Why is it that wrong uns, always look like proper wrong uns

I just can't think of anything what only justifies 28 months. I'm not entirely sure what's macho about that?

Either way, thank god they're off the streets.

 

Seriously do you actually think that any sexual predation on a minor is acceptable in any society, and should not be punished with the longest sentence possible?
Although precise details are not known the crimes were described as some of the worst the police had seen , that’s good enough for me

out of interest do you have children?

 

In fairness when orsenkaht posts about sentences being strong enough or whatever he is generally talking about it in a legal sense. I don't think he really means morally or anything just that often the sentence is correct legally.

 

No, I do not think that any sexual predation on a minor is acceptable. Do I think every sexual offence against a minor should be punished with the maximum permitted sentence? No. That's a nonsense. Offences have to be sentenced according to their individual facts. We need to know them before making blanket pronouncements about particular sentences being longer. If the facts merit it, throw the book at them. But we do need to know the facts. We can't treat all offences alike. And courts and judges are trained and educated to pass sentence - not police officers.

 

It's a general comment that every time we hear of a bad case, there is something of a competition on here to be the person suggesting the most diabolical fate for the offender. I'm put in mind of Desmond Tutu's comment about needing to know the difference between justice and revenge. There is a gradation of offences even in this vilest of areas of offending. We have to know the facts before we can start calling for stronger punishments. Don't get me wrong though, I'd give them the harshest sentence available - but only according to the facts and in accordance with the guidelines. But we can't call for more without knowing the facts.

 

I agree with that bud. And you are right, it is often said despite facts, or sometimes before they've even been proven guilty. I just can't fathom that a sexual offense against a child 13 & under only results in 28 months? Even if it's just because they knew about it & didn't report it, how many children's life could they have helped? A lot people, obviously, when it comes to kids, heart rules their heads, I understand their passion & reasonings but you are certainly correct in saying there's levels to criminal acts.

 

Unfortunately, at this time we don't know the crimes that each offender has committed. They might have been indirectly involved - either by covering up for one of the others, by buying alcohol for the victims to consume or providing a location for the offences to happen (just examples) - rather than directly involved in the abuse. Those with indirect involvement will have lesser sentences than those directly involved or the ringleaders.

It is also possible that they committed far fewer offences than the others. So they might have abused one child on one occasion - which is still unforgivably terrible - instead of 10s of children over multiple incidents.

 

sorry we will have to agree to disagree on this, the lesser sentences bother me because with possible remission its nowt.
For me somebody who has it in their moral make up to assist with abusing kids at whatever level deserves proper punishment and sometime judges are held back by technicalities.
Its not just the actual physical stuff, mentally it often ruins their adult lives too.
Anybody who has heard that lass interviewed who came forward in the Rotherham case can't help but be moved.

 

Sounds like they are related. Unfortunately it is likely that some of the abusers were also abused or witnessed abuse. The thing I most hate this government for is the closure of the surestart centres, making sure children get the best start possible is imperative.

 

To be fair, I don't think we're that far apart. All I'm saying is that there is a gradation of sexual offences ranging from (e.g.) exposure (maximum sentence: two years' imprisonment) at one end of the scale, right through to rape or assault by penetration (which both carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment). It doesn't make any sense to call for much harsher punishments without knowing the nature of the offence(s) committed.

I think a lot of people would share your reservations about the effect of the standard early release provisions, but that is a separate question and those provisions apply to all imprisonable offences.