Finland’s Courts Just Ruled That Sex With A Ten-Year-Old Girl Was Not Rape

Statutory rape is a crime that has critics over its application and scope. Some object to the use of the law against teenage boys but not the girls in a consensual affair. Others object to cases where age is concealed or close to the age of majority or the other partner. However, few people disagree that sex with a child can ever be truly consensual . . . outside of Finland. Finland’s Supreme Court recently rejected the appeal filed by prosecutors of  a three-year prison sentence for sexual crimes. The lower courts rejected rape charges on the ground that the 10 year old girl consented to sex in 2016 with an adult man. The man, a 23-year-old asylum seeker, argued that he did not force the girl into the sexual relationship with him and the courts agreed.

Prosecutors sought not just a lower sentence but greater damages for the victim. However, the District Court and the Turku Appeal Court confined the conviction to aggravated sexual abuse of a minor and sentenced him to a three-year custodial sentence. Despite finding sexual intercourse with the child, the court rejected the rape charge due to the absence of evidence of violence against the child or incapacitation of the child.

Yet the victim was 10. What good is any notion of consent with a ten year old girl in a sexual relationship with a grown man?

The ruling has led to a call for the reexamination of the criminal code. However, it is hard to image a code that allows consent from 10 year old children.

https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/supreme_court_denies_appeal_in_sexual_abuse_of_10-year-old/10188676

107 thoughts on “Finland’s Courts Just Ruled That Sex With A Ten-Year-Old Girl Was Not Rape”

  1. Karen S & Allan — Be careful to distinguish Hadith from Quran. The latter states nothing about the life of Mohammed.

    1. David, it’s nice that you feel you have a Phd in Islam and can distinguish Hadith from Quran but I am most interested in the words of the Prophet himself and the order of those sayings.

      Quran 2:191 “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” It’s nice to know that you have such sentiments. No, that statement is not from the Hadith rather the words spoken by the Prophet. They are quite clear and match the words of Quran 8:12 Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Quran.

      If you would like I can provide you with quotes from the Haddith but I think even you get the point.

      1. Mostly I just follow what Juan Cole had to say on these matters: the “unbelievers” are the surrounding paganists. The Quran states well over 100 times to argue gently with the people of the Book, i.e., Jews and Christians. Most scholars conclude that it is the same god.

        1. Juan Cole might be bright but he is terribly biased as I mentioned in an earlier thread. He doesn’t recognize Islamo-fascism and is an apologist for many that act in a violent fashion. If that is the type of person you wish to rely on so be it.

          The Quran says many things but some of the worst things said abrogate many of the gentle arguments you talk about. The later revalations supercede the earlier ones and the Quran as written is not written in the order of the revelation.

          That most scholars conclude it to be the same God is meaningless. It is what is in the person’s head that counts. I’m sure you have read about the slaughters that have occurred in the name of religion and I am sure you understand what Sharia Law is and how that causes religion and government to become combined. A very dangerous way of thinking.

          1. Islam was an improvement over much of the savage cultures that adopted it. we may think it is retrograde but keep in mind that without it many places would be worse off and even more barbaric.

            another thing i would observe is that both Christianity and Judaism had historical forms of religiously sanctioned government, obviously, the OT kingship, and the Holy Roman Empire and Divine Right kingships of Europe. Our courts of “chancery” came from religious ecclesiastical courts and equitable remedies are derived from religious law and not the law of the king.

            Secularism is the modern era’s norm but it is not the only norm that the world has seen. I try and not be too judgmental about this.

            However i certainly prefer secularism as an American obviously i grew up with it. And I think it is probably a better system overall, though not quite as aggressive as we can see it in France or even here, it goes a little overboard sometimes.

            I also observe that the US did a lot to knock down secular Arab regimes like Hussein and Quadaffi and still trying at Assad. Why? So we can have Wahabist regimes instead? that’s what the Saudis want.

            1. “Islam was an improvement over much of the savage cultures that adopted it. ”

              That is your opinion but obviously other cultures were open to improvement of their savage behavior and thus today we don’t see the majority of the world acting as if they were living in the 7th century. That ability to evolve is an important part of their culture.

              There was far more separation of church and state in the western world than you equate with Sharia. The western world did fight over religion but the Kings were Kings even though the Vatican existed. Self interest of the Kings for relationships with other nations doesn’t mean church control though the influence wsa strong.

