A TWENTY-ONE-YEAR-OLD BABYSITTER IN THE UK HAD SEX WITH AN
ELEVEN-YEAR-OLD BOY, BUT SHE IS NOT GOING TO FACE ANY JAIL
TIME AS A RESULT BECAUSE THE BOYS FATHER HAS DEFENDED
HER IN COURT.
JADE HATT IS THE BABYSITTER IN QUESTION, AND THIS IS A
FASCINATING STORY ABOUT WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER RAPE IN THE
UNITED STATES.
"HAVING READ EVERYTHING BEFORE ME," THE JUDGE SAID, "IT WAS
QUITE CLEAR HE WAS A MATURE ELEVEN-YEAR-OLD AND YOU
WERE AN IMMATURE TWENTY-YEAR-OLD, SO THAT
NARROWS THE ARITHMETIC AGE GAP BETWEEN YOU."
THAT WAS THE JUDGE'S MENTALITY WHEN HE DECIDED TO SUSPEND
HER JAIL SENTENCE.
CAN I JUST SAY, I THINK THIS IS A VERY INTERESTING STORY.
WE PROBABLY COME OUT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ON IT, BUT OVERALL
VERY MUCH IN AGREEMENT.
ONE THING THAT IS CLEAR IS THAT THE
JUDGE IS WRONG ABOUT ARITHMETIC.
IT LITERALLY DOES NOT REDUCE
THE ARITHMETIC AGE GAP.
IT MIGHT AFFECT YOUR IDEA OF IT,
BUT IT DOES NOT REDUCE THE AGE GAP BETWEEN THEM.
THAT IS SIMPLE ARITHMETIC.
THE FATHER WHO DEFENDED THIS TWENTY-ONE-YEAR-OLD WHO HAD SEX
WITH HIS ELEVEN-YEAR-OLD SON
ALSO HAD A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH HER AT ONE
TIME.
SO JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND.
ACCORDING TO THE
PROSECUTOR, IN HIS WORDS, THE VICTIM'S WORDS IN THIS CASE,
"SHE STARTED BOUNCING ON HIS PRIVATE PARTS.
SEXUAL
INTERCOURSE TOOK PLACE.
ACCORDING TO HIM IT WAS FAIRLY
BRIEF: ABOUT FORTY-FIVE SECONDS.
SHE TOLD HIM SHE ENJOYED IT, HE
SAID HE HAD NOT AS IT WAS WRONG."
HERE IS WHAT THE BOYíS
FATHER SAID.
"I KNOW HE TOLD HER HE WAS 15.
HE LOOKS OLDER
THAN HIS YEARS.
HE IS SEX MAD.
HE WOULD HAVE BEEN FULLY UP FOR
THIS EXPERIENCE AND IN MANY WAYS SEEN IT AS A NOTCH ON HIS BELT,
AND IS TOTALLY UNAFFECTED BY IT."
THE FATHER'S TESTIMONY HAD
A HUGE IMPACT ON THIS WOMAN NOT HAVING TO FACE ANY JAIL TIME
WHATSOEVER, EVEN THOUGH SHE IS A TWENTY-ONE-YEAR-OLD WHO HAD SEX
WITH AN ELEVEN-YEAR-OLD.
THE AGE OF CONSENT IN THE UK IS 16.
ELEVEN.
THERE ARE ELEVEN-YEAR-OLDS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
FIFTH GRADE.
YEAH, OKAY, SO, I DON'T GET THIS.
THE DAD SAYS HE WAS FULLY
UP FOR IT.
BUT, AND I THINK THAT IS RELEVANT, WE WILL GET TO
THAT IN A SECOND, ON THE OTHER
HAND, THE DAD'S TESTIMONY CLEARLY CONTRADICTS THE SON'S
TESTIMONY.
THE KID SAYS HE DID NOT WANT TO DO IT, THE DAD SAYS
HE LOVED IT.
YOUR TESTIMONY IS OVERWRITTEN BY THE FACT THAT I
HAVE THE KID IN FRONT OF ME AND HE SAYS HE DID NOT WANT TO DO IT.
THAT MAKES THIS CASE NOT SO HARD.
AND ALSO, LET'S JUST USE THE BOYíS FATHER'S REASONING,
AND THE JUDGE'S REASONING FOR NOT GIVING HER JAIL SENTENCE.
THE REASONING WAS, SHE'S ACTUALLY REALLY IMMATURE.
SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR THE FATHER WHO SLEPT WITH THIS
WOMAN PRIOR TO HER SLEEPING WITH THE ELEVEN-YEAR-OLD?
DID THAT WIDEN THE GAP BETWEEN THE FATHER AND THE BABYSITTER?
IT SEEMS LIKE IT DID.
SHE IS SO IMMATURE, SHE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT SHE IS DOING.
THAT IS A GREAT POINT, I HAD NOT THOUGHT OF THAT.
MAYBE THE FATHER SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR SLEEPING
WITH HER.
THE JUDGE DID HAVE SOME CONSEQUENCES FOR THIS WOMAN,
EVEN THOUGH SHE IS NOT GOING TO SERVE ANY JAIL TIME.
THE JUDGE
SENTENCED HATT TO A SIX-MONTH JAIL TERM SUSPENDED FOR TWO
YEARS WITH SUPERVISION, AND TOLD HER SHE HAD TO REGISTER AS A SEX
OFFENDER FOR SEVEN YEARS.
LET'S GET THIS POINT OFF THE TABLE, IF
IT WAS A TWENTY-ONE-YEAR-OLD MAN SLEEPING WITH AN ELEVEN-YEAR-OLD
GIRL, I GUARANTEE HIS MATURITY WOULD NOT EVEN BE SOMETHING
BROUGHT UP IN THE TRIAL.
COULD YOU IMAGINE?
I KNOW THE UK IS DIFFERENT THAN U.S., AND
HERE WE ARE MUCH HARSHER ON
ALMOST EVERYTHING, BUT NO MATTER WHAT ñ IN ANY COUNTRY ñ IF THE
JUDGE HAD SAID, THE
TWENTY-YEAR-OLD MAN WAS IMMATURE ANYWAY, AND THE ELEVEN-YEAR-OLD
GIRL WAS SUPER MATURE, SO IS THAT REALLY MUCH OF A
DIFFERENCE?
HE WOULD BE DISBARRED IMMEDIATELY, LET'S
KEEP IT REAL.
MY ONLY SLIGHT DIFFERENCE HERE IS AN OLD BIAS
THAT I HAVE, THAT IN THIS CASE IS ALMOST NOT RELEVANT AT ALL.
IN THE CASE OF ADULTS, WHEN MEN SAY THAT THEY HAD BEEN RAPED BY A
WOMAN, BUT THEY PARTICIPATED AND ORGASMED IN THAT ACT, THEN I'M A
LITTLE CONFUSED.
I KNOW I AM A JERK FOR SAYING THAT, BUT I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED.
YOU KNOW THAT A WOMAN CAN ALSO HAVE AN ORGASM WHEN
BEING RAPED BECAUSE THE EMOTIONAL COMPONENT IS
DIFFERENT THAN THE PHYSICAL COMPONENT.
SO A GUY CAN HAVE AN ORGASM AS WELL.
ONE DAY I WILL CONCEDE THAT AND WE WILL ALL MOVE ON, BUT IN
THIS CASE THERE IS ALMOST NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER, IN OUR
POSITIONS, BECAUSE IT IS A
MINOR.
THE LEGAL AGE IS SIXTEEN IN BRITAIN, THIS KID IS ELEVEN.
IF YOU GRAB AN ELEVEN-YEAR-OLD KID
HE MIGHT HAVE A NATURAL REACTION, THAT DOESN'T MAKE
GRABBING HIM THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
THAT IS CRAZY.
THE AGE DIFFERENCE, IT IS NOT LIKE HE
WAS ELEVEN AND SHE WAS THIRTEEN, THE AGE DIFFERENCE IS CLEARLY
AND LEGALLY SIGNIFICANT.
THE DAD'S OPINION IS COMPLETELY
IRRELEVANT WHEN YOU HAVE THE SON.
HE IS SPEAKING FOR THE SON.
BUT TO GET NO PRISON TIME
WHATSOEVER, WHEN THE SON SAYS I DID NOT WANT IT TO HAPPEN, SHE
DID IT TO ME, AND HE IS ELEVEN,
IT IS A NO-BRAINER.
ANY GUY IN HER SITUATION WOULD GET
SIGNIFICANT PRISON TIME.
THIS IS NOT A CLOSE CASE, SO WHAT'S
THE JUDGE DID IS, HE SEEMS TO BE SAYING ñ IT IS ONE THING WHEN I
SAY IT ON AIR AND WE ARE KIDDING ABOUT ADULTS, OR HAVING
CONVERSATIONS AND AT LEAST HASHING OUT THE ISSUES.
IT IS ANOTHER THING WHEN YOU ARE A LEGAL JUDGE, AND IT IS ABOUT MINORS.
IT SEEMS LIKE THE JUDGE IS SAYING, I WOULD HAVE LIKED THAT
WHEN I WAS ELEVEN, SO I'M GOING
TO LET HER GO.
WHAT HE DID HERE WAS RIDICULOUS.