Paedophile Jailed Longer Because Victims Were Asian

Very Bored

Very Bored wrote: »

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.

I have to concede I don't know the full details of the assault so I can't say it deserved life. Aggravated rape certainly does.

ceadaoin.

I don't think that the idea that a girls value is tied to her virginity and future 'marriageability' is something that should be reinforced by the law tbh. These ideas have no place in modern british society.

Very Bored

Deleted User wrote: »

I have to concede I don't know the full details of the assault so I can't say it deserved life. Aggravated rape certainly does.

Touching a child deserves life. A child can't defend themselves and has no idea what's going on until it happens. If someone wanted to touch me inappropriately, which, yes, is far less than raping me, then I have the ability to react accordingly. I also have the clear understanding of what is going on. A child doesn't. If you are that evil that you would take a child's innocence and smash it in a second, sorry, no, you deserve life, and life meaning life. What do we expect of such a person when they get out? That they reform and become a decent member of society? We're joking, right? They have urges the vast majority of us don't, which could be put down to a mental illness and therefore support should be available. I would argue section them until they have recovered so they aren't a danger to any child. But those that actually act on those urges? F**k them. Frankly, I'd hang them, and I'm not generally in favour of the death penalty. But that's not included in the law here so I'd put them away permanently.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I don't think that the idea that a girls value is tied to her virginity and future 'marriageability' is something that should be reinforced by the law tbh. These ideas have no place in modern british society.

Nor in any modern society. Violation of a child's innocence, however, is violation of a child's innocence whether they are white, Asian, African or purple.

Very Bored

Very Bored wrote: »

Touching a child deserves life.

So you don't think that, say, raping a child with violence should be punished in any worse way than, say, pinching a child? Because once the touch is made, that merits a life sentence?

I very strongly disagree. I think like every single crime there is a spectrum. As the law says. In pretty much every single country.

Either way, life was not an option in this case. And if the Judge gave a life sentence, that would simply be asking for an appeal, it would be successful and more money spent on the abuser.

Very Bored

Deleted User wrote: »

So you don't think that, say, raping a child with violence should be punished in any worse way than, say, pinching a child? Because once the touch is made, that merits a life sentence?

I very strongly disagree. I think like every single crime there is a spectrum. As the law says. In pretty much every single country.

Either way, life was not an option in this case. And if the Judge gave a life sentence, that would simply be asking for an appeal, it would be successful and more money spent on the abuser.

Grow up, you know what I meant by touching.

Roger Hassenforder

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.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree.
Can your reasoning not be extended to increased penalties for robbing a less well off man than a better off man? Punishing the murder of an old man as opposed to a young man?

Punishments should be applied out regardless of race, or any cultural norms. That there was an increased penalty applied in this poor victim's case, to me as a parent, places an increased "value" on a cultural norm over those without this norm. The court has placed a value on a child's virginity, and should have absolutely no right to do so.

What would the judge apply in the case where he encountered a victim from a group where child abuse is not quite as abhorrent; or virginity not as valued? Oh yea, less....

All children should be treated the same, rather than pandering to backward concepts of "community shame" and the victims fathers concerns about future marriage proposals. If some sick f**k touches one of my girls, my only concern would be what to do with the body if I caught him.

In Ireland, the extent of their removal from that which society considers acceptable is clear. Gougers out on parole, with >100 previous convictions etc., presuming their innocence until proven guilty.
Bullshit.

Very Bored

Very Bored wrote: »

Grow up, you know what I meant by touching.

I know what the law actually is and that the Judge and the Appeal Court were absolutely correct

And no, I really don't know the definitions you apply in your "every touching of a child deserves a life sentence" world. Could you define it? Thanks.

Roger Hassenforder

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree.
Can your reasoning not be extended to increased penalties for robbing a less well off man than a better off man? Punishing the murder of an old man as opposed to a young man?

Punishments should be applied out regardless of race, or any cultural norms. That there was an increased penalty applied in this poor victim's case, to me as a parent, places an increased "value" on a cultural norm over those without this norm. The court has placed a value on a child's virginity, and should have absolutely no right to do so.

Every court "places a value" when they make a decision and hand out a penalty. They have every right to do so, that is their very function. The Court that gives 6 years for rape of a woman has determined that that is the price that should be extracted from the offender. But it's not some philosophical or moral judgement, it's simply a question of deciding the penalty, often based on precedent.

The matter doesn't arise in murder where a life sentence is mandatory. But certainly in all crimes where the victim is entitled to give an impact statement, the Judge is entitled to consider it. That's why they are given. It's not just to let the victim blow off a little steam.

Very Bored

Deleted User wrote: »

I know what the law actually is and that the Judge and the Appeal Court were absolutely correct

And no, I really don't know the definitions you apply in your "every touching of a child deserves a life sentence" world. Could you define it? Thanks.

Touching a child in a sexual way if I really have to spell it out, though I think you're simply being obtuse.

Anyone who touches a child in a sexual way deserves life in my opinion. If you want to argue the case that they are good people really who just made a mistake work away, but for me, and for most other people, this kind of thing is not like stealing a bag of sweets.

