-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Babysitter who had sex with 11-year-old boy gets suspended sentence
- Thread starter Head of Vengarl
- Start date
- Status
MultiCore
Member
Even roaches have kids. Is this guy lower than a roach?
Roaches probably do the right thing for the best of their offsprings, this guy is not.
John Kowalski
Banned
You got some problem with roaches?
SuperBanana
Banned
Yes.
MultiCore
Member
I don't believe saying the guy is acting more in his own self interest than the kids' automatically means he had no human right to reproduce.
No, but that's my point.
I'm not sure it's possible to prove that.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Wh... what?
Explain yourself.
Ganzlinger
Member
What bullshit is this. The judge's explanation was hilariously sad.
My partner was raped* at around the same age by a girl older than him. He still has screaming nightmares about it over fifteen years later. That shit messes you up for a long time.
*: iirc, rape still requires penetration in UK law, so legally, he was only sexually assaulted. Kinda messed up.
*: iirc, rape still requires penetration in UK law, so legally, he was only sexually assaulted. Kinda messed up.
FortuneFaded
Member
You're talking about the legal aspect but you also agreed with the father. Do you think what happened was morally wrong?
He didn't pull it out of his ass, he spewed it out of his mouth. It's still gross.
DoktorEvil
Banned
You also said you agreed with the dad. Do you even read what the dad said about his 11 year old son and about the babysitter?
No I wouldn't
The woman was found guilty. The issue is the sentence.
You guys post stories to US miscarriages of justice all the time where someone goes to jail for 10 years for a petty offence, this is what a moderate mature, human legal system produces.
This girl doesn't deserve to go to jail, unless she does it again, in which case it's highly unlikely she would get away without a jail sentence.
Raping a minor under your custody is not jail worthy? You see this as a minor offense? would you think the same if it was a 20 year old man raping an 11 year old girl?
There's a separate law with it. Sexual Activity with a child under 16.
If this was a case where the kid was raped, then I would agree, she needs to go down hard for it.
The issue here is that the UK and US have different views of what "rape" is.
In this case, the woman has fully admitted it, she's been found guilty in court. There's no allegation that the boy was forced, tricked etc which would make it rape (in the UK), plus in the UK a woman CAN'T rape a man.
Also, the matter was reported to the Police by the dad so he's hardly "bad dad of the year".
Life aint black and white yo
What's the difference between her doing it once and then doing it again? It'll be the same thing!
Because having sex with underage kids is wrong!
Yeah, so why is a potential second case jail worthy but the first isn't? You're not making a lick of sense.
She raped a little kid, she deserves to be locked up in jail for life.
Yet you seem pretty content with it.
stufte
Member
So we shouldn't punish until there are at least 2 victims? Sweet baby jesus. "let's ruin 2 childrens lives before we ruin one adults life".
witchedwiz
Member
even if.. this was not the case.. the father is just a random idiot as well...
plus the father banged her as well, as far as I understood, so..
i understand that justice is gray at times, but if you're putting it on that line of reasoning, loosing virginity is like that, depending on the circles for girls as well.. girls that don't get have sex before a certain age are "picked on" more or less maliciously.. conversely in some circles if you sleep with multiple people you are seen like a slut..
so no sex? silly virgin.. too much sex? slut..
now without the offtopic, I for one think she should be punished, but stuff like this is always about personal perception of the whole event i guess...
Like I said, the UK isn't the US.
Her sentence is suspended for 2 years, if she gets done for ANYTHING illegal in those 2 years, even shoplifting, then she will go to jail.
She hasn't avoided jail, she's been given benefit of the doubt.
She raped a goddamn 11-year old. There should be no doubt given.
It's my understanding that "consent" is not relevant under law if the victim is under 13.
Are they doubting that that kid isn't a sex maniac? Because that's the message.
She has been given benefit of doubt over sexually assaulting a 11yr old, which is wrong. She should be locked up.
That's the whole point. She shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt.
KurtSloane
Banned
She is a child molester, she deserves jail not the benefit of the doubt.
Your logic is twisted.
Excusing child molesting in the name of liberal nonsense is messed up, not everyone deserves a second chance.
KurtSloane
Banned
Bingo! That's the bit that is supposed to protect children.
