Paedophile Jailed Longer Because Victims Were Asian

Very Bored

Paedophile jailed for longer because victims were Asian and the judge felt that Asian communities are more judgemental of rape victims. This may be true but I find it abhorrent that a white (or any other ethnicity) child's suffering should be seen as less. Personally, I'd be of the lock him up then "ooops, we lost the key" persuasion regarding anyone like this, but I simply don't think its right to value one child's pain over another's. My concern is for other children, and for adults who had this happen to them in childhood, and the message this sends out.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paedophile-who-abused-two-young-6463908

Brian from Bray

What a load of bull... Abuse is abuse doesn't matter what colour skin or nationality they are.

cowboyBuilder

More PCness gone mental... not surprised at all this is in the UK.. disgusting society

biko

Different strokes for different folks it seems.

NachoBusiness

I once threw a pair of shoes at guy and because he was an Arab, I got 27 years.

True story.

Buona Fortuna

This is so fcuked up.

There were also cultural concerns that the girls' prospects of being considered for arranged marriages might be damaged.

So the judge is recognising a "loss" of something that most people in the country find abhorrent.

We are upset because some paedophile was jailed for longer because of some aggravating factor?

My heart bleeds for him.

I think it perfectly legitimate. If for example virginity is particularly respected in a culture and so by being abused the victim also is stigmatised and shunned by their own community after the incident, I say fire another few years on for that, don't limit the considerations to the physical offence itself.

Buona Fortuna

Deleted User wrote: »

We are upset because some paedophile was jailed for longer because of some aggravating factor?

.

I think the "upset" is not that he got longer but the implication that had the victim been white, anglo saxon, christian the sentence would be less.

No one gives a flying fcuk about Ul Nasir - let him rot.

Buona Fortuna

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

I think the "upset" is not that he got longer but the implication that had the victim been white, anglo saxon, christian the sentence would be less.

No one gives a flying fcuk about Ul Nasir - let him rot.

But that didn't happen.

The Court doesn't deal in "what might this imply to the white Mirror reader". It deals in the particular facts and applies the law. And you take your victim as you find them. If someone goes around and breaks the legs of 2 men, one of them being a footballer, well then obviously that footballer will suffer an extra trauma and it might be an aggravating factor for the sentence in that case. The Court would not be implying that people who don't play football have less merit or suffer less physical pain.

Very Bored

In fairness cowboy, stupid things happen in Ireland too and there are plenty of stupid judges here too. I think its better to condemn the judge and his decision than the whole of British society. The sad thing is this b*****d will appeal the harshness of the sentence, get it reduced and have won a small victory. The best thing in situations like this is to play a straight bat. Personally, I'd throw him in a cell and never let him out but a judge has to go with what's written down in law and set down by precedent.

arayess

Deleted User wrote: »

But that didn't happen.

The Court doesn't deal in "what might this imply to the white Mirror reader". It deals in the particular facts and applies the law. And you take your victim as you find them. If someone goes around and breaks the legs of 2 men, one of them being a footballer, well then obviously that footballer will suffer an extra trauma and it might be an aggravating factor for the sentence in that case. The Court would not be implying that people who don't play football have less merit or suffer less physical pain.

I know what you are saying but justice is supposed to be blind.

What you are saying is that , that given the same circumstances it is reasonable for him to get less time because the cultural impact on a white victim is less.

I understand perfectly and it's messed up in the extreme

conorhal

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

I think the "upset" is not that he got longer but the implication that had the victim been white, anglo saxon, christian the sentence would be less.

No one gives a flying fcuk about Ul Nasir - let him rot.

I know it may at first seem counter-intuitive, but I'm in favour of this kind of sentencing for one reason only. Far too often the victim is ignored by the justice system and the impact of a crime against them is a secondary sentencing concern.
I would make it a legal requirement for a victim impact statement or assessment to be a factor in sentencing. When you consider all that is taken into consideration on behalf of the perpetrator, tough childhood yer honor, it waaas de druuuugs melud, there should be greater weight placed on the impact on the victim.
Consider two unprovoked assaults.
In one case the victim has gotten on with their life and refuses to allow what has happened to change their life one bit. In the other case the victim has been badly effected and developed an anxiety disorder which has made them fearful of leaving their house.
The same crime has had a very different impact on each victim, in one case it was an horrific incident, in the other a life altering event.
There needs to be an allowance for the degree of impact a crime has had on the victim and places them at the center, rather then at the periphery of the justice system. For example I think that if you break into an elderly persons home then there should be a stiffer sentence then a regular burglary.
I would restate however that it needs to be based on the victim impact statement and not a judges presumption.

