Protect her from what? Don't you first have to prove that the girl was somehow harmed in some way?
You do not constitute sexual abuse of a minor as being harmful to the minor?
As a society, many often claim that we should love each other and the world would be a happier, more peaceful place. Yet when someone shows love to someone, we want to throw them in jail. What am I missing here?
So you think when a paedophile has sex with its victim, it's showing love and should be embraced by society as a whole? Interesting.
Again, what harm came to the girl? That must be established even before we can charge anyone with any crime ...don't you think?
To answer that question, you need to decide if sexually abusing a child constitutes as being harmful to said child. If you believe the answer is no, then it is a waste of my time and yours for us to continue this conversation.
If you believe that sexual abuse of a minor is harmful to said minor, then
that establishes the crime.
As for the parents in this case, they suspected that their daughter was being sexually abused by her teacher and did nothing to stop it. They caught them in bed together, again did nothing to stop it, letting it continue for "several months". They even allowed said teacher to gain further access to their daughter by allowing the teacher to sleep over at their home in their daughter's room on a weekly basis. Now do you think that with all the evidence provided by them that their daughter was being sexually abused, they failed to act to protect said daughter? After all, they are using the evidence they have gathered while suspecting the sexual abuse was occuring to help prosecute this teacher. Should the courts now not look at them and their role or lack of during this period? That's the thing, in their complete stupidity, they failed to protect their child from something they now consider to be evidence of to convict the teacher. Yet having gathered said evidence while the abuse was occuring, they did nothing to stop the abuse, letting it continue over the 'several months' period.
Okay ....since you're such a legal-eagle, what crime did they commit? Please be specific and mention the exact law that they violated.
This is the question I am posing as a general question. Do you think, under the Section 5(2) of the
Child Protection Act 1999 (QLD) which states in part:
(2) Subject to subsection (1), this Act is also to be administered
under the following principles—
(a) every child has a right to protection from harm;
(b) families have the primary responsibility for the upbringing, protection and development of their children;
Section 8 and 9 of the
Act states:
8 Who is a child
A child is an individual under 18 years.
9 What is harm
(1) Harm, to a child, is any detrimental effect of a significant nature on the child’s physical, psychological or emotional wellbeing.
(2) It is immaterial how the harm is caused.
(3) Harm can be caused by—
(a) physical, psychological or emotional abuse or neglect;
or
(b) sexual abuse or exploitation.
Have the parents committed a crime in not protecting their child even though they suspected and had evidence against the teacher they suspected of sexually abusing their child? After all, consider in part that the evidence they had is now being used against said teacher in her trial.
Tiassa said:
I'll presume that stupidity is not a crime, per se, in Australia....
---------------------------
What is the standard for criminal negligence? The alleged conduct of the parents seems unacceptable to a macabre degree.
It is not illegal to be stupid, but stupidity is not a defence either. In the words of Mackenzie J in
R v BBD [2006] QCA 441 (3 November 2006):
"The conduct must demonstrate a serious departure from the standard of care that a reasonable member of the community would observe in the same circumstances."
Link
The common law test for criminal negligence is stated in
R v Bateman (1927) 19 Cr App R 8 at 11 & 12:
"In explaining to juries the test which they should apply to determine whether the negligence, in the particular case, amounted or did not amount to a crime, judges have used many epithets, such as "culpable," "criminal," "gross," "wicked," "clear," "complete." But, whatever epithet be used and whether an epithet be used or not, in order to establish criminal liability the facts must be such that, in the opinion of the jury, the negligence of the accused went beyond a mere matter of compensation between subjects and showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the State and conduct deserving punishment."
Would this test apply to the parents in question? In my opinion the answer is yes. Especially in light of Section 286 of the
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld):
286 Duty of person who has care of child
(1) It is the duty of every person who has care of a child under 16 years to--
(a) provide the necessaries of life for the child; and
(b) take the precautions that are reasonable in all the circumstances to avoid danger to the child's life, health or safety; and
(c) take the action that is reasonable in all the circumstances to remove the child from any such danger;
and he or she is held to have caused any consequences that result to the life and health of the child because of any omission to perform that duty, whether the child is helpless or not.
(2) In this section--
"person who has care of a child" includes a parent, foster parent, step parent, guardian or other adult in charge of the child, whether or not the person has lawful custody of the child.
Link
Whether charges are laid against them remains to be seen. But their stupidity should not be a defence. That they had a duty of care towards their daughter cannot be denied. She was 13 years old and they were her parents and primary guardians. Now did they protect their daughter to prevent any further abuse? Well they did not know the abuse was happening, but they suspected it to the point where they asked their daughter if something was going on, and even upon her denial, they still suspected. In that time they allowed the teacher back into their home and allowed her access to their daughter. Now any reasonable person who suspects that their child is being sexually abused would not allow said suspect back into their home and allow her to sleep over at night in their daughters bed.
I don't know about any of you, but there would be no way in hell I'd allow anyone I suspected of molesting my child of continuing to sleep in the child's bed. Am I unreasonable in this? I personally don't think so. Now they suspected enough, that even after several months since they first suspected, the father finally decided to approach the school. Why had he not done so sooner? Why had they allowed the teacher to continue to sleep over in their child's bed during those "several months" where they did suspect something was going on? Now anyone else in the position of the parents when they first began to suspect would have probably have acted differently. Primarily they would not have allowed the teacher to keep sleeping over in their child's room. Would a reasonable person have reacted differently? My guess would probably be yes.
