Commenting on lawyer Larry Scott?s disastrous mitigation of a 27-year-old client accused of having unlawful carnal knowledge with a 13-year-old girl raises the risk that it will give his comments more credibility than they deserve.

But at the very least, it is worth urging Mr. Scott to apologise to the family of the victim for his insensitivity in both suggesting that she somehow got some pleasure from the act and that no harm was done once she was impregnated the girl because the pregnancy was later terminated.

As for Mr. Scott himself, he has damaged his own reputation and that of the Bar to which he belongs. And while it is fair to assume that Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons is too good a judge to let her own shock at Mr. Scott?s comments lead to an increased penalty for his client, it is also fair to assume that Mr. Scott did his own client no good.

Indeed, the client could probably demand his money back; he would have been no worse off if he had been unrepresented. There is a broader issue, however.

The victim under law was legally not capable of making a decision about consent, along with all of the risks that consent entails. Unfortunately, she is all too aware of them now.

Regardless of whether one is pro-choice or pro-life, deciding to have an abortion is a traumatic decision at any age. To be forced to make the decision at 13 and in these circumstances is appalling and unfair.

One point has been raised about the law that is worth redressing. The law on unlawful carnal knowledge only concerns victims who are female. While there are laws that cover sexual exploitation of a minor male or female, it would seem to be only fair to extend the unlawful carnal knowledge law to under-age boys as well. Beyond that, the law should be left well enough alone, and one can only hope that the outrage that has greeted Mr. Scott?s remarks will encourage him to keep his own counsel in future.