"Babysitter who had sex with 11-year-old escapes jail after the boy's own father defended her" Nora Bracy, 5th pd.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3260279/Babysitter-sex-11-year-old-escapes-jail.html

21 year old babysitter Jade Hatt "had sex" with an 11 year old she was babysitting, yet escaped jail time. The father of the boy defended Hatt, saying that his son is "sex mad," and "fully up for the experience." It is also said through out that Hatt was immature for her age, and acted much younger than 21, and that the boy much more mature, so that "narrows the arithmetic age gap between you."

Ok. First off, I want to say that every article on this situation uses the term "had sex." It's rape. This is rape, because this 11 year old, mature or not, cannot and did nor consent. The word rape wasn't used once in the article. Second of all, you cannot defend rape based off of how mature or immature a person is. Hatt is a 21 year old adult. Period. She is 10 years older than this boy. Regardless of how mature either person is, he is still underage, and unable to consent. Also I want to kill this boy's father. How could you defend your son's rapist? And he says a lot of things about how his son would've enjoyed it, that "he sees it as another notch on his belt," but what about what the boy thinks? The only time in the article it says anything about the boy's reaction to the whole situation is when it says "He said he had not [enjoyed it] as it was wrong." This whole situation really shows how our court system is flawed. Justice is hardly ever truly served. Going back through history, time after time, certain people get off too easy, and some people too harshly, because of a biased jury.