scrubbedexpat141

Context is of course something to be considered...but I think only once the basics are established.

IE: Bloke groomed and then had sex with a young, underage girl.

Fundamentally wrong (I'm sure we all agree).

Context + Excuses = Mitigating (potentially) circumstances

= Reduced sentence if they are reasonable / proper / correct/ logical / whatever.

I think you're right that you have to take into context, you're especially right that the excuses seem weak though.

Miss Anne Thrope

Your second sentence above is contradicted by the idiotic tautological question immediately before it. Nothing I said could in any way be construed to justify raping a 13 year old. Your distortion is to twice try and imply that I did, simply because I disagree with you.

I see no reason why this verdict validates your original ridiculously hysterical contention that our justice system has gone mad. Aside from the fact that the judge is far more informed about the case than you or I and far more qualified to pass judgement, prisons are crowded enough and completely ineffective at preventing recurrence of crime. If a more creative solution is available at much less cost to the public then why not pursue it?

britexpat76

You are completely missing this point........So what you are saying is someone can rape a 13 year old and not get a custodial sentence?

Bahtatboy

All recent cases. Any clearer?

• A sentence of six years' detention, imposed following a young offender's guilty plea to statutory rape of a child aged under 13 that had resulted in pregnancy, was quashed and replaced with two years and three months' detention where the majority of the sexual activity occurred after the complainant's thirteenth birthday, the activity had been instigated by the complainant and was consensual, and the offender had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and demonstrated remorse.
• A judge could not be criticised for making a finding of dangerousness in respect of a man of previous good character who had repeatedly raped his wife. Imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term of eight years was not excessive. The fact that the offender had been brought up in Pakistan to believe that he had a right to rape his wife was no basis for leniency.
• A sentence of 10 years' detention in a young offender institution imposed on a 15-year-old boy following his conviction for raping an 11-year-old girl at least 10 times was not manifestly excessive where the sentence imposed upon an adult for the same offence would have been 15 years' imprisonment.
• A man who filmed himself raping a 14-year-old girl as she cried has been jailed for four-and-a-half years. Robert Wilson, 21, admitted indecently assaulting and raping the girl and threatening to distribute pictures of her between October 2007 and June 2010. He often taunted her and called her "fat" and said she "looked like a dog".
• A two-year custodial sentence was appropriate following an early guilty plea to sexual activity with a child family member, where the offender, a man in his early fifties, had entered into a consensual sexual relationship, and fathered a child, with a 16-year old girl to whom he had been stepfather for the first six years of her life. He had taken advantage of the girl's immaturity and there had been a breach of trust, but a greater sentence was not justified in the absence of grooming or coercion.
• A total sentence of seven years' imprisonment imposed on 54-year-old man of previous good character following his conviction for three offences of sexual activity with a child where he had had a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old employee was manifestly excessive. A total sentence of four years' imprisonment was substituted for the original term.
• Immediate custodial sentences were inappropriate in respect of offences of rape of a child under the age of 13 where the victims had consented, the perpetrators believed that the victims were 16 years old and there was no evidence of emotional or physical suffering by the victims. Sentences of one year's detention or imprisonment respectively, suspended for 12 months with 12 months' supervision, were appropriate.
• Taking into account the exceptional circumstances, a sentence of 30 months' detention imposed upon a 17-year-old offender for rape of a child under 13 was excessive where the offender had had consensual sexual intercourse with a 12-year-old girl, believing her to be nearly 15 years of age. The appropriate sentence was a 12 month detention and training order.
• A total sentence of 18 months' imprisonment was appropriate where an offender had been charged with specimen offences of unlawful sexual intercourse and indecent assault, having voluntarily disclosed to the police that he had had a sexual relationship with his stepsister some 16 years previously when he was 17 and she 11.

Alexa

If the little shite is "un" sheltered enough to book a hotel room to have sex with a girl, then he surely is "un" sheltered enough to know that what he is doing is a. morally wrong, b. illegal.
And blaming his "upbringing"? Yes, the blame game gains more and more popularity.

Miss Anne Thrope

Again with the distortion... I am saying that the judge is in a better position to decide than you or I or the right wing British press looking to foment more outrage against specific sectors of the community. Creating absolute sentences is a disaster - that's why we have courts and judges. Look at the three strikes laws in several US states as a clear illustration of that.

britexpat76

That is utterly irrelevant to the argument. Again it is not distortion, I am merely responding to your inane drivel. So tell me, If it had been a white, British christian do you think the press would not report it and all the DM readers would be happy with him receiving a slap on the wrist?

Miss Anne Thrope

Yes (though I think he got more than a slap on the wrist).

britexpat76

I beg to differ. One quick search on your favourite site reveals 5 stories of people getting custodial sentences for child rape..........

The main difference is religion is not mentioned in all but one of the stories, though I doubt any of them used their religion as a defence argument.

littlejimmy

Jeez, the logical leap some people take.

Meow

The lack of cohesive argument from some people is astonishing. As an example, if I say I do not agree with someone being given a death sentence for a crime, it does not mean that I think what they did was right and they should be let off. Disliking peas does not automatically mean that I love beans.

In this case did this man grow up in the UK and go through the British education system? If so, I find it hard to believe he didn't know that what he did was wrong. And as someone posted earlier, if he is a good Muslim, how does he justify having sex outside of marriage? That said, I don't see in the report that he 'forced' her into having sex. Having sex with a 13 year old is wrong, but it's not necessarily rape.

That said, I doubt imprisonment would do much good as he's just end up with a load of other reprobates. He needs to be properly educated about life in Britain and how to behave decently.

Bahtatboy

I have the feeling that he did grow up in the UK, but in seclusion in a madrassa. And I deduce that other action is being taken, hence no mention of it.

britexpat76

It is statutory Rape.

Meow

Are there madrassas in the UK that are a legal alternative to 'proper' schools? As he is just 18, surely his parents ought to take some responsibility for his lack of education?

Meow

Legally yes, but for most of us rape is where someone is forced against their will. I am simply curious as to whether she was a willing participant. I am certainly not saying she is legally able to consent, but I do think there is a difference between the legal position and full sexual assault. Tricky one as she is just 13 though and in my mind a child, but the lasting effect on her could be quite different.