    2. i found this an interesting topic about bacha bazzi a disgusting form of pederasty practiced in Afghanistan., ironically the Taliban prohibited it, but the US’ former allies the “northern alliance” warlords are big fans of it.

      https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/10/28/bacha-bazi-an-afghan-tragedy/

      one thing about Islam i have come to believe, is that while it may seem barbaric to us, it oftentimes has been less barbaric than the cultures which originally adopted it.

      and a lot of those savage tribal cultures in assorted third world hellholes, have persistent negative practices that endure in spite of Islam and not because of it. case in point bacha bazzi

      1. “one thing about Islam i have come to believe, is that while it may seem barbaric to us, it oftentimes has been less barbaric than the cultures which originally adopted it.”

        Kurtz, we live in the present and can easily see the barbarity that occurs now. We could go back in time and compare history books in an academic discussion and you will find their barbarity has continued throughout the ages. Most of the other civilizations you talk about in comparison have evolved so I don’t understand your point.

        1. But it is well recognized that some of the portions of the Quran written later take preference over the earlier one’s and some of these later ones are horrifying.

          The real problem is you don’t know who believes what and many simply follow their Islamic leaders who are not infrequently extremists imported from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

  2. There are cultural differences in different countries. For example, sex with children as young as nine has been justified by the Qu’ran. There are many countries where child brides are common. The Western view towards women, children, gays, and personal freedom is uncommon.

    Asylum seekers, refugees, and immigrants, legal or otherwise, do not suddenly shed their accumulated lifetime experiences and culture any more than a lifelong KKK Grand Dragon would suddenly become tolerant and judge people on the content of their character when he stepped outside his home town. Soil is not a catalyst.

    This is reality. Not only does Finland need to employ its laws to protect its position as a country of Western values, but there also needs to be a recognition of the challenges inherent in migration. Sweden’s rape epidemic is an example of what happens when such differences are ignored or disputed. Immigration needs to be at a level that allows assimilation. Training in the law of their new host country is important.

    1. @KarenS

      Many seem to mistakenly believe in the magic dirt theory. Not only do these immigrants not shed their previous practices and beliefs, it is racist to encourage them to do so.

      antonio

  3. Finland’s fertility rate went from 3 in 1960 to 1.5 today. Women in Finland signed the death warrant for Finland. Women are the actual misogynists who hate the natural functions of women – pregnancy, birth and nurturing. The same is true of America leading to its imported population of unassimilable foreign invaders seeking “free stuff” and the death of a nation.

    Women got the vote.

    The nation got the death sentence.

    The American Founders did not allow the “poor” or women to vote – the American fertility rate was 8 then and is 1.5 now.

    My how things have changed.

    Goodnight, America.

      1. The author of DNA had already made female-role determination eons ago, the same determination for males, too. The human race will continue to devolve so long as imperfect rule-of-law (with its endless selfish exceptions for special interests) displaces cast-in-stone natural law, which accounts for zero exceptions.

        1. Explain what “natural law” says about the freedom of women to make their own reproductive decisions. I though adult freedom was a basic precept of natural law, i.e., the power to chart one’s own course through life. Of course, that’s not enough structure to survive over generations….that requires repeatable kinship organization, and inculcation of the young to step up to adult roles in the kinship system. But, I’ve never heard mush about kinship organization being part of natural law.

          1. natural law is an approach to inducing the proper laws from facts of reality. such as free will which is an aspect of the facts of human cognitive functioning. so facts like is a gamete fertilized into a new life form tend to matter a lot; but so do other facts like viability or the physical connection of the fetus to the mother.

            if you are suggesting that such an approach properly takes account of social factors, I agree, evolutionary psychology or “sociobiology” gives us a lot of insight into human existence and survival and what the proper laws should be.

            it’s not clear when you get down to abortion, however ,exactly what the best laws should be. natural law is a favorite notion of Catholics so generally they lay claim to a stringent pro life regime however i am not so sure sometimes that these things are as clearly deduced as they suppose them to be.,

  4. I don’t see any problem w/tearing up the body of a 10 year old girl and giving her physical/psychological problems the rest of her life. It’s perfectly normal for an adult to predate on a child. Why would any adult do otherwise? Thanks for clearing that up Finland. Child abuse is just fine, eh?

Leave a Reply