Judges :(

[Calaen]

How can someone who has raped a 7 year old be given a community sentence.

BBC NEWS | England | Manchester | Freed child rapist, 16, detained

It just beggars belief.

 

[Chilly]

He might grow up a bit in 3 years. Judges are better at JUDGING these things than you or I.

 

[Marc]

Sentences are fucked up.

I read recently about 2 lads who kicked a man to death and they get a far lesser sentence than someone who got done for attempted murder.

 

[Bugz]

He might grow up a bit in 3 years. Judges are better at JUDGING these things than you or I.

The only person at 16 who would not be able to recognise the implications of raping a young child is one who has mental issues. I see no mention of this in the news report.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well the judge JUDGED the first sentence as he did due to the family of the victim forgiving the kid, most likely thought he had learned the consequences and the kid might have shown "true remorse".

Got out, did it again, pays the prize now and most likely a much harsher punishment then he would've got from the first one.

So the first rape is considered in this second judgement.

That's what judges do, they weigh in all the data and make a decicion, it's easy to judge a judge when you don't have to think about all of the info and don't have to live with the consequences

Kids don't get judged the same, as much as kids don't get same rights and don't get, in general, treated the same. Different rules and we can't pick&choose which rules apply.

 

[Mabs]

Got out, did it again, pays the prize now and most likely a much harsher punishment then he would've got from the first one.

and you wouldnt mind if the second person was your brother/sister/mum/niece/etc ?

love all these grandiose "oh its ok , theyre better" ideas

wait till it happens to you, then you can comment

till then, shut the fuck up

/edit

thats not aimed at you toth btw, just wishy washy fucking human rights campaigners etc in general

 

[old.Tohtori]

wait till it happens to you, then you can comment

till then, shut the fuck up

First; So, it happened to you?

And secondly; Nothing in what i said translates to "oh its ok , theyre better".

EDIT: I don't take it personally even if it was aimed at me

I also don't condone the actions, but i do condone the judges actions and think the second punishment correlates the first offfense into it.

Also it's a simple fact that kids get treated different, that's where we can't pick&choose. We want kids to be kids? This shit will happen.

 

[Mabs]

1- yes, family members
2- the point remains if he had been jailed for 10 years the first time, the second wouldnt have happened ?

i could give a shit about his fucking "rights", lock him up till he dies for all i care, just get him off the streets

 

[old.Tohtori]

1- yes, family members
2- the point remains if he had been jailed for 10 years the first time, the second wouldnt have happened ?

i could give a shit about his fucking "rights", lock him up till he dies for all i care, just get him off the streets

1: Fair enough, you know more about the anger it brings. Can only speculate what i'd feel (not oto be psoted here ).

2: Do you then think that all kids should be trialed as adults? Because if we trial them for one, we have to trial them for another too.

For example if a 5 year old kid finds daddys gun and shoots mommy?

What about a 10 year old finding same gun?

Where do we draw the line?

 

[Mabs]

i have long been of the opinion that:

you should be tried based on the crime, not your age

if you go around doing adult things.. ie kidnapping,murder etc you should be judged by standards of the crime, not the "oh theyre young, they didnt mean it" bullshit

 

[Calaen]

1: Fair enough, you know more about the anger it brings. Can only speculate what i'd feel (not oto be psoted here ).

2: Do you then think that all kids should be trialed as adults? Because if we trial them for one, we have to trial them for another too.

For example if a 5 year old kid finds daddys gun and shoots mommy?

What about a 10 year old finding same gun?

Where do we draw the line?

It's not about trialing them necessarily as adults, but he raped a 7 year old, which deserves more than receiving a curfew or weeding some fucking allotment. Anyone that rapes a child, is never going to be ok to be around anyone ever again.

 

[old.Tohtori]

i have long been of the opinion that:

you should be tried based on the crime, not your age

if you go around doing adult things.. ie kidnapping,murder etc you should be judged by standards of the crime, not the "oh theyre young, they didnt mean it" bullshit

The thing is though, while that method might be more "just", it has so many "case to case" things that some people would get bumhumped by the justice system. Get a bad judge and your 3 year old kid is on death row.

So from the options of having what we have and changing it to crime based, i'd prefer the modern system due to it having less gray area as such.

Anyone that rapes a child, is never going to be ok to be around anyone ever again.

Well i don't agree with that necessarily, if murderers can go free and are considered as "fit for community again", i'd say the same thing extends to all aspects.

If you're not sentenced to death, you do the time given.

 

[Calaen]

The thing is though, while that method might be more "just", it has so many "case to case" things that some people would get bumhumped by the justice system. Get a bad judge and your 3 year old kid is on death row.

So from the options of having what we have and changing it to crime based, i'd prefer the modern system due to it having less gray area as such.



Well i don't agree with that necessarily, if murderers can go free and are considered as "fit for community again", i'd say the same thing extends to all aspects.

If you're not sentenced to death, you do the time given.

Yes but murder/manslaughter have too many grey areas, he raped this child for no other reason than sexual satisfaction.

 

[Raven]

He might grow up a bit in 3 years. Judges are better at JUDGING these things than you or I.

That's why they have parole.

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

At 16 years old, the law prevents the judge from whacking the offender with full weight sentencing. It is very unlikely the judge's hands were anything but tied.

If you want to complain about wishy-washy liberals then complain about the people that vote in the people that make wishy washy liberal laws.

That would be all of us then.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yes but murder/manslaughter have too many grey areas, he raped this child for no other reason than sexual satisfaction.

And he got judged by the law.

Also we don't know how, what, where, how severe etc the rape was, what other variables there were and so on. That's where we have to trust the system to work. If we do, different story, but that affects the whole system, not just one case.

I don't think the judge thought "boys will be boys" and let him go, it's clear from the statement about the boy being "manipulating...etc".

These kind of cases easily make people go "burn all the motherf*ckers!", but one has to remember that laws are not only in place to punish the wicked, but also to make sure people don't get punished too severely and for nothing.

Even if the system doen't really work either in those cases all the time...

 

[Embattle]

He might grow up a bit in 3 years. Judges are better at JUDGING these things than you or I.

Didn't do that well first time round.

 

[Calaen]

And he got judged by the law.

Also we don't know how, what, where, how severe etc the rape was, what other variables there were and so on. That's where we have to trust the system to work. If we do, different story, but that affects the whole system, not just one case.

What variables could there of been? He was left alone with the child? the 7 year old was coming onto him? the 7 year old seduced him? He lured him into his own home and abused him.

A sentence being smaller because the family accepted his apology due to their of religion is an even more retarded argument.

 

[old.Tohtori]

What variables could there of been? He was left alone with the child? the 7 year old was coming onto him? the 7 year old seduced him? He lured him into his own home and abused him.

A sentence being smaller because the family accepted his apology due to their of religion is an even more retarded argument.

Well the degree of a rape might vary, petting, penetration and so on. Was it a he said she said situation? Just from the top of my head. The whole issue could've been in the gray area on the first case.

I'm not saying the kid didn't do wrong, but without knowing all the facts and such, can't really say either.

The apology of the family in the first case is a valid argument also, it's the same with "do you wish to press charges" when someone gives you a punch. If you say no, the court might still give a sentence to the person, but your statement is taken into consideration.

Wheater or not the family SHOULD have forgiven the kid, whole different story.

 

[Calaen]

Well the degree of a rape might vary, petting, penetration and so on. Was it a he said she said situation? Just from the top of my head. The whole issue could've been in the gray area on the first case.

I'm not saying the kid didn't do wrong, but without knowing all the facts and such, can't really say either.

The apology of the family in the first case is a valid argument also, it's the same with "do you wish to press charges" when someone gives you a punch. If you say no, the court might still give a sentence to the person, but your statement is taken into consideration.

Wheater or not the family SHOULD have forgiven the kid, whole different story.

There can't be any facts when it comes to raping a child, what further information could you possibly require. If someone kidnaps you and pummels your arse for an hour or so what else do you need to know work out they are sick in the head. Nothing can justify there reasoning for doing it.

Since it was in court they had pressed charges, the family's forgiveness should have no bearing, because they are not the law makers, they don't know what goes on inside a rapists head.

Which is why the initial sentence was appealed by the crown prosecution service.

But it was too late because he was out commiting another crime, I think the new sentence is to small 3 years for two accounts of child abuse/rape???

We are talking about a repeat offender so your comments about more facts just dissapear into nothingness the kid is sick in the head regardless of his age and he should not see the light of day ever again.

Finally how can you say you can't say whether or not he did wrong? He fucking raped a 7 year old.

 

[old.Tohtori]

There can't be any facts when it comes to raping a child,

I asnwered that on my previous post.

Finally how can you say you can't say whether or not he did wrong? He fucking raped a 7 year old.

I'm not saying that, i'd prefer you not twist it as such, i said "I'm not saying the kid didn't do wrong".

"without the facts, can't really know." addresses the lack of facts on the case to make a judgement on severity and required judgement.

The judge on the first case trusted the kid had learned, it was a misjudgement, that is ofcourse granted, but those things happen.

He is a repeat offender, but throwing him away for all eternity when we're talking about a growing kid is harsh. Give a sentence and atleast try to fix the kid.

But to get away from the kid a bit and into the topic you posted more;

You simply can't make a valid decicion based on a news article(taking sensationalism into account) and without knowing the facts around the case. As such, we have to trust the system and the judge to be strict and fair, or we have to disown the whole legal system.

 

[Bugz]

People never stop fully growing till they're in their late 20's mentally so that's not a fair argument IMO.

The kid is 16, unless he has physiological problems, he is fully aware he did wrong. To do it again shows utter cotempt for the laws which govern our country. He should receive a life sentence of 10-15+ years and that's that.

 

[`mongoose]

Honestly - horrified that this happened.

I can't understand how a judge could issue community service for such a crime as rape - irrespective of the age of the victim.

The fact that the CPS were appealing gives credence to the idea that the judge had the option to sentence.

M

 

[Calaen]

You simply can't make a valid decicion based on a news article(taking sensationalism into account) and without knowing the facts around the case. As such, we have to trust the system and the judge to be strict and fair, or we have to disown the whole legal system.

The fact the initial decision was being appealed by the crown prosecution suggests that the judge is not capable of making these decisions. Nothing in the community services list is an acceptable punishment for rape which is my gripe.

I'm not arguing about the system I am arguing how a judge can make this decision to effectively not punish the guy.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'm not arguing about the system I am arguing how a judge can make this decision to effectively not punish the guy.

How being the key word in my point, we don't really know other facts then the really shallow news article told.

It's not, afterall, as simple as "rape of any degree means life sentence", without any lean way one way or other.

 

[Calaen]

How being the key word in my point, we don't really know other facts then the really shallow news article told.

It's not, afterall, as simple as "rape of any degree means life sentence", without any lean way one way or other.

Maybe not, but the punishment must relate to the crime commited. In this case the judge pretty much let him walk out the door because it was his first time of raping someone, and the parents forgave him because they read the bible.

 

[Scouse]

wishy washy fucking human rights campaigners etc

I'm guessing the world would be a much better place if we got rid of human rights eh Mabs? 'cause you'll never need em....

 

[Tom]

People never stop fully growing till they're in their late 20's mentally so that's not a fair argument IMO.

The kid is 16, unless he has physiological problems, he is fully aware he did wrong. To do it again shows utter cotempt for the laws which govern our country. He should receive a life sentence of 10-15+ years and that's that.

Knowing something is wrong, and caring if something is wrong, are two very different things.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Maybe not, but the punishment must relate to the crime commited. In this case the judge pretty much let him walk out the door because it was his first time of raping someone, and the parents forgave him because they read the bible.

Well, that's a pretty skimmy way of putting it as i doubt the judge just thought "oh first time rape? Go on then.", but i think we've said all there is on the matter.

Knowing something is wrong, and caring if something is wrong, are two very different things.

16 year olds don't care about most things, that's where the growing up part comes in and why i think the age comes into play, even if it is a extreme case of juvenile rebellion.

In modern day, i wouldn't be surprised if the kid didn't know it was wrong and thought it was cool 'cause some peeps on the net said so

 

[Uara]

Anyway its not limited to 3 years....

On Wednesday, the attacker, who cannot be named, was given an indeterminate sentence for protection of the public after committing a second attack.

I know later on it says he can be eligible for parole earlier than 3 years...but with these protection of the public issues its rare they're let out earlier and much more common that they'll be in there longer than the minimum sentence. A judge I was talking to was stating that the criteria for being released from prison on these sentences are very strict normally requiring multiple courses in which there arn't many opportunities to take within prison.

Courts of First Instance judges do make mistakes. They are only human and that is why the appeal system is in place.