Very Bored

I don't agree Conor. There's too many idiot judges and coppers like this in the UK. Put it this way, you go to the UK a black guy calls you a paddy b so you respond by calling him a f*****g n. Both of you are absolutely in the wrong, though you could argue that the first guy was more so because he aggravated the situation but you'd be the one who got into trouble. Its PCness gone mad.

Zillah

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

More PCness gone mental... not surprised at all this is in the UK.. disgusting society

Yeah this feckin PC claptrap has gone too far. Just the other day I had to wear a hard hat on a building site! My landlord wants to check the gas boiler. Jimmy down the road got pulled over for throwing chips at an immigrant's head. This feckin PCness is ruining this country.

Very Bored

Very Bored wrote: »

Its PCness gone mad.

A paedophile gets an increased sentence because of the particular impact on a victim long after the physical offence is long over...and we think that giving an increased sentence to reflect an extra trauma is "PCness gone mad"?

:eek:

Cuban Pete

arayess wrote: »

I know what you are saying but justice is supposed to be blind.

Is it really any different from people delivering victim impact statements here? After all, if justice is supposed to be blind then the consequences for the injured party shouldn't be factored in.

I'm sorry, but isn't this precisely what AH wants? That the impact of the crime on the victim should play a role in sentencing? Isn't this what people have been crowing about for years?

Deleted User wrote: »

A paedophile gets an increased sentence because of the particular impact on a victim long after the physical offence is long over...and we think that giving an increased sentence to reflect an extra trauma is "PCness gone mad"?

:eek:

And that is a perfect example of why the term "political correctness" now has no meaning.

conorhal

conorhal wrote: »

I would restate however that it needs to be based on the victim impact statement and not a judges presumption.

Oh true, but clearly there was no issue with how the matter was introduced so one must presume it was in an impact statement or evidence was given to that effect.

The paedophile received an increased penalty because of the particular trauma suffered by his victim that may not be suffered by everyone. It is well established that the impact on the victim may be an aggravating factor. It was in this instance, so the paedophile got a tougher sentence. I would have though a "well done, Judge, well done" appropriate. The Appeal Court seemed to think so anyway.

suicide_circus

I think this sends a dangerous message as it legitimises the backward victim blaming prevalent in many communities. Judge is saying "yep, these girls are now damaged goods. Gonna be much tougher for their owner (father) to peddle them off to someone else now"

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

I think this sends a dangerous message as it legitimises the backward victim blaming prevalent in many communities. Judge is saying "yep, these girls are now damaged goods. Gonna be much tougher for their owner (father) to peddle them off to someone else now"

The Judge wasn't saying that at all.

As for the message, it's not for the Courts to focus on the message, that's a matter for sociologists and so on. The Judge is concerned about this offender and this crime, and the impact on this victim.

lawred2

Very Bored wrote: »

Paedophile jailed for longer because victims were Asian and the judge felt that Asian communities are more judgemental of rape victims. This may be true but I find it abhorrent that a white (or any other ethnicity) child's suffering should be seen as less. Personally, I'd be of the lock him up then "ooops, we lost the key" persuasion regarding anyone like this, but I simply don't think its right to value one child's pain over another's. My concern is for other children, and for adults who had this happen to them in childhood, and the message this sends out.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paedophile-who-abused-two-young-6463908

I'd lock the judge up

weirdo

rubadub

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

More PCness gone mental.

I would not consider it being PC at all. It's openly discriminating, I would think being PC would be going out of their way to not be discriminating.

Like if some MMA fighter punched another fighter during a row at a weighin and got a small fine. Then if the MMA fighter punched an old granny and a judge insisted on the same punishment I would think that is "PC gone mad"

rubadub

rubadub wrote: »

I would not consider it being PC at all. It's openly discriminating, I would think being PC would be going out of their way to not be discriminating.

It's not discriminating, it's distinguishing. In this instance on the basis of the reaction that different communities have towards the victims of abuse. To give a paedophile an increased sentence. Which seems to really have upset people here. That poor peado never had a chance, sure how was he to know about the particular trauma to his victims, apparently it should be excluded as an aggravating factor.

