If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
3 years enough?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
This 34 or 33 year old bloke has just been banged up for sexualy assulting a 4 year old girl because she "enticied" him. 3 years is nothing, he will be out and living is perverted life as normal while the little girl will be scared for life. Is 3 years enough??? I don't think so. Opinions?
0
Comments
wtf :eek2: how can a 4 year old girl entice a man, or was he enticed by her.
It's easy to over-egg a pudding without any objective points of reference. A quick grope is "sexual assault", but it's hardly going to kill the girl.
No just fuck her up for life.
I thought you would be the last person to come out with that comment, im quite suprised with that tbh.
Sentencing stinks in this country, thats all I can say.
He's questioning the existance or accuracy, rational number one. Instead of becoming insensed with rage, he's questioning what actually happened. Rational number two. He's realising that sexual assault can be something small, like 'a quick grope' as opposed to rape or insertion of anything, and therefore 3 years may be closer to appropriate than say, hanging, rational number three.
Thank you.
I've had a look on BBCi and couldn't see the story on the news front page for England, for starters.
"Sexual assault" is basically a catch-all term for anything ranging from the man putting his hands down that poor girl's knickers to him raping her.
I'm sorry, but if he's just put his hands inside her pants once or twice it's unlikely that she would have her life "ruined" by the incident, disgusting as it is. The SEVERITY and VIOLENCE of the crime is what we are looking at here, not "ooh, he's a paedo, HANG THE CUNT!!!:mad:" which seems to be BeckyBoo and lukesh's standard response.
Unless someone can provide me with a link to see exactly DID happen, and what he was exactly convicted of, then I am unable to comment on the severity (or otherwise) of the sentence. And nor is anybody else.
How do you know ? How do you know what will make that kid tick over ? How many times have kids grown up to be fucked in the head and when the pshyciatrists(sp) have dug deeper they have found that when this child was little they had been either sexually abused or physically abused.
ANY sexual act on a child should be treat severely and I dont care what anyone says here.
Easier said than done, I think people here know how I feel with crimes towards children and when its any case of sexual abuse then I do feel that the courts need to stiffen up and I do get wound up.....I know.
Again we dont know if this abuse the child had will affect her, she may be fine (I hopse she is), but children are very funny, you would be suprised as to what children can remember and its only 10 years down the track that we find out that it has srewed them up.
Sexual abuse of any kind is very bad and I really do feel for anyone even if its an adult who has been through it. The problems sexual abuse can bring can sometimes affect not just the victim but the victims family as well and thats why I feel our system is wrong.
I'd also be aware of what is known as "false memory", where psychologists have led patients into believing they were assaulted when they were not.
It has happened.
Just using that to show that nothing is black and white.
Do you know what this man did?
Well, do you?
Three years for putting his hand inside her knickers for ten seconds is a severe punishment, considering he'd probably just get a fine or six months if he did it to an adult.
That's suggesting, of course, that that is what he did. We simply do not know. If he raped her, or was violent (either physically or emotionally), then three years is nowhere near enough.
As Ellie says, it is always important to remain rational about these cases, emotion has no place to play in the justice system. Otherwise we get ridiculous suggestions such as the one spouted the other day, where a man with a FANTASY "should be jailed for life" when there has been no suggestion he would ever act out on it.
Sorry, but the "string 'em up!" attitude has no place in a discussion about justice.
Sorry but thats my view.
Having been at that end of the stick I KNOW what its like. Dont wanna get into debate about me but I know what im talking about.
I know exactly what you mean, and that people could do it to a child angers me immensely. But the anger has no place in the criminal justice system, because if emotion rules sentencing it simply becomes revenge and not punishment.
The things I would do to rapists and have a clear conscience are unspeakable, I detest rapists with all my heart (and child rapists even more) but that sort of anger can't be used to determine sentencing. Otherwise I'd have rapists sitting in the Iron Maiden, and I'd bring back the wheel:)
Maybe revenge is what I want for sex crimes ?
In my head sex offenders are scum and deserve all they get and it does not matter how far they went, wether it be a quick grope or full blown rape.....its all bad to me.
Which is why judges are rational, and you don't get to give out punishments.
It's what most people want to be fair, but it's not something than can be allowed to happen.
The point is distinctions need to be drawn.
If you get the same punishment for sticking your hands down a kid's pants as you would for beating her and raping her, you might as well just beat her and rape her. I don't mean to sound awful, but if you're going to get the same sentence you might as well get your money's worth.
In my head though the quick rope deseres say 3 years and full blown rape deserves at least 10.
I cant go into stuff here but rape can really muck about with peoples heads and totally stuff them up.
Hence why im so anti rape/sexual assault and feel that they deserve harsh sentensing.
(cant find the words to use here)
Yup. Which is why this man got three years.
One interesting thing a defence solicitor told me: the "common man" quite often gives more lenient sentences for crime than a judge does, because the "common man" is more swayed by terrible backgrounds.
I know. If I could get my hands on the person who hurt my friend I would hurt him so badly he'd be begging to die.
But that doesn't have a place in sentencing.
If he was jailed for 50 years he'd still be "able" to hurt children when he gets out.
But that's the point of jail: rehabilitation not punishment.