Very Bored

Very Bored wrote: »

Anyone who touches a child in a sexual way deserves life in my opinion. If you want to argue the case that they are good people really who just made a mistake work away, but for me, and for most other people, this kind of thing is not like stealing a bag of sweets.

Um, not sure what you mean by "they are good people really". Who said that?

I think you are both making up law that doesn't exist and points that were never made. And resorting to silly "grow up" lines to get your made up stuff across.

Incidentally, pinching a child can absolutely amount to touching in a sexual way. Knew of one or two - one a local priest in the early 80s - who were famous in the area for pinching little girls, hands all over them, tickling and so on for their own sexual gratification. You don't see that as touching? I very much do.

Roger Hassenforder

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Every court "places a value" when they make a decision and hand out a penalty. They have every right to do so, that is their very function. The Court that gives 6 years for rape of a woman has determined that that is the price that should be extracted from the offender. But it's not some philosophical or moral judgement, it's simply a question of deciding the penalty, often based on precedent.

The matter doesn't arise in murder where a life sentence is mandatory. But certainly in all crimes where the victim is entitled to give an impact statement, the Judge is entitled to consider it. That's why they are given. It's not just to let the victim blow off a little steam.

This is part of the problem IMO
That a court can make such arbitrary and subjective decisions. A court should be used to determine guilt or innocence. Penalties should be in accordance with a clearly set out formula, banded to take account of aggravating factors, plea, previous etc. Not based on a subjective whim, having regard to an outdated cultural norm.

You "touch" (and we all know what the previous poster meant) a kid. You get X years. End of. Time to value our kids more than pandering to outdated norms

Very Bored

Deleted User wrote: »

Um, not sure what you mean by "they are good people really". Who said that?

I think you are both making up law that doesn't exist and points that were never made. And resorting to silly "grow up" lines to get your made up stuff across.

Incidentally, pinching a child can absolutely amount to touching in a sexual way. Knew of one or two - one a local priest in the early 80s - who were famous in the area for pinching little girls, hands all over them, tickling and so on for their own sexual gratification. You don't see that as touching? I very much do.

You're playing games now and starting to annoy me because you're trying to be smart over a very serious subject. You asked what I thought of pinching. Merely saying pinching suggests trying to hurt a child, which is of course wrong, not sexual contact. However, if its pinching in a sexual way then put the person responsible away for life. Do you not agree that sexually abusing a child is a very very serious crime meriting a tougher punishment than the ridiculous sentences currently meted out? This guy got seven years for what he did, and that included an additional penalty. Some people go to jail for longer than that for certain types of stealing.

Very Bored

Very Bored wrote: »

You're playing games now and starting to annoy me because you're trying to be smart over a very serious subject.

Oh I get that you are annoyed. But getting angry, making up laws as you go along, rejecting that obviously pinching a child can be sexual assault, or resorting to jibes, isn't exactly taking the subject very seriously, is it?

Very Bored

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh I get that you are annoyed. But getting angry, making up laws as you go along, rejecting that obviously pinching a child can be sexual assault, or resorting to jibes, isn't exactly taking the subject very seriously, is it?

As I said, you're being very obtuse and your motives worry me. Subsequently, this conversation between you and I is over.

Roger Hassenforder

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

This is part of the problem IMO
That a court can make such arbitrary and subjective decisions. A court should be used to determine guilt or innocence. Penalties should be in accordance with a clearly set out formula, banded to take account of aggravating factors, plea, previous etc. Not based on a subjective whim, having regard to an outdated cultural norm.

You "touch" (and we all know what the previous poster meant) a kid. You get X years. End of. Time to value our kids more than pandering to outdated norms

I disagree.

The courts do not make completely arbitrary decisions, sentencing is usually within parameters set by precedent.

What formula would you apply to replace this, and who would determine the formula? Civil servants? You would take the function of determine the sentence away from the person who has heard the evidence at first hand, and trust that some formula would sort out all cases?

Very Bored

Very Bored wrote: »

As I said, you're being very obtuse and your motives worry me. Subsequently, this conversation between you and I is over.

To repeat a point I made earlier, if me, the law in the real world, the Trial Judge, the Appeal Judges etc. are all out of step with you, fair enough. I can see why you concede you are annoyed.

I have no motive at all, you are the one who is making up the law and objecting to a paedophile getting an increased sentence!

Very Bored

Deleted User wrote: »

To repeat a point I made earlier, if me, the law in the real world, the Trial Judge, the Appeal Judges etc. are all out of step with you, fair enough. I can see why you concede you are annoyed.

I have no motive at all, you are the one who is making up the law and objecting to a paedophile getting an increased sentence!

No, lets get this straight, then I refuse to reply to you after I have made this point. What you are arguing is that, God forbid, but if something awful happened to a white child, lets say my child, then we should disregard the suffering of that child and what happened to them when compared to the same happening to an Asian child. Your argument is vomit inducing to be honest because you are attaching different levels of value to each child's sanctity. I don't. I think every child is equal and that every child's innocence should be EQUALLY protected. You think child A is worth less than child B. You're treating the whole thing like a meat market, when it is children we are talking about.

