It sounds to me like this was entirely consenting, really - especially with the phrase "she thought it a good idea because she could get some money". There could be extenuating circumstances, but the article doesn't mention them.
It's kind of sad that someone would be placed on a sex offender list for this.
As no details are given about the woman it is possible that she was very young and inexperienced, and this had an influence on the Judge. He does say that because he is 77 she couldnt possibly be interested in the man, which is a clue. That must mean she would be under 30 at least. If she was 16 and he was 77 then a court would feel more compelled to be harsh and consider him a sex offender, than if it was an Aspie woman who was 55.
True, but I suspect that if she was as young as 16, the reporter would have mentioned it - it makes a much better story. I figured she was probably somewhere in her twenties or thirties.
From the judges comments (i.e. "she was suffering a disability and you exploited it"), it sounds like he was sentenced entirely because she was an aspie, and could not possibly have been able to consent.
There was a reporting restriction so that was why there was no direct info about her. Therefore the reporter couldn't mention her age.
Ah, okay - that makes sense.
From the original article:-
Cleophus Marcus, 77, had met the woman, who suffers from Asperger's Syndrome, at a barbecue through his work at the Christchurch care home in Northampton.
My underlining.
This man was working in another care home, so it is quite likely that he is fairly fit for his age also likely he would have been made aware that residents of care homes are vulnerable.
Many people are sexually active until they die of old age.
Whatever our ages & sexual needs, it is wrong to take advantage of a person who you know is legally classed as vulnerable.
"She says that, because of her condition, she thought it a good idea because she could get some money and took off all her clothes. They were on the bed kissing, hugging and touching each other when her mobile phone rang and that seems to have brought the matter to an end."
To me, this sounds more like a mutual thing than taking advantage of someone. We need more data to process.
I do not understand what role the cell phone really played. It rang, so what? If it was like a reminder to her, maybe foul play was involved.
I wonder what they would have wrote if she had offered him some money...
I agree that we need more data, but if we pretend that the woman was 13 & had AS.
Would that make a difference re the consensual part?
A 13 year NT old could well have acted this way & yes possibly for money. it would still be wrong for the older man to have gone along with this.