These are the max penalties for the law she was tried under:
Statutory Limitations & Maximum Penalty: Penetration - 14 years imprisonment
Non-Penetration - On Indictment - 14 years imprisonment
Summary Conviction - 6 months imprisonment and/or statutory maximum fine
Rape is maximum life imprisonment and there is no option to try it in a summary trial.
Clearly two very different laws and circumstances.
Here's the simplified guidelines:
Relevant Sentencing Council Guideline (if any)
Guidelines effective for offences sentenced on or after the 14th May 2007.
The starting points are for an adult offender, of previous good character who was convicted after trial.
The same starting points apply whether the activity was caused or incited. Where an offence was incited but did not take place as a result of the voluntary intervention of the offender, that is likely to reduce the severity of the sentence imposed.
"...no precise guidance can be given. The appropriate sentence is likeley to lie within a very wide braket, depending on all the circumstances of the particular offence. There will be very few cases in which immediate custody is not called for, even in relation to a young offender because the purpose of the legislation is to protect children under 13 from themselves, as well as from others minded to prey on them.
The sentence for S9 and S10 offences is likely to be less where the victim is under 16 rather than under 13" (per Rose LJ in R v Corran and others [2005] 2 Cr.App.R.(S) 73).
Type/nature of activity: Penile penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth or penetration of the vagina or anus with another body part or an object
Starting points: 4 years custody
Sentencing ranges: 3 - 7 years custody
Type/nature of activity: Contact between naked genitalia of offender and naked genitalia or another part of victim's body, particularly face or mouth
Starting points: 2 years custody
Sentencing ranges: 1 - 4 years custody
Type/nature of activity: Contact between naked genitalia of offender or victim and clothed genitalia of victim or offender or contact with naked genitalia of victim by offender using part of his or her body other than the genitalia or an object
Starting points: 12 months custody
Sentencing ranges: 26 weeks - 2 years custody
Type/nature of activity: Contact between part of offender's body (other than the genitalia) with part of the victim's body (other than the genitalia)
Starting points: Community order
Sentencing ranges: An appropriate non-custodial sentence
'Non-custodial sentence' in this context suggests a community order or a fine. In most instances, an offence will have crossed the threshold for a community order. However, in accordance with normal sentencing practice, a court is not precluded from imposing a financial penalty where that is determined to be the appropriate sentence.
Sure, it's the same kind of twisted problem caused by an unhealthy focus on sex as part of a man's masculinity.
I didn't have sex until I was 16 and even then I wasn't prepared for it, despite having years of wanting to have it.
The idea of an 11 year old having sex is just incredibly gross to me and it's the kind of thing that can warp their view of sexuality and relationships, ESPECIALLY if it is rape like this case.
lmao
This thread is ridiculous.
Pedophile/rape defence force? I'm 100% certain that those saying this is ok would NOT say the same thing if it was a man and a young girl.
Sun Bather
Member
At the end of the day, she still fucked a 11 year old. I really don't want to sound like some MRA nut, but just imagine if the genders were turned around here for a moment. Would you still give a man who fucked a 11 year old girl, the benefit of the doubt?
aspiegamer
Member
Perhaps it's because you're defending a "peado" who raped an 11-year-old.
Well, yeah, you and the judge (and the dad) are defending her.
I've not defended the babysitter at all.
I just pointed out that I agree with the judge, who is an expert in UK law and it's application has come to a decision. Also, the court, judge etc will be privy to a lot more information than what's presented in a newspaper article that's designed more to stir up a fuss and get clicks.
I'm defending my legal system goddamit.
I don't see the CPS, Police, Parents objecting to the finding either.
I just pointed out that I agree with the judge, who is an expert in UK law and it's application has come to a decision. Also, the court, judge etc will be privy to a lot more information than what's presented in a newspaper article that's designed more to stir up a fuss and get clicks.
I'm defending my legal system goddamit.
I don't see the CPS, Police, Parents objecting to the finding either.
Defending the legal system when it is clearly wrong? The NSPCC clearly object to the verdict, as did a kids charity who was at the trial.
NSPCC has objected. The father is a creep. The judge is mental with his "it was quite clear he was a mature 11-year-old" line.
How is it an argument? The legal system can't be flawed?
Etrian Oddity
Member
But I thought equal rights. Why not punish her as you would a male sex offender
OldAsUrSock
Banned
Many people equate morality with legality.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked