WARNING: This is Version 1 of my old archive, so Photos will NOT work and many links will NOT work. But you can find articles by searching on the Titles. There is a lot of information in this archive. Use the SEARCH BAR at the top right. Prior to December 2012; I was a pro-Christian type of Conservative. I was unaware of the mass of Jewish lies in history, especially the lies regarding WW2 and Hitler. So in here you will find pro-Jewish and pro-Israel material. I was definitely WRONG about the Boeremag and Janusz Walus. They were for real.
Original Post Date: 2008-05-08 Time: 00:00:00 Posted By: Jan
[If you’re a Black male and you like raping children – come to South Africa. We will love you. Heck, here it is a minor offence. The Govt should issue a pamphlet on “Do it yourself Child Rape” and how to get off scott free – Oh, that’s easy… JUST REPORT IT TO THE POLICE AND YOU ARE SURE TO BE ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH IT! Jan]
A child rapist, who is serving a life sentence for raping a mentally challenged 13-year-old girl twice, has been given a second chance at freedom.
After questioning whether Bongani Vilakazi’s victim could not have consented to have sex with him, the Supreme Court of Appeal said on Monday it wanted to allow the truck driver to challenge his conviction.
Vilakazi had asked the Supreme Court of Appeal to reduce his sentence because his rape of the child was “not the worst kind imaginable”.
His appeal was intended to serve as a test case that would examine whether courts were sentencing so-called “aggravated” rapists – including child, gang and violent rapists – too leniently.
The hearing, however, soon focused on whether Vilakazi, who initially admitted to having sex with his victim but said it was not rape because he had used a condom, should have been convicted of statutory rape rather than rape.
Judges Piet Streicher and Robert Nugent queried the evidence, repeatedly given by Vilakazi’s victim, that she had “not consented” to sex with Vilakazi.
“What does that mean?” Judge Streicher asked, after pointing out that there was no evidence that Vilakazi’s victim had objected to going with him to the field where he had sex with her.
Advocate Wim Trengove SC, who appeared to advise the court on appropriate rape sentencing, challenged the doubts raised by the judges.
Vilakazi had been legally represented at his trial and had never disputed his victim’s claims that she had not consented to have sex with him, Trengove said.
“To draw inferences adverse to her because she displayed the passivity of a mentally challenged 13-year-old in the face of a 30-year-old man who at the very least did not ask her if she wanted to have sex with him is a very dangerous exercise,” he said.
Judgment was reserved.