Custardpi

While "PCness" is certainly an overused term it does appear strange that it is taken as given that the victim will suffer shaming & possible ostracisation within her community for having the cheek to be abused. Is it acceptable that this further attack on the victim is not criticised or that the practice of arranged marriages (how much choice do the females have in the "arrangement"?) is not scrutinised. Now you can argue that legally reform of such practices is not of course within the remit of a judge, but couldn't he at least find some way to condemn it?

The message being sent out here is one which (regardless of the judge's intentions) effectively validates any shaming which the victims receive at the hands of their community. Whatever the strict legal standpoint I personally find it morally abhorrent that any victim of sexual abuse/rape should be treated in this way. Communities which do so should be regarded as backward & in need of intervention & education to come into the 21st century. Whatever one's cultural/ethnic background if someone has suffered the kind of appalling abuse which these victims did & you shun them or try to make their lives difficult then you are a pr1ck & are effectivly an accomplice to the rapist. Shaming culture should not be accepted in a civilised country in 2015.

arayess

Cuban Pete wrote: »

Is it really any different from people delivering victim impact statements here? After all, if justice is supposed to be blind then the consequences for the injured party shouldn't be factored in.

I'm sorry, but isn't this precisely what AH wants? That the impact of the crime on the victim should play a role in sentencing? Isn't this what people have been crowing about for years?


And that is a perfect example of why the term "political correctness" now has no meaning.

I want harsh sentences for child abusers. I want the pain of the victim acknowledged by all means .

But to state that culturally it is harsher on an Asian than a Caucasian is wrong. You can't generalise on something like that.

Victim impact statements are an interesting concept , I don't know if they should assist in the severity of a sex crime.
Because somebody copes well with a rape compared to another who claims their life is destroyed doesn't mean person 1 should be denied the satisfaction of seeing their attacker punished to the full extent of the law.
As a society we'd want both rapist locked up for a lengthy period and not have one get off easier true the sheer luck that his victim "coped better".

Custardpi

Custardpi wrote: »

While "PCness" is certainly an overused term it does appear strange that it is taken as given that the victim will suffer shaming & possible ostracisation within her community for having the cheek to be abused. Is it acceptable that this further attack on the victim is not criticised or that the practice of arranged marriages (how much choice do the females have in the "arrangement"?) is not scrutinised. Now you can argue that legally reform of such practices is not of course within the remit of a judge, but couldn't he at least find some way to condemn it?

We have the Mirror's take of the Court of Appeal's take on the issue?

Maybe it was argued for days during the trial? How do you know it was all "taken as a given"?

And it would most certainly not be within the Judge's remit to criticise the Asian community. Now that would be wrong.

The_Valeyard

white privilege or some sort of BS?

Custardpi

Deleted User wrote: »

And it would most certainly not be within the Judge's remit to criticise the Asian community. Now that would be wrong.

Only if you automatically assume that "Asian community" can be used as a synonym for "backward knobs who make rape victims suffer more". That's setting pretty low expectations for that section of society isn't it? Anyone who engages in such shaming regardless of their ethnicity, religion etc needs to be strongly criticised.

asherbassad

Deleted User wrote: »

We are upset because some paedophile was jailed for longer because of some aggravating factor?

My heart bleeds for him.

I think it perfectly legitimate. If for example virginity is particularly respected in a culture and so by being abused the victim also is stigmatised and shunned by their own community after the incident, I say fire another few years on for that, don't limit the considerations to the physical offence itself.

And once again you completely miss the point.

Custardpi

Custardpi wrote: »

Only if you automatically assume that "Asian community" can be used as a synonym for "backward knobs who make rape victims suffer more". That's setting pretty low expectations for that section of society isn't it? Anyone who engages in such shaming regardless of their ethnicity, religion etc needs to be strongly criticised.

I think again we are taking something that you are implying from the Judge's stance.

The entire thread is predicated on the implication that European or Caucasian victims are treated less favourably, which is of course not the issue at all. The Judge has taken the impact on this particular victim into account in this case, which is totally legitimate. I am also not sure there is any evidence to say the Judge was implying some criticism of the Asian community, when again the Judge may only have taken the evidence that was furnished and dealt with it in the context of this victim. I appreciate that of course such shaming is abhorrent, but the Judge was not asked to try the Asian community for their beliefs or even analyse them.

asherbassad

asherbassad wrote: »

And once again you completely miss the point.

Sure why don't you try making one yourself.

Ah go on, give it a go.

jungleman

The_Valeyard wrote: »

white privilege or some sort of BS?

White privilege belongs on Tumblr with the nutjobs who spout that crap.

rubadub

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not discriminating, it's distinguishing.

Same thing in my mind, maybe you are one of these people who automatically attach negative connotations to the word discrimation, I don't. I don't think calling some one sexist or prejudiced is necessarily negative either.

discriminate
dɪˈskrɪmɪneɪt/Submit
verb
1.
recognize a distinction; differentiate.
"babies can discriminate between different facial expressions"
synonyms: differentiate, distinguish, draw/recognize a distinction, tell the difference, discern a difference; More

Custardpi

Just to clarify from any legal eagles on here, while I acknowledge that the judge's role is not to "try the Asian community" hypothetically speaking here, if he was simply to say something like "oh & by the way, anyone (whether of the Asian community or otherwise) who gives the victims grief or stops associating with them because of what they suffered should be utterly condemned" as part of his ruling would that give grounds for an appeal by the defendant or would it still be acceptable legally, even if strictly speaking it's not part of his remit?

Custardpi

Custardpi wrote: »

if he was simply to say something like "oh & by the way, anyone (whether of the Asian community or otherwise) who gives the victims grief or stops associating with them because of what they suffered should be utterly condemned" as part of his ruling would that give grounds for an appeal by the defendant or would it still be acceptable legally, even if strictly speaking it's not part of his remit?

Unlikely...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiter_dictum

But it would see the Judge no doubt subjected to criticism by that community for stepping outside her remit.

Satan is Real

Deleted User wrote: »

We are upset because some paedophile was jailed for longer because of some aggravating factor?

My heart bleeds for him.

I think it perfectly legitimate. If for example virginity is particularly respected in a culture and so by being abused the victim also is stigmatised and shunned by their own community after the incident, I say fire another few years on for that, don't limit the considerations to the physical offence itself.

So you think 'Asian' i.e. Pakistani Muslim victims are worth more than white victims? Do white girls not care about virginity, are they not shamed? Disgusting.

Satan is Real

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

This is so fcuked up.

So the judge is recognising a "loss" of something that most people in the country find abhorrent.

Shows how sick British society is.

Buona Fortuna

Satan is Real wrote: »

Shows how sick British society is.

I'm struggling to see your point.

Custardpi

Deleted User wrote: »

Unlikely...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiter_dictum

But it would see the Judge no doubt subjected to criticism by that community for stepping outside her remit.

Personally if I was a member of that community I would have no problem whatsoever with a judge or anyone else criticising ill treatment of rape victims. If members of the Asian community saw such criticism as an attack on all of them then that would surely indicate that there is a major problem with shaming culture within that part of society, one which the hypothetical objectors to such a statement would be helping to perpetuate.

Satan is Real

Satan is Real wrote: »

So you think 'Asian' i.e. Pakistani Muslim victims are worth more than white victims? Do white girls not care about virginity, are they not shamed? Disgusting.

Sure that's it exactly.

Me, the law, the Courts, the Trial Judge, the Appeal Judges, we're all saying that white victims are worthless.

arayess

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure that's it exactly.

Me, the law, the Courts, the Trial Judge, the Appeal Judges, we're all saying that white victims are worthless.

at least you admit it.

arayess

arayess wrote: »

at least you admit it.

Privileged Asians, and the Judges, in their ivory towers, hounding the white people...

Fratton Fred

Very Bored wrote: »

I don't agree Conor. There's too many idiot judges and coppers like this in the UK. Put it this way, you go to the UK a black guy calls you a paddy b so you respond by calling him a f*****g n. Both of you are absolutely in the wrong, though you could argue that the first guy was more so because he aggravated the situation but you'd be the one who got into trouble. Its PCness gone mad.

Have you anything to base this in?

Very Bored

The point is, conor, how do you measure the effects of something as horrific as child abuse? And in a sense, the message this judge sent out was that its not as bad to abuse a white child as it is to abuse an Asian one. That you won't get as harshly punished. As a father of a young, white child I find that disgusting.

Perversely, there is a breed of criminal who thinks its sport to do the more serious crime. It becomes like a computer game to them. White child 5 years. White, Christian child 6 years. White, Catholic Christian child 7 years... (in their sick, perverted minds, and we are dealing with sick perverts here, the jackpot) Asian child 10 years.

Its dangerous. Potentially to both white and Asian children, depending on the mentality of the offender, and I don't like it. I'd also suggest that I'm not alone.

Satan is Real

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure that's it exactly.

Me, the law, the Courts, the Trial Judge, the Appeal Judges, we're all saying that white victims are worthless.

You are saying white victims suffer less. I find that a pretty sick attitude to have. Why should one race be judged to suffer more from child abuse? The penalty should be the same across the board (and should be much tougher).

Cold War Kid

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

This is so fcuked up.

So the judge is recognising a "loss" of something that most people in the country find abhorrent.

Yeah was thinking that too. But on the other hand, it's a sentence based on the impact to the victim, which is a move in the right direction.

Can see both sides.

Buona Fortuna

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Yeah was thinking that too. But on the other hand, it's a sentence based on the impact to the victim, which is a move in the right direction.

Can see both sides.

I respectfully disagree .

If I were to break a couple of your fingers, I'd be convicted of some actual bodily harm offence, maybe do time for it.

Now maybe if you were a fiddle player, you would suffer more of a loss than a block layer. So that would increase the amount of compo you could apply for. Maybe you could even sue me, if I had any assets.

But the crime is the same, whatever your talents.

Martial9

Does this not send out the message to would be abusers that you are better off going for a non Asian girl as the sentence will likely to be more lenient? Fecked up.

Very Bored

Very Bored wrote: »

The point is, conor, how do you measure the effects of something as horrific as child abuse?

In terms of crime an punishment?

Every time a Court hands down a sentence less than life they have measured the effects, in terms of the penalty to be applied. Here the Judge has said the penalty should be increased because of particular circumstances. The Appeal Court have upheld this logic, dismissing not just an appeal but even leave to appeal - the opposition didn't even get off the ground, it was wholly without merit. Remarkably this has annoyed some, who have read the exact opposite into it.

Very Bored

Deleted User wrote: »

In terms of crime an punishment?

Every time a Court hands down a sentence less than life they have measured the effects, in terms of the penalty to be applied. Here the Judge has said the penalty should be increased because of particular circumstances. The Appeal Court have upheld this logic, dismissing not just an appeal but even leave to appeal - the opposition didn't even get off the ground, it was wholly without merit. Remarkably this has annoyed some, who have read the exact opposite into it.

It is none of my business what your family circumstances are so please do not take this as some sort of request for knowledge of same. However, this is something I think can only be intrinsically understood by a parent. If you are a parent of a white child, as am I, then the idea that someone considers the possibility of someone abusing your child, the child that your number one role bar none in this world is to protect, to be less serious than the possibility of someone abusing another is absolutely abhorrent.

Very Bored

Very Bored wrote: »

It is none of my business what your family circumstances are so please do not take this as some sort of request for knowledge of same. However, this is something I think can only be intrinsically understood by a parent. If you are a parent of a white child, as am I, then the idea that someone considers the possibility of someone abusing your child, the child that your number one role bar none in this world is to protect, to be less serious than the possibility of someone abusing another is absolutely abhorrent.

But even still, if someone abused my child, like any child, I would have to accept that the Courts measure that in a certain way. They don't claim to measure the effects, the trauma, they don't try to address the psychological fallout...they just consider the crime and apply a tariff. And it is usually set at X years for this crime. In this case the Judge said X...plus an additional penalty because of the particular circumstances because of the victim. Some have decided to interpret this as X minus a penalty because of the absence of those circumstances, which is completely wrong.

Very Bored

Deleted User wrote: »

But even still, if someone abused my child, like any child, I would have to accept that the Courts measure that in a certain way. They don't claim to measure the effects, the trauma, they don't try to address the psychological fallout...they just consider the crime and apply a tariff. And it is usually set at X years for this crime. In this case the Judge said X...plus an additional penalty because of the particular circumstances because of the victim. Some have decided to interpret this as X minus a penalty because of the absence of those circumstances, which is completely wrong.

I do understand where you are coming from even if I don't agree with you. I do understand that there is a standard penalty, with an added penalty because of the circumstances. I suggest though that the vast majority of parents will not see why one child is worth the extra penalty when theirs isn't.

I also think its f*****g ridiculous that, even with an additional penalty, the sentence is only seven years. This should be a crime which carries a life sentence and whereby life means life. I would also add that if someone did to my child what he's done to these children prison would be the least of his worries. And I wouldn't give a s***e what happened to me afterwards. However, that is a different discussion, which people will have vastly varying views on, and one I don't think is suitable to develop here out of respect to the victims in this case.