I suspect that this 18 year old did not avoid jail time because he was ignorant of the law or because he was Muslim.. He must have avoided jail time because of the circumstances of this case. The Daily Mail must have selectively omitted a few facts, because the judge's decision doesn't make sense if the Daily Mail's report was complete and accurate.
BTW, sex with a 13 year old is legal, with another 13 year old or with an older person who is a 13 year old's intellectual peer.
If an 18 year old had the mental capacity of a 13 year old, then they might not be charged with statutory rape of a 13 year old at the judge's discretion. But the onus would be on the defense to prove mental incompetence to the point where he could be considered the 13 year old girl's intellectual peer. But the Daily Mail report doesn't satisfactorily explain how the judge may have come to that conclusion.
If a 13 year old had the intellectual capacity of an 18 year old, played a leadership role in initiating sex with a simple minded, sexually naive 18 year old, then the 18 year old might not be charged with statutory rape at the judge's discretion. But the onus would be on the defense to prove the 13 year old has the competence of an 18 year old, that the 13 year old played a leadership role in the relationship and that the 18 year old was the 13 year old girl's intellectual peer. But the Daily Mail report doesn't satisfactorily explain how the judge may have come to that conclusion either.
While religion may have been a factor which contributed to this 18 year old's sexual immaturity and his attitude towards females, its not an excuse or even relevant to why this 18 year old had sex with a 13 year old. The main point of focusing on religion in the article seems to be to reinforce negative stereotypes of Muslims, promote fear and hatred against Muslims. I find it highly unlikely that any judge would accept ignorance of the law or religion as an excuse for an 18 year old's actions.
I suspect the referenced news article is incomplete and that the Daily Mail has selectively omitted facts that led to the judge's decision. I suspect the Daily Mail's reporting on this story is slanted towards promoting negative stereotypes of Muslims, rather than understand the reasons for the judge's apparently illogical decision.
Then again the judge could be incompetent or crazy...
Which is more likely? The Daily Mail is not reporting all the details of this case or the Judge is pro-Muslim and pro-statutory rape?
