Is that ruling sensible to you? I read it and it seems to be saying that rape of a 6 year old it’s fine as long as the guy keeps her around til after she’s 18?

Is that ruling sensible to you? I read it and it seems to be saying that rape of a 6 year old it’s fine as long as the guy keeps her around til after she’s 18? Also the fact that he had other girlfriends that are past puberty was listed as if it were exonerating evidence. That was the reasoning given in the link you provided. Can you help me figure out how I’m misinterpreting the ruling? On it’s face it seems nonsensical.