Friday, November 10, 2006
Two Years for Raping a Ten Year Old
THIS is a horrible tale. A man hid himself under a twelve year old's bed for three months and hid there whenever her mother came into the room. He raped her and persistently abused her. His sentence? Two years and three months, which means he'll probably be out on the streets again by next Christmas. This cannot be right.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Iain,
The girl that he abused was 12, not 10 (it was her sister who was 10).
It is an interesting story because there seems to be little coercion involved. Although the girl is under-age, and we would say that she is -- legally and morally -- too young to make up her mind, there does not seem to be physical force involved.
I am writing about it over at The Kitchen.
DK
It's a bit odd. How could the mother not notice? Did she never clean the bedroom?
Iain,
I have written my take, and it is rather different from yours, here. I'd be interested in your comments.
DK
Heard this on R4 this morning. Hanging is too good for this sick bastard, who cares if she is 10 or 12, its still wrong.
Having read the DK piece, I think this is another case of trust the judge.
Contrary to popular belief (usually promulgated by thick socialists) judges are not usually people who have always been out of touch with "ordinary" people. They have usually met many "ordinary" people when they were practicing at the bar.
Furthermore, they have two trump cards: high intelligence and having heard the whole case as presented in court.
I think Iain's journalistic hysteria was even worse than the Sun's. At least they got the facts right and (except for the gratuitous use of the word "paedo"), was vaguely balanced. On the whole, the judge seems to have done a good job on a difficult case.
It is not entirely unlikely that when Jennings gets out he will end up marrying the poor girl (Stockholm Syndrome). And he could hardly look after her any worse than her parents, whose care by any reasonable standards has been utterly piss-poor.
A very good piece on this by DK; hat-tip for the steer to Simon Raven.
Issues of consent are not material here. The law rightly presumes that a child cannot consent to sex. This is a case of statutory rape, and as such the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is clear. Section 5 carries with it a discretionary life sentence.
The facts are not entirely clear from the report in The Sun but if the offenses were committed after 4/4/5 then he could have been sentenced to life under the terms of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, s. 225 as a "dangerous offender".
Be that as it may this is clearly a case for an AG's referral to the Court of Appeal under s.36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The sentence on first blush appears far too lenient.
Weak on crime weak, on the causes of crime. is the truth about labour
Thank you, Druid.
Johnny Norfolk - exactly. "Understand" the criminals. The victims don't have to be understood. Sad for them, and all, that, but the criminal has committed a crime because of a crime perpetrated against him by SOCIETY!
At the same time, this 12-yr old girl obviously lived in a single parent household - with her mother and sister. Three females. That fellow would never, never have dared do what he did had there been a man in the home.
This has all been occasioned by Gramscian social engineering, of which Tony and the Blairina and the entire cabinet are key lieutenants.
Druid; why do you think this is a case for an AG's reference? The Sentencing Guidelines Council say that 'The appropriate sentence is likely to lie within a very wide bracket, depending on all the circumstances of the particular offence.
Factors relevant to sentence will include:
- age of the offender, of itself and when compared with the age of the victim;
- nature of the relationship between the two and their respective characters and maturity;
- the number of occasions when penetration occurred;
- the circumstances of the penetration, including whether contraception was used, the consequences for the victim, emotionally and physically;
- the degree of remorse shown by the offender and the likelihood of repetition.
Mitigating factors include:
- presence of consent, especially in the case of a young offender
They go on to say that,
'# Although the absence of consent is not an ingredient of the offence, the presence of consent will be material in relation to sentence, particularly in relation to young offenders. A very short period of custody is likely to suffice for a teenager where the other party consents.
# In exceptional cases, a non-custodial sentence may be appropriate for a young offender.
# If the offender is much older than the victim a substantial term of imprisonment will usually be called for.
# Existing authorities, which indicate a sentence of around 15 months for an offender in his 20s, will continue to be of assistance,'
So it seems that, if anything, the judge was pretty harsh with him.
Devil,
I don't care what the circumstances were - feckless mother, yada yada yada. She is 12 years old - she was for all intents and purposes 'groomed'. It is rape nevertheless. Or is that only for middle class idiot 14 year olds who should know better but are 'groomed' over the internet? I suppose you think she was 'gasping' for it.
Mr. Devil's Cook in Devils' Kitchen... this time he has fun with a 12 year old, he'll be let out in a short while, when some 'expert' will say he is 'safe in the community' and some time later, it is likely that there is another raped child. 1/5th of all sex offenders offend again.
Btw, it is easy to coerce children into bad things, so the idea that it is OK because they cooperate is a fallacy. If it was your daughter, you would talk very differently!
Cinnamon,
I was discussing this case with a lawyer friend today and he pointed out, as you have, that there is a tendency towards escalation. Absolutely correct, although we do not tend to imprison people for crimes that they might commit.
I merely ventured a few thoughts on the matter: it is important to continue to question our mores and values, methinks.
Besides, Iain's piece did slightly smack of tabloidism itself: an incorrect, hysterical headline is very Daily Mail, n'est pas? Although, of course, Lady Finchley's comments -- here and at The Kitchen -- outdo Iain entirely: she could hardly be more tabloidesque.
DK
And you, Devil's Kitchen, could hardly be more unsavoury, calling me frigid because I don't agree with your laissez faire approach to sex with children.
This sentence is way too lenient. This is not a case of with grey areas. It is clear cut.
The offender is a mature adult man of 22 years. The victim a CHILD of TEN when the repeated abuse started. This alone justifies a long sentence in my view. The authority would indicate that fifteen years would be an appropriate place to start in the circs, though on what facts we have I would be easily persuaded to move to life. (Regina v. Millberry
[2002] EWCA Crim 2891 which discusses the Sentencing Guidelines for Rape)
The victim was groomed by the offender. He gained her trust which he then abused.
The abuse went on for a protracted period.
Lord alone knows what the long term impact of this wicked crime will be on the child.
This crime has all the hallmarks of a predatory paedophile. Just the sort of person the public has every right to be protected from.
There are NO mitigating factors here.
A 12 year old cannot legally consent to sexual intercourse and a 22 year old guilty of crime like this should face a stiff penalty.
The flexibility in the law is designed to deal with cases like a 17 or 18 year old boyfriend having sex with their 15 year old girlfriend - not a 22 year old having sex with a 12 year old.
If the Sun has got their facts straight then Iain was quite right to bring this case to our attention and comment the way he did.
Druid,
She was TWELVE, not ten. Can we at least get the facts right, please?
This is not a case of with grey areas. It is clear cut.
The judge obviously disagreed. And it is far less clear-cut than if, for instance, he had dragged her into the bushes and used physical violence to force her. There appears to have been an element of consent; yes, legally, she cannot consent but there is, nonetheless, a difference.
That does not mean that I condone Jennings' behaviour: it is still possible to say, "here is a bad situation, but this latter one is worse" without being approving of the first one.
Lady F,
I did not call you frigid and neither did I call you a lesbian (as you also alleged).
I won't say any more, as there's plenty of that stuff at The Kitchen, and I don't want to hijack Iain's blog.
DK
No, DK, You said that I didn't enjoy sex, probably didn't know where my c..t was and said I probably intefered with my son, among other vicious accusations. All because I offered a viewpoint you didn't like. Those are fighting words, meedja boy.
*sigh*
Must not feed the troll, must not feed the troll, must not feed the troll...
DK
DK - Piss off meedja boy.
Post a Comment