Sweden continues to shock the world with its light sentences for serious crime. Last out is a verdict from Östersund District Court, where a Syrian asylum seeker was sentenced for rape of a 13-year-old girl.
A Syrian asylum seeker has been sentenced to two months in prison for raping a 13-year-old girl at a school toilet in Östersund. He gets away with only two months in prison because he claims that he was only 17 years old when the crime was committed - even though he by the Migration Board has been called a grown man. At the same time he is acquitted of another rape, of a 14-year-old girl, because she was almost old enough to have sex, reports Fria Tider.
The 13-year-old girl came in contact with Mohammed via Snapchat. Then she visited the Wargentin school in Östersund in late December, where she met him.
Mohammed then suddenly pulled the girl into a toilet, locked the door, pushed her up against the wall and held her down while he raped her. The 13-year-old tried in vain to get him to stop, but she was, according to the verdict, "very scared" because Mohamed was "much older" than her. She tried to hold back her tears during the assault, it says.
Mohammed was also charged with raping another 14-year-old girl in central Östersund earlier in December. but he was acquitted for rape. Instead he was sentenced for sexual exploitation of a child, because the Östersund District Court ruled that the intercourse "was characterized by a certain reciprocity" and the girl was not far from 15 years old, even though she was still under the legal age to have sex.
For the two assaults, Mohammed was sentenced to probation and two months in prison. This is because he claims he was born on January 1, 1999 and therefore insists that he was 17 when the rape occurred. The prosecutor had referred to the Migration Board, which stated that the man was born in January 1998 and therefore should be sentenced as an adult. But according to Östersund District Court, it is not enough to use the Migration Board's data as evidence.
"The court can conclude that there are different requirements on evidence in criminal cases and in the asylum process. In the asylum process it is Mohammed [...] who has the burden of proof for his claim that he is under eighteen years, while in criminal cases it is the prosecutor who has the full burden of proof concerning the circumstances of importance of age," reads the verdict.
DON'T MISS A POST - FOLLOW US ON FACEBOOK!
Comments at Speisa are unmoderated. We do believe in free speech, but posts using foul language, as well as abusive, hateful, libelous and genocidal posts, will be deleted if seen. However, if a comment remains on the site, it in no way constitutes an endorsement by Speisa of the sentiments contained therein.comments powered by Disqus