11 into 20 goes - but no jail for her (20 year old)

11 into 20 goes - but no jail for her (20 year old)

Author
Discussion

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Monday 5th October 2015
quotequote all
[redacted]

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Monday 5th October 2015
quotequote all
If it were the other way around it'd rape, so it's not a like for like comparison.


anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
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.

otolith said:
La Liga said:
If it were the other way around it'd rape, so it's not a like for like comparison.
And if they were both male, or if the sexes were reversed without penetration?
For rape, the offender needs a penis. If not, it is the lesser offences of assault be penetration, sexual assault and sexual activity with a child would be considered.

Foliage said:
So a jury found her guilty and the judge pretty much goes against that and give her a suspended sentence, what are the conditions of the probation usually?
It never went to trial. She pleaded guilty.

Suspended sentences can be any custodial sentence from 14 days up to 2 years. She is on the sex offenders' register for 7 years which will have various conditions and restrictions.



anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
otolith said:
La Liga said:
otolith said:
La Liga said:
If it were the other way around it'd rape, so it's not a like for like comparison.
And if they were both male, or if the sexes were reversed without penetration?
For rape, the offender needs a penis. If not, it is the lesser offences of assault be penetration, sexual assault and sexual activity with a child would be considered.
And you think a suspended six month sentence would be a likely outcome if a man had been convicted of sexual activity with a child in this situation?
I don't know. Judges have the same flaws and biases as everyone else. The sentencing guidelines help iron-out a lot of variance, but they don't create absolute consistency.


anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
AyBee said:
otolith said:
Another twenty year old Swindon paedophile abusing an 11 year old - this time, genders reversed, no physical contact, just sexting.

18 month suspended sentence.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/not-particula...
So 18 months suspended for sexting vs 6 months suspended for 45 seconds of fun...seems fair...
Four charges vs one.





anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
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.

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Wednesday 7th October 2015
quotequote all
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.










anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Wednesday 7th October 2015
quotequote all
xjay1337 said:
Because someone needed to point out how you sound like you're trying to get laid infront of a load of women. You have literally no idea, as it seems.

I mean I read up to "Women can't rape men" and instantly thought you are a complete TW@
Are you saying when men recognise gender inequality issues they are doing so to get laid? If so, that's an interesting view of the world.

I not sure what you mean when you highlight "women can't rape men", but that is true.

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Friday 9th October 2015
quotequote all
superlightr said:
Interesting angle. If the girl was 'simple' and thus had a mental age closer to the boy of 11 then to her true age then could the Father who had sex with her have sexually assalted her becasue she could not give informed/valid consent due to her 'simple' nature?

If not then why has her mental age been used to defend her from sexual assault on the boy of 11?
He said she was immature, not that she was lacking capacity or anything else which would render her unable to give consent to the father.


anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Sunday 11th October 2015
quotequote all
superlightr said:
La Liga said:
superlightr said:
Interesting angle. If the girl was 'simple' and thus had a mental age closer to the boy of 11 then to her true age then could the Father who had sex with her have sexually assalted her becasue she could not give informed/valid consent due to her 'simple' nature?

If not then why has her mental age been used to defend her from sexual assault on the boy of 11?
He said she was immature, not that she was lacking capacity or anything else which would render her unable to give consent to the father.
so.....if she was able to give consent for the Father, then she should be subject to the full guidance for sentencing for the crime she committed with her immaturity not taking into account for the crime she did to a minor?
Consent in terms the pre-requisite for sexual offending is quite different from mitigating factors.