In one of the most astounding cases of female privilege I have read about in some time, a woman who raped an 11-year-old boy received a suspended sentence because she was “immature”:
A babysitter who had sex with an 11-year-old boy was spared jail after a judge declared that her immaturity “narrowed the arithmetic age gap” between them.
Jade Hatt, 21, was looking after the “sex-mad” youngster when she stripped off, removed his clothes, then straddled him and had sexual intercourse.
As the judge explained:
Passing sentence, Judge Tim Mousley QC said it was an exceptional case that allowed him to step outside the rigours of the sentencing guidelines.
He told Hatt: “Having read everything before me, it was quite clear he was a mature 11-year-old and you were an immature 20-year-old so that narrows the arithmetic age gap between you.
“I have read the comments of the boy’s father to the police where he doesn’t consider you a typical 20-year-old. I have also read what he has said about the effect on the victim.”
It gets worse. The boy’s father claimed that his son wanted the abuse:
However, the boy’s father – who had a previous sexual relationship with the woman – defended Hatt in court and described her as immature.
He said his son was “fully up for the experience” and regarded it as a “notch on his belt”.
What makes this so terrible is that the boy said he did not like it. He said he did not want to do it:
Swindon Crown Court heard the incident, which took place last November, lasted around 45 seconds, following which the boy admitted he had not enjoyed it as he knew it was wrong.
Hannah Squire, prosecuting, said: “The defendant was friends with the boy’s father, with whom she had had a brief sexual relationship.
“He would ask her to babysit; she had babysat his 11-year-old son on six or seven occasions. On one of those occasions this offence took place.
“It was during the day and the boy was off school. The defendant arrived at about 11.30am. The boy was laying down, Jade Hatt sat on top of him, sat astride him, took off her clothes and removed his.
“In his words she started bouncing on his private parts. Sexual intercourse took place. According to him it was fairly brief: about 45 seconds. She told him she enjoyed it, he said he had not as it was wrong.”
She said the boy’s father noticed he had a love bite on his neck and text messages from Hatt were diverted to his phone, revealing what had taken place.
Police were called and, when arrested, Hatt told officers the boy had told her he was 15, even though she knew his age as his father had told her. Hatt, from Swindon, Wiltshire, pleaded guilty to sexual activity with a child.
Yet all those in a position of power in the court ignored his complaint and decided for him that he not only liked and wanted the sex, but that he was the aggressor.
This travesty occurred in the United Kingdom, whose government does not recognize female sex offenders as rapists. As such, this woman’s non-sentence comes as no surprise. Even had the judge sentenced her to prison she would not have received a long sentence.
What does surprise me, however, are the number of people outraged by the decision. It is uncommon to see so many people support male victims. Even some feminists found the decision embarrassing.
It is unlikely that anyone will reverse or reconsider the ruling. This may, however, result in a policy change. Hopefully it does. This boy deserves better.