I also argue that all of them should go to jail forever, whoever it is they abuse.

And yes, your motives concern me because of the points I have highlighted above. Now, I refuse to reply to your morally repugnant argument anymore.

Roger Hassenforder

Deleted User wrote: »

I disagree.

The courts do not make completely arbitrary decisions, sentencing is usually within parameters set by precedent.

What formula would you apply to replace this, and who would determine the formula? Civil servants? You would take the function of determine the sentence away from the person who has heard the evidence at first hand, and trust that some formula would sort out all cases?

Ah they do in fairness.
I've seen the probation act applied because some DC judge had a fine lunch and is in good form for the afternoon. Similar offence would see someone with a criminal conviction on another day.

Take the current model of prescribed drink driving sentencing. predetermined and clearly set out. Applies to all.

Very Bored

Very Bored wrote: »

What you are arguing is that, God forbid, but if something awful happened to a white child, lets say my child, then we should disregard the suffering of that child and what happened to them when compared to the same happening to an Asian child. Your argument is vomit inducing to be honest because you are attaching different levels of value to each child's sanctity. I don't. I think every child is equal and that every child's innocence should be EQUALLY protected. You think child A is worth less than child B. You're treating the whole thing like a meat market, when it is children we are talking about.

I also argue that all of them should go to jail forever, whoever it is they abuse.

And yes, your motives concern me because of the points I have highlighted above. Now, I refuse to reply to your morally repugnant argument anymore.

No no, again let's not make up points that were never made.

Of course we don't disregard the suffering of a white child. Their abuser should be jailed.

I am simply saying that the law, the trial judge, the appeal judges etc. all got it correct. If you think they did something incorrect, you should really point to something specific in their judgements instead of making up points...and law.

Roger Hassenforder

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Ah they do in fairness.
I've seen the probation act applied because some DC judge had a fine lunch and is in good form for the afternoon. Similar offence would see someone with a criminal conviction on another day.

Take the current model of prescribed drink driving sentencing. predetermined and clearly set out. Applies to all.

Oh I accept that, in fairness the lower down the Court and the less serious the offence, the likelier it is that punishments may vary widely. Minor drugs offences are particularly bad, some Judges are very tolerant of use of, say, cannabis, others send offenders to rehabilitation programmes!

Beefy78

Surely we want judges to be able to apply their own discretion when it comes to sentences? To take all circumstances into account and sentence accordingly.

On a side point there is at least one fairly fundamental reason why the UK, and other countries, don't have many crimes which carry mandatory life sentences. If you brought it in for paedophiles then you'd have an increase in the number of child killers.

Roger Hassenforder

Beefy78 wrote: »

Surely we want judges to be able to apply their own discretion when it comes to sentences? To take all circumstances into account and sentence accordingly.

On a side point there is at least one fairly fundamental reason why the UK, and other countries, don't have many crimes which carry mandatory life sentences. If you brought it in for paedophiles then you'd have an increase in the number of child killers.

or to turn that on its head, would we have less recidivist paedos, rapists etc. out there if they were put away first time.

I'd prefer to remove the discretion aspect altogether.
Allow the courts to determine guilt.
Punishments thereafter in line with a predetermined and regularly reviewed set of criteria, that particularly has regard to previous.

ceadaoin.

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.

By taking this into account, this judge is effectively saying that it's acceptable for this girl to be treated as a piece of property and is adding further punishment as a reflection of her value being reduced. It's not even about the victims, the quote I read said that their fathers were upset by their lack of future marriage potential. It's all about the fact that it won't be as easy for him to sell them into marriage. Implicit in the judgment is also the notion that non Asian rape victims somehow have less suffering which isn't true. How is this acceptable in modern society?

By the same token, if the victims male family members decided to commit an honour killing as a result of the shame brought on the family would you be be ok with them receiving more lenient sentences because it is part of their culture? A girls virginity is highly respected as you said, and some people within that culture think that rape victims are better off dead now that they are effectively worthless.

Shep_Dog

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

or to turn that on its head, would we have less recidivist paedos, rapists etc. out there if they were put away first time.

Recidivism among sexual offenders is the lowest of any crime type.

Roger Hassenforder

Shep_Dog wrote: »

Recidivism among sexual offenders is the lowest of any crime type.

didn't know public order offences were comparable to rape...

Shep_Dog

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

didn't know public order offences were comparable to rape...

You're confusing sentencing the seriousness of an offence with the risk of re-offense. Are you proposing to punish people for crimes they might commit, but have not actually committed?

Roger Hassenforder

Shep_Dog wrote: »

You're confusing sentencing the seriousness of an offence with the risk of re-offense. Are you proposing to punish people for crimes they might commit, but have not actually committed?

You're comparing apples with oranges.
I couldn't give a monkeys that there is a lower rate of recidivism among paedos than public order or burglary offences. They're incomparable.

Shep_Dog

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

You're comparing apples with oranges.
I couldn't give a monkeys that there is a lower rate of recidivism among paedos than public order or burglary offences. They're incomparable.

Some would say burglary is a form of rape.