predator.”

Judge Chivell said the relationship – Hean’s first – persisted despite authorities warning the couple to stay away from one another.

After he was arrested for unlawful sexual intercourse, Hean saw the girl on nine more occasions – resulting in the breach of bail charges.

Although he faced a maximum of life imprisonment, Judge Chivell said Hean’s crimes were “at the lower end of the scale”.

“Girls and young women need to be protected from their own immaturity and sexual curiousity at that vulnerable age,” he said.

He imposed a 20-month non-parole period, and said there was “good reason” to suspend the sentence.

“You are unlikely to offend again, and the relationship is now over,” he said.

In another article from ABC News Australia the judge is quoted as saying:

Judge Wayne Chivell said it was an unusual case because it was clear the girl was highly sexualised before the pair had met and an enthusiastic participant in the relationship.

It seems lately that I know the law better than most judges out there. The idiocy of the judge’s statements just amazes me. We have laws of consent because children under a certain age can’t mentally comprehend what they’re consenting to. That’s the whole point of statutory rape laws. It doesn’t matter how willing she was, she’s 12 years old which means she was raped. And like was pointed out at Hoyden About Town, the fact that she “was highly sexualised before the pair had met”, most likely means that she had been sexually abused in the past as well.

This isn’t the first time we’ve heard this kind of thing from judges either. It seems to be a pattern that if a child has been sexually abused in the past, judges view them as “experienced” and take a lenient stance against the attacker. And it seems if the victim is a child of color, they were asking for it regardless of whether or not they had been “sexualized” (ie raped) in the past.

It also really bothers me how both of these articles as well as the people involved in the case keep calling what they had a “relationship”, saying that she was his “girlfriend” and that they “had sex”. No! They didn’t have sex, he raped her. She wasn’t his girlfriend, she was his victim. The only relationship they had was victim/abuser. And someone who repeatedly rapes a 12 year old girl, even after being arrested for it once, is most certainly a predator and absolutely will most likely offend again.

I’ve been looking for contact information for Judge Wayne Chivell so that I can write to him and let him know how I feel about his ruling. So far I’ve come up empty handed. If anyone has this information, please reply and let me know.

Similar Articles:

• Tech Girl: A girl geek in a guy’s cyberworld
• A Commentary on the Torture Porn Trend
• Date Rape just a Lover’s Quarrel?
• The Hilariousness of Sexual Assault
• Oklahoma is not OK