Teenager who sexually abused a child given absolute discharge

[woodmally 10]

25 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Really?

 

A homeless woman shoplifts a packet of tampons from Poundland and is caught by a store detective.

 

A woman who owns a care home with a million pound turnover, systematically goes through the purses and wallets of the old people in her care stealing thousands of pounds in cash and is caught by a suspicious relative.

 

Both are the crime of theft and both women will be charged under the Theft Act (1968).

 

Are you seriously saying that both, if convicted, should receive the same punishment? And if you are saying that, can you explain how this benefits society?

 

Well they are not like for like. One is worth a couple of pounds the other is a theft of 100s. The distress to the victim is greater as well. I was comparing this kiddy fiddler who got let off with other nonces who didn't yet committed the same crime. Same distress to a victim.

[Halibut 12]

1 hour ago, woodmally said:

Well they are not like for like. One is worth a couple of pounds the other is a theft of 100s. The distress to the victim is greater as well. I was comparing this kiddy fiddler who got let off with other nonces who didn't yet committed the same crime. Same distress to a victim.

If you're so keen on comparisons do you think an offender who, according to the Judiciary of Scotland report on the case - '' Several times during visits he touched her on her vagina, placing his hand over her vaginal area. His hand was cupped and he would press it against that area. Whenever he did this she had clothes on, either leggings or tights or pants.''  and is described as ''very young and immature'' should be dealt with in exactly the same way as a fully mature adult who tears the childs underclothes off and violently penetrates her with his fingers and threatens to kill her if she tells anyone? I don't.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

2 hours ago, woodmally said:

Well they are not like for like. One is worth a couple of pounds the other is a theft of 100s. The distress to the victim is greater as well. 

You do realise that you have just demolished your own argument lol 😂

 

"But why should we take into account a persons circumstance.  A crime should be punished the same."

[woodmally 10]

16 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

You do realise that you have just demolished your own argument lol 😂

 

"But why should we take into account a persons circumstance.  A crime should be punished the same."

No because the crime is of different magnitude so not the same. If a rich millionaire stole some sanitary products I would expect the same level of punishment. And as this person messed with a child I expect him to be punished the same way as others who do the same. 

16 hours ago, Halibut said:

If you're so keen on comparisons do you think an offender who, according to the Judiciary of Scotland report on the case - '' Several times during visits he touched her on her vagina, placing his hand over her vaginal area. His hand was cupped and he would press it against that area. Whenever he did this she had clothes on, either leggings or tights or pants.''  and is described as ''very young and immature'' should be dealt with in exactly the same way as a fully mature adult who tears the childs underclothes off and violently penetrates her with his fingers and threatens to kill her if she tells anyone? I don't.

Again no I expect this person to be punished the same as others who have touched up a child in the same way and not use "young and immature" as an excuse.  

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

On 15/02/2019 at 07:16, Cyclone said:

I've been able to ask quite a few questions which you or other posters are apparently unable to answer.  Instead you make up pretend replies from me and then argue against these strawmen.

That's the best post of the thread.  It answers the questions about WHY the Sheriff made the decision.  We can't do any better than this explanation.

 

Some people are still calling for "severe punishment", but when asked why, to achieve what, they remain strangely silent.

Well I'm certainly not "silent" about the punishment and what it would achieve. He abused a small child for a two year period, so he should have been jailed for 4 years, so he would then serve two years before been let out (we have odd laws where criminals can get out of jail after serving half of their sentence.  Regarding what it would achieve, it would show that for any action there are consequences, it would say to the offender that his actions were such,  a punishment had to be administered. Hopefully to stop him doing the crime again.

 

Angel1

[26b-6 16]

1 hour ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

Well I'm certainly not "silent" about the punishment and what it would achieve. He abused a small child for a two year period, so he should have been jailed for 4 years, so he would then serve two years before been let out (we have odd laws where criminals can get out of jail after serving half of their sentence.  Regarding what it would achieve, it would show that for any action there are consequences, it would say to the offender that his actions were such,  a punishment had to be administered. Hopefully to stop him doing the crime again.

 

Angel1

Like many cases the devils in the detail, and me, nor you know the exact details.

[Halibut 12]

2 hours ago, woodmally said:

No because the crime is of different magnitude so not the same. If a rich millionaire stole some sanitary products I would expect the same level of punishment. And as this person messed with a child I expect him to be punished the same way as others who do the same. 

Again no I expect this person to be punished the same as others who have touched up a child in the same way and not use "young and immature" as an excuse.  

No two cases are exactly the same.

[woodmally 10]

1 hour ago, Halibut said:

No two cases are exactly the same.

Maybe not exactly but similar enough to group them in punishment brackets. Or is it a case of the mental illness card gets you off scott free like it always does, if you need more examples of this I can find them. 

[Shunter 0]

5 minutes ago, gaz 786 said:

Disgusting the whole judicial system has gone to pot bring back caning in school and coppers clipping cheeky kids it worked in the old days 

There will be a flood of dogooders who will disagree with this but that's the modern numpty way. 

Criminals today are treated with kid gloves, to an extent that it's more important to find out "why" they decided to interfere with a child rather than what future damage that interference will have on the victim. 

Its sick, the lot of it.

[Halibut 12]

9 hours ago, gaz 786 said:

Disgusting the whole judicial system has gone to pot bring back caning in school and coppers clipping cheeky kids it worked in the old days 

No it didn't. 

[Cyclone 10]

21 hours ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

Well I'm certainly not "silent" about the punishment and what it would achieve. He abused a small child for a two year period, so he should have been jailed for 4 years, so he would then serve two years before been let out (we have odd laws where criminals can get out of jail after serving half of their sentence.  Regarding what it would achieve, it would show that for any action there are consequences, it would say to the offender that his actions were such,  a punishment had to be administered. Hopefully to stop him doing the crime again.

 

Angel1

Well, you've answered.  "Hopefully to stop him doing it again".

Did you even read the assessment by the sheriff?  There appears to be no chance of him doing it again, so given that, what now is the point of the "severe punishment" that you want?

12 hours ago, Shunter said:

There will be a flood of dogooders who will disagree with this but that's the modern numpty way. 

Criminals today are treated with kid gloves, to an extent that it's more important to find out "why" they decided to interfere with a child rather than what future damage that interference will have on the victim. 

Its sick, the lot of it.

It's what the evidence actually shows.

 

But you know, right wingers have had enough of experts and prefer to just make things up instead.

[Cyclone 10]

On 15/02/2019 at 08:11, Shunter said:

Maybe to achieve the definition that this pervert can never do this to a child again?  

And to accept that because neither sets of parents really wanted to complain is also neither here nor there, because im a parent myself and if some educationally challenged boy touched my daughter inappropriately, I would want him hung by the nads.

 

Thats not silent, is it?

"Never do it again".  So you're calling for an indefinite life sentence are you.  Completely the opposite of the sheriff, way outside the guidelines and not in proportion to sentencing for other far more serious examples of similar crimes.

On 15/02/2019 at 09:16, woodview said:

Haha I'm not right wing. If you think defending a proven paedophile is left wing then you are sadly mistaken.

I asked for an example of the type of circumstances that might justify the sherriffs decision, in order that the point could be understood or discussed. There has been no example given. So my assumption is that there is blind faith in the judiciary, again, not a very left wing stance.

Calling for longer sentences and more harsh punishment is typically right wing.