11 into 20 goes - but no jail for her (20 year old)
Discussion
otolith said:
TTwiggy said:
The question was one of perceived inequality and what 'might have happened if things were reversed'. I was simply pointing out that a)equality doesn't exist (and that it usually works against women) and b)there is no 'turning it around' as the mechanism isn't the same.
The crime she was convicted of was "sexual activity with a child". A man can commit that offence too. TTwiggy said:
But, you know, feel free to continue a crusade for the poor downtrodden men.
Continue to cheerlead for injustice on the basis of gender - I'm sure your patriarchal attitude to female criminals will persist for some time.TTwiggy said:
Unless you can show catergorically that a man would have received a tougher sentence IN EXACTLY THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES then your argument is moot.
Given that you are defining "exactly the same circumstances" in gendered terms, you know that is nonsense. "Ah, but the perpetrator knocked the candle over with his cock, unless you can find a case of a woman committing arson by cock, it's not comparable". Do you think a male babysitter who had sucked the kid off would have got a six month suspended sentence?
Mr GrimNasty said:
The offender is clearly what in the old days would have been called a 'simpleton', justice would not have been served with a 'proper' sentence.
It's got nothing to do with the gender of the offender (in this case).
I do agree with you there - i actually feel that the judge got it about right. I still have trouble with seeing that a 'simpleton' male in the same position would have got the same sentence, but there we go.It's got nothing to do with the gender of the offender (in this case).
otolith said:
And you are inferring his "keenness" from simple biology, and implying that somehow reduced her crime?........
His dad confirmed he was up for it. I think if she had forced herself on him, maybe by slipping Viagra in his drink and overpowering him, that would be a much worse crime, even if it isn't in the eyes of the law. Of course I don't condone what she did, but I bet she got a light sentence because it was totally consensual and she is very immature. AlexC1981 said:
His dad confirmed he was up for it. I think if she had forced herself on him, maybe by slipping Viagra in his drink and overpowering him, that would be a much worse crime, even if it isn't in the eyes of the law. Of course I don't condone what she did, but I bet she got a light sentence because it was totally consensual and she is very immature.
It was not consensual - the boy was under the age of consent. 
With him being under 13 consent isn't legally relevant. There's no requirement to prove the absence of it. Between 13 and 18, and above, there may also not be a requirement depending on the offence offence.
Consent isn't relevant to the offence in any case, but it could well be to the sentencing. It's not so much the boy consented, it's more the absence of any aggravating factor like she got him drunk, deceived or threatened him or used force.
Consent isn't relevant to the offence in any case, but it could well be to the sentencing. It's not so much the boy consented, it's more the absence of any aggravating factor like she got him drunk, deceived or threatened him or used force.
TTwiggy said:
Rude-boy said:
You really need to get out more mate.
You will see thousands of posts where people are in favour of equality. 100% equality. None of this 'quota' or 'positive discrimination' BS
You must be reading them a very different way to me then 'mate'. I see plenty of posts demanding equality where it seems that a woman has received some sort of preferential treatment, but I don't see many (any?) about the inequalities that women suffer.You will see thousands of posts where people are in favour of equality. 100% equality. None of this 'quota' or 'positive discrimination' BS
In this apparently civilised and equal country, on average two women die every week as a result of domestic violence. I've yet to see this make the NP&E frontpage.
Randy Winkman said:
You wait to see what happens if the Ched Evans verdict is overturned.
If that happens there will be a deafening silence in lots of other places, so it will all balance out.There is enough real misogyny on PH to keep any SJW occupied, but I don't think this is an example of it.
Mr GrimNasty said:
The offender is clearly what in the old days would have been called a 'simpleton', justice would not have been served with a 'proper' sentence.
It's got nothing to do with the gender of the offender (in this case).
She's not that thick, really:It's got nothing to do with the gender of the offender (in this case).
http://www.spareroom.co.uk/flatmate/4156932
She's also managed to delete her Facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1000084010... which was up yesterday, which had pics of her posing with what I assume was the boy's father (she was in a relationship with him for a couple of months).
So while she's probably sub<100 IQ, she has completed further education and manages to communicate in sentences on the internet.
I doubt she's any stupider than your average bloke who gets banged up for fighting in the pub after a football match, or what have you.
AlexC1981 said:
His dad confirmed he was up for it. I think if she had forced herself on him, maybe by slipping Viagra in his drink and overpowering him, that would be a much worse crime, even if it isn't in the eyes of the law. Of course I don't condone what she did, but I bet she got a light sentence because it was totally consensual and she is very immature.
I don't think his dad's views are all that relevant, given that she is/was his sexual partner. In normal circumstances when an 11 year old child is sexually abused with the consent of the father, as in this case, they lock them both up.Edited by thelawnet1 on Tuesday 6th October 23:59
La Liga said:
The starting point for this offence is two years with a range of one to four years (for the least serious occurances).
The judge has gone below the sentencing guidelines, which is unusual, and reduced one year to six months. The suspended aspect isn't that unusual for the lowest-levels of seriousness.
For the specific act (penetrative sex), the guideline is actually 5 year's custody, with a range of 4 to 10 year's custody.The judge has gone below the sentencing guidelines, which is unusual, and reduced one year to six months. The suspended aspect isn't that unusual for the lowest-levels of seriousness.
That presumes that this is a 'A' culpability offence', which would apply given
- Significant disparity in age - the judge appears to argue that there was none, given the victim's maturity.
- Abuse of trust "‘Abuse of position of trust’ has been previously discussed at page 21 but it is worth noting that for victims under the age of 13, trust arises not only from a position of formal responsibility but also from the offender’s relationship with the child, for example, a babysitter or a family friend who has been trusted to look after the child on a day out."
So the sentence applied was not in the range for the specific offence committed.
It does seem to be a fairly straightforward case of sexism - she knew he was 11, as the father had told her, and she also knew that it's illegal to have sex with 11 year olds. But because she comes across as an unthreatening female, she has got away with it.
thelawnet1 said:
For the specific act (penetrative sex), the guideline is actually 5 year's custody, with a range of 4 to 10 year's custody.
That presumes that this is a 'A' culpability offence', which would apply given
I didn't interpret the culpability as A, but I could be incorrect and it may be a more extreme deviation from the guidelines. That presumes that this is a 'A' culpability offence', which would apply given
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff