16 year old rapist gets 3 years.

#1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8354316.stm

What the **** is this ****ing shit?!

He rapes a 5 year old boy after being given a "community order" and let go for raping a 7 year old boy.

Then he's only given 3 years?! 3 years for ruining two little boys lives. I wish i could castrate this son of a bitch myself.

I'd also chop off the judge's hand for being such a pansy. If he thought the offenses were so "deeply disturbing and very serious" why did he let him off with community service the first time and then just three years?

Erch.
 
#4
It's already been done and he did not get three years, he got an indeterminate sentence - as it quite clearly states in the article. There is no more serious punishment than an indeterminate sentence.
 
#5
WTF

In sentencing for the first rape, Judge Smith is believed to have considered the victim's family, who forgave the youth because of their Christian beliefs.
 
#7
The sentence is a complete joke, what you'd expect from a Libour Government run Justice system, Judges have been advised for a while by the Government to keep Juveniles out of Jail as they'll get lost in the system!

Pathetic & a Disgrace!!
 
#8
He can be considered for parole after 3 years, can't he? That's his "minimum tarrif" which means that might be all he has to serve. A longer sentance with no possibilty of parole would have been better IMO.
 
#10
dropshortjock said:
Forgive my ignorance, but why the mention of three years if it is an indeterminate sentance?
Because that is how long it will be before he is so much as allowed to sniff a parole hearing, whereupon they will say "no, you can't go free you dirty little nonce".

He may possibly never be released. He'd probably be released earlier with a life sentence than with an indeterminate.

HoneyHeart said:
He can be considered for parole after 3 years, can't he? That's his "minimum tarrif" which means that might be all he has to serve.
And I could find a winning Euromillions ticket tomorrow. But I won't.

A longer sentance with no possibilty of parole would have been better IMO.
Which is possibly just one reason you are not a judge, they're not allowed to make up their own punishments.

2.11 Special weight has subsequently been accorded to the protection of very young
children by the introduction of a range of strict liability offences in the SOA 2003 specifically
designed to protect children under 13:
• The offences of ‘rape of a child under 13’, ‘assault by penetration of a child under
13’ and ‘causing a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity’ where the activity
included sexual penetration carry the maximum life penalty.
• The maximum penalty for the new offence of ‘sexual assault of a child under 13’ is 14
years, as opposed to a maximum of 10 years for the generic ‘sexual assault’ offence.
 
#11
ottar said:
It's already been done and he did not get three years, he got an indeterminate sentence - as it quite clearly states in the article. There is no more serious punishment than an indeterminate sentence.
There'd be no need if he hadn't received a 3 year 'community order' for the first offence.
 
#12
Till he dies would be a good sentance.

Get him breaking up cars and sorting recycling from 0600 till 2000 (with 5 mins off each hour, 30 min NAAFI break and 45 mins for Lunch and Dinner.
 
#13
HoneyHeart said:
He can be considered for parole after 3 years, can't he? That's his "minimum tarrif" which means that might be all he has to serve.
Correct.

He needs to attend all sorts of counselling, treatment and therapy while in prison. If and when he is 'rehabilitated' and gets all the boxes ticked he can apply for parole.

In practice, the prison service doesn't have the resources to provide these courses. When they've served their minimum tariff, their brief pops along to court and gets an order for release under the Human Rights Act.

He'll serve three years less time spent on remand less early release less whatever emergency release provisions are in force at the time. He could be out next year.

Don't complain though. At least he's in jail. Last year over six hundred self confessed rapists, including child rapists, were 'brought to justice' by means of a police caution.
 
#14
ottar said:
dropshortjock said:
Forgive my ignorance, but why the mention of three years if it is an indeterminate sentance?
Because that is how long it will be before he is so much as allowed to sniff a parole hearing, whereupon they will say "no, you can't go free you dirty little nonce".

He may possibly never be released. He'd probably be released earlier with a life sentence than with an indeterminate.

HoneyHeart said:
He can be considered for parole after 3 years, can't he? That's his "minimum tarrif" which means that might be all he has to serve.
And I could find a winning Euromillions ticket tomorrow. But I won't.

A longer sentance with no possibilty of parole would have been better IMO.
Which is possibly just one reason you are not a judge, they're not allowed to make up their own punishments.

2.11 Special weight has subsequently been accorded to the protection of very young
children by the introduction of a range of strict liability offences in the SOA 2003 specifically
designed to protect children under 13:
• The offences of ‘rape of a child under 13’, ‘assault by penetration of a child under
13’ and ‘causing a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity’ where the activity
included sexual penetration carry the maximum life penalty.
• The maximum penalty for the new offence of ‘sexual assault of a child under 13’ is 14
years, as opposed to a maximum of 10 years for the generic ‘sexual assault’ offence.
Don't bet on it. The Parole Boards are almost as bad as Social Workers... :evil:
 
#15
Indeed, judges might not be able to enforce their own sentances but they can choose to be as harsh or as light as they wish. A community sentance?

I know of at least two convicted paedophiles who only spent a year and a half in prison between them. Excuse my lack of faith in our justice system.
 
#16
HoneyHeart said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8354316.stm

What the * is this * s***?!

He rapes a 5 year old boy after being given a "community order" and let go for raping a 7 year old boy.
That's because the parents of the 7 year old were christians and they forgave the nonce and begged the judge to show compassion

All believers are cnuts in my opinion and cases like this prove it
 
#19
Spanny said:
HoneyHeart said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8354316.stm

What the * is this * s***?!

He rapes a 5 year old boy after being given a "community order" and let go for raping a 7 year old boy.
That's because the parents of the 7 year old were christians and they forgave the nonce and begged the judge to show compassion

All believers are cnuts in my opinion and cases like this prove it
Days like this, I'm very glad to be a Pagan... :roll: :viking:
 
#20
DesktopCommando said:
WTF

In sentencing for the first rape, Judge Smith is believed to have considered the victim's family, who forgave the youth because of their Christian beliefs.
Exactly, WTF!

How very high and mighty of the good judge to have considered the victims ma and da when deciding to hand down said non-custodial slap on the wrist.

What a pity he did not consider the rest of us in letting a child rapist walk free.

Now another lads fecked up because of that, I wonder if his parents feel as generous towards the scum as the first ones did?

Is there any sort of oath that judges must take on taking up office, like at Attestation? How about something to tell them that their duties aren't to the perpetrator, the victims deluded parents or their own morality - but to the rest of society?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads