Richard Miller wrote:
> In message , Palindrome
> writes
>
>>> This man is not a predatory paedophile. He is a sad inadequate who
>>> was looking for an adult companion, and instead found a young girl
>>> who wanted to play at being an adult. His crime is not having the
>>> strength of character to say no. That is very different from someone
>>> who actively seeks out children and instigates abuse.
>>> It is absolutely right that he was convicted. It is a reasonable
>>> judgement that the public is better protected by giving him a
>>> community sentence under which he can have treatment to help him
>>> avoid getting into that sort of situation again, rather than sending
>>> him to prison where he will get no such treatment. It is equally
>>> reasonable to argue that the sentence was on the lenient side, but
>>> it is not way outside the spectrum of legitimate responses to the
>>> facts of this case.
>>
>> ISTM that this blurs a very simple message that any 20 year old should
>> understand - "JailBait" - "11 years old = jail".
>
> As with all simple messages, it ignores the complexity of the real world.
>
> Just because a crime *can* result in a prison sentence, that does not
> mean that it has to do so in every case.
No, but there is an argument that it should do for some offences.
>>
>> So why not a jail sentence, plus the rest?
>
> Because the jails are full, and because the reality on the ground today
> is that jail would come at the expense of the help this guy needs,
> regardless of what *should* be the case.
Sentences should determine the number of prison places not the number of
prison places determine sentences.
Similarly, it is totally unacceptable that offenders in prison should
receive less help than those who are not.
>
>> Even if just equivalent to the time he has already spent in jail, or
>> even if immediately suspended?
>
> Which would still result in the outraged "walked free from Court today"
> headlines, and would not have made the slightest difference to what
> actually happens to this guy.
It would still be a term of imprisonment. That it made no difference to
this individual does not mean that it wouldn't make a difference to
someone else feeling tempted to follow his example.
>
>>
>> However, since when did, "didn't have the strength of character to say
>> no" figure as acceptable explanation and acceptable mitigation?
>
> Acceptable explanation? Which bit of "It is absolutely right that he was
> convicted" are you having trouble with, Sue?
You can still be convicted of an offence, even though giving an
acceptable explanation.
>
> Legitimate mitigation? Since the day this became a crime. Of course it
> is relevant whether this man dragged a kid off the street and forced
> himself on her, or persuaded her over time to have . with him, or let
> himself be persuaded by her to have . with her. In every single case
> it is a crime. In each case the degree of culpability is different.
No, there can be additional factors which aggravate the offence and for
which additional punishment can be awarded. There should be no
mitigation for a 20 year old knowingly having . with an 11 year old.
He should go to jail. If he forced himself on her, he should go to jail
for considerably longer.
--
Sue
|