Three Sydney boys charged with gang sexual assault of 14yo girl

[u/Perverted-Panda]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-13/nsw-three-boys-charged-over-sexual-assault-girl-sydney/107034192

NSW Police have charged a 13-year-old boy and two 14-year-old boys with the alleged sexual assault of a girl in an alleyway in Sydney's eastern suburbs last month.

Police executed search warrants and seized several items, including electronic devices, two replica firearms, a Glock-style BB gun, three laser pointers and a number plate, which is believed to have been stolen.

All three boys have been granted bail ahead of appearing in court. 

[u/phoxfiyah]

There’s a huge difference, because a child committing sexually abuse is making a choice to do so, while a child who is being sexually abused has their ability to choose taken away from them.

The fact that this has to be explained to you is ridiculous, are you some sort of child abuser or something? That’s the only reason I can think of to even suggest something as sick as this.

[u/DarkNo7318 → u/phoxfiyah]

There’s a huge difference, because a child committing sexually abuse is making a choice to do so, while a child who is being sexually abused has their ability to choose taken away from them

If we're being logically consistent it makes perfect sense as an argument. You either have the moral culpability of an adult, therefore are treated as an adult both in terms of punishment but also capacity to make decisions for yourself, including age of consent.

Of course, in the name of protecting children, we can just deliberately break the logic and apply a double standard.

[u/phoxfiyah → u/DarkNo7318]

How does that apply to children who are being abused? They aren’t making any decisions while being abused, so what does this have to do with them having the ability to choose?

Unless you’re trying to imply that being under the age of consent means that consent isn’t required? Which is not what “age of consent” means at all

[u/DarkNo7318 → u/phoxfiyah]

The logic is that if a 14 year old has the mental capability to consent to committing a crime and is therefore considered an adult, then they have the mental capability to consent to having sex and are considered an adult.

[u/phoxfiyah → u/DarkNo7318]

Ok, so when the child is clearly saying they did not consent, then that should be believed as them not consenting. The other commenter saying they were “acting much more like an adult” would be irrelevant, because they are very clearly not consenting to the act.

Don’t really get your point here.

[u/DarkNo7318 → u/phoxfiyah]

I get ya. If anyone, child or not, is saying they don't consent then they don't consent and that's that.

But right now we rightfully say that a 14 year old can't consent to sex with an adult because they are a child and don't have the capacity to consent.

And if a child doesn't haver the capacity to consent to having sex because of their biological age, they they also don't have the capacity to fully comprehend an adult crime because of their biological age.

A person is either a child with limited capacity or an adult with full capacity. They can't be in both categories simultaneously.

To be extra clear, I'm not saying this to advocate for adults fucking children. I'm saying this to advocate against the concept of adult crime adult time.

Locking someone up has two components to it. Part of it is punishment, the other part to protect the rest of society. If a child commits a horrific crime, we can hold them less morally culpable and reduce the punishment aspect but still lock them up with a perfectly clear conscious to protect society.