Teenager who rapes four year old girl walks free from court

[Lace Neil Singer]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ic-ordeal.html

Basically, the judge blamed society for exposing him to porn. Yeah, cuz everyone who watches or reads porn goes and rapes little girls. The teenager blamed his hormones going out of control.

He should have been punished properly, now he probably thinks it doesn't matter if he does it again, cuz he'll just be let off. And his poor victim is going to have to live with this for the rest of her life.

[Gravekeeper]

Judge Hawkesworth said: ‘You have not shown any particular sexual interest in children. I’m satisfied it was impulsive and I believe you have become sexualised by your exposure to and the corruption of pornography.

"You haven't shown any sexual interest in children, you just impulsively raped one."?

Is this man insane? Also, fuck the Daily Mail and the Tories for using this as a cheap political point just like the judge did.

[Greenday]

Judge Gareth Hawkesworth told him he would have received a six-and-a-half year jail term if he had been an adult.

Wtf? An adult raping a little child would only get six and a half years? What's the point? That's practically nothing given the crime.

[powerboy]

Sad, but that is how it is now days. Someone does something, and they get off scott free

[Rapscallion]

The court of public life won't let them off free. If he has a crime on his record, he has to declare it on his employment applications for a certain amount of time. Nobody I know of will take on a convicted child molestor. Someone under than sentence will pay for far longer. Also, someone on the sex offender's registry is marked and tracked.

As a side note, often the judges have their hands tied with recommended and maximum sentences passed down by elected politicians. If a judge only puts a heinous offender away for six and a half years, that's often the maximum they can send someone to chokey for.

Rapscallion

[HYHYBT]

The court of public life won't let them off free. If he has a crime on his record, he has to declare it on his employment applications for a certain amount of time. Nobody I know of will take on a convicted child molestor. Someone under than sentence will pay for far longer. Also, someone on the sex offender's registry is marked and tracked.

Does this mean he won't get a clean slate and maybe even a new name at adulthood, as others have?

[Lace Neil Singer]

Not for something like this. Mary Bell did, but then again, she was a murderer.

[Nekojin]

The article in the OP is worthless - it's sensationalist fire-fanning (which, all things considered, is probably not uncalled for). I just read the article, and I gather that he was convicted but given a light sentence that doesn't include jail time, but at no point did I see what the actual sentence was, just that the victim's parents and other bystanders were shocked by its leniency.

Edit: Ah, rereading it, I see "three year community order" mentioned just once. I take it that's community service - cleaning trash in parks, that sort of thing?

The offender needs to be sentenced to psychological evaluation, at a minimum.

[Rapscallion]

Does this mean he won't get a clean slate and maybe even a new name at adulthood, as others have?

Not sure how the UK system works on that, I have to admit. I've not really been in trouble barring going a little faster than the cops would prefer on the roads once.

However, public opinion over that type of crime is at such a high that he's going to be shitting himself in case of a lynch mob forming if it's ever found out that he's going to be very, very careful. Offenders of that note have to be segregated in prison for their own safety.

Rapscallion

[Skelly]

The offender needs to be sentenced to psychological evaluation, at a minimum.

IMO, he needs a long fall with a short rope tied around his neck.

[Andara Bledin]

We have no way of knowing, not having been there, but the defense claimed by the kid makes me think he's a sociopath. That's an awfully pat excuse that dovetails nicely with the current sentiment over there.

It's also interesting that at no point does anyone mention what sort of emotional display the teen had at any point; no comments about remorse or guilt or distress of any sort. Unfortunately, it's difficult to tell if that's a case of bad reporting or if the kid really is dangerous.

^-.-^

[Silverharp]

We have no way of knowing, not having been there, but the defense claimed by the kid makes me think he's a sociopath.
^-.-^

This right here. From the tone of the article, when he confessed, it was a matter of "Yeah, but I look at porn, so that makes it okay"
I don't know of a single 14 year old who doesn't have the empathy to feel remorse at harming a child, but less a horrific violation like this.
He needs to have doctors prodding his brain to determine if and how much of a danger he is to society

[Lace Neil Singer]

Well, Jeffrey Dahmer started out in much the same way, you know. If steps aren't taken to deal with this kid, I could see him in ten years time in court for serial killing.