Looking at the
Independent story on it, I'm struck by some key things in the transcript. Reading the statement
The woman today said her motivation for coming forward was “because, this is no disrespect to the system, I just feel it was not long enough for what he did”.
I can understand the feeling. But the legal theatrics which are being played out do not bode well for future trails. He will not server more than 15 months even with a 30 month sentence. Then again, at 84, he may not survive more than that time in jail anyway. Not that I'm particularly bothered about that.
But, when I read:
She told the court she “didn’t know” whether she had wanted to have sex with Hall. “I might have thought I was a very wordly know-it-all 15-year-old but in reality I was not,”
Might have? Would have? Could have? We are talking allegations of "Rape" here. So let's apply this to another scenario...
Young woman has a few too many, takes a guy to bed and has a really good evening. Neighbours see the guy leaving in the morning and she's feeling a bit selfconscious about it.
So she goes to the Police and claims RAPE. Then she goes to court and says
Well I'm not sure if I wanted to have sex with him that night. I "might" have thought it was a good idea, but in the morning I decided it wasn't so now I've decided it was rape...
Regardless of whether he's a monster or not, or whether she felt she was in control or not, she went there and had sex with him for Three Years and could have stopped at any time. Hall was wrong to do what he did but this is a precedent we don't want to set.