Homos that rape underage girls should not face prosecution

After reading through my opponent's arguments a few times, I found what I thought was the resolution which was:Resolution: Homos [Floresienses] who rape underage girls should not stand trial because they cannot be held liable for their actions, nor are they be capable of defending themselves, in the same way as modern humans are, and therefore, any trial would be unfair. My opponent gives three reasons to support the resolution. Here are my rebuttals: 1) Cannot be held liable for their actionsMy opponent does not give any reason why Homo Floros cannot be held liable for their actions. Raping a member of any species is wrong and the offender must be held liable by the species which the offender raped. If any species rapes a human, then they must face the human justice system. In the late 1300s, a bull was convicted for killing a five year old boy [1]. A French donkey was accused of savagely attacking a farmer, but was acquited when the farmer testified that the donkey was usually gentle [1]. When a pig killed an infant child by eating its arm and face, it was locked up with human defendents, convicted, and had its own arm and face cut off as a punishment [1]. I assume that it was later turned into a sausage and eaten. If pigs, bulls, and donkeys are held responsible for their actions by humans, so too should the Homo Floro. All animals have their own justice system. Bears don't usually attack humans but when a bear cub is taken, mama bear will bite [4]. Humans must protect themselves the same way. Homo Floros must be treated with respect, but when a Homo Floro rapes a human, humans must put that rapist in jail.2) Not capable of defending themselves This is not accurate as Homo Floros are perfectly capable of defending themselves. They were advanced people who used fire for cooking [5]. They could certainly use fire in war. They also manufacturing sophisticated stone tools and hunted pygmy elephants [5]. Either way, their ability to defend themselves must not outweigh the fact that they committed an act of violence upon a Homo Sapiens. Homo Sapiens therefore must adequately dispense justice. 3) They might have intercourse with a young girl thinking that she was a sexually mature female Homo FloresiencesThis is extremely unlikely. Source [2] shows a female Homo Floro while source [3] shows a human girl. Upon opening both sources side by side, it can be seen that the two females look nothing like each other. The only similarity is their size. More specifically, the human girl is clothed and far less hairy than the female Homo Floro. The two also have hair on different parts of their body. While the Homo Floro has hair on her face and upper arms, the human girl only has hair on top of her head. These are few of the many differences. The only similarity is the size. I ask my opponent: Do male monkeys mistake human girls for monkeys and attempt to have sexual intercourse with them despite being the same size? To answer Con's contention, I would like to ask the voters to open sources [2] and [3] and see if it is more likely than not that the voter would mistake one for the other. Sources[1] . http://socyberty.com...[2] . http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com...[3] . http://www.ayushveda.com...[4] . http://tvtropes.org...[5] . http://news.nationalgeographic.com...