I wrote previously about a rape case in Austria involving an Iraqi refugee. Amir A. claimed that he experienced a “sexual emergency” while at a swimming pool. In response, he snatched a random boy, took him to a stall, and raped the child. Amir then returned to the diving board as if nothing had happened. When police approached him, Amir admitted to the rape, claiming that he had not had sex in months and “[…]couldn’t stand not having sex as [he had] excess sexual energy.”
Amir was later convicted on sexual assault and faced six years in jail. However, in October the Austrian Supreme Court overturned the conviction, claiming:
[…] that while the verdict was “watertight” with regard to the serious sexual abuse of a juvenile, the written verdict on the second indictment, rape, cannot be sufficiently proved.
According to the Supreme Court, the first court should have ascertained whether the offender had thought that the victim agreed to the sexual act and whether Amir A. had the intention to act against the will of the boy.
As I noted in that post, one would think that would be clear by the boy seeking out help and informing the authorities that Amir assaulted him that the boy did not give his consent. One would also think that would be apparent from Amir’s admission to the crime and that the government awarded monetary compensation to the victim’s family.
Apparently that was not the case. Instead, the court needed a new trial, which resulted in a new conviction with essentially the same sentence:
Hearing the case again on Tuesday, the Vienna court found that the conditions defining rape had indeed been fulfilled, the Kronen Zeitung reported.
And upon resentencing Amir, the court decided to hand down a longer prison sentence of seven years. A figure of €4,700 to be paid in damages to the victim’s family was also increased, to €5,000.
One extra year and an additional €300. That seems a colossal waste of time and money for what the court admitted was clear sexual assault. The only apparent reason for this retrial appears political. It appears to be an attempt to assuage any accusations of racism or anti-immigrant attitudes in the government. While the incident did prompt a backlash from Austrians regarding further immigration, that has nothing to do with the facts of this case.
Amir admitted to targeting the boy, raping him, and going about his business as if nothing happened. He seemed to think he had the right to rape a child, or anyone, just to release his sexual tension. At what point does one need to consider anything else about the case, be it Amir’s age, past behavior, or life experiences? Nothing justifies assaulting a child and then acting as if you did nothing wrong.
More so, the trial did not result in any significant change to the sentence. It was a complete waste of time, as if the government were stalling for some reason, even though Amir, due to other charges, was not released from jail.
Of course, his lawyer will again file for an appeal:
After the new sentence was handed down, defence lawyer Roland Kier asked for three days for his client to consider launching a fresh appeal, according to Kronen Zeitung.
While I realize Amir has the legal right to appeal the sentence, why do it? The facts, based on Amir’s own admission, show that he deliberately assaulted the victim. What is there to appeal? What part of the sentence is unfair? What could possibly justify releasing a person who clearly does not care about anyone’s safety or consent?
The defense attorney should know that Amir has little chance of winning such an appeal. His own words condemn him. Again, this becomes a colossal waste of time and money.
Meanwhile, the boy who this man raped suffers from post trauma stress disorder and he has a whopping €5,000 ($5,187) to use to pay for therapy and treatment. Perhaps the Austrian government should be more concerned with helping the assaulted 10-year-old boy rather than trying to cover for a child rapist.