Teenage gang rape case

[spen666]

That is simply wrong. The judges sentencing remarks at the original trial said both defendants J and N had been assessed as an ongoing risk to girls.

View attachment 16130

View attachment 16131


Again, entirely wrong. The first victim consented - though it seems reluctantly - to sex with the one boy they had arranged to meet and who they had known over the Internet. Then other boys turned up. They were then raped vaginally and orally by these boys - because rape is what it is when someone is coerced and intimidated into sexual activity. The second victim consented initially.

Let's call this what it is:
'If you consent to sex with a boy you barely know then you can't expect to say no when his mates turn up'. That was the attitude of the judge and I'm dismayed to see it repeated on here.

That is not the attitude of the Judge nor the jury who convicted the rapidts.

The Judge erred by putting too much emphasis on the needs of the offenders and not sufficient on the effect the attacks had on the victims.

This is a million miles from the position you attributed to the Judge.

Your claim did not form part of the appeal, nor is it supported by the judgement in the C of A

Anybody can withdraw consent to sex at any time. Consenting to sex with one person does not imply consent to sex with others. Coercion and intimidation is not consent.

IYO.

It's not my opinion. It is factual and indeed is covered by the fundamental human rights. we observe.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I would have thought it was obvious that that aspect of my post, ie the judges's attitude, was personal opinion.

 

[spen666]

I would have thought it was obvious that that aspect of my post, ie the judges's attitude, was personal opinion.

Its simply false and not supported by the facts.

For someone who is normally so sensible, it ill befits you to make up false claims about the judge.

Try reading the original judges sentencing remarks and the C of A judgement which totally undermine your claims re the judge

 

[AuroraSaab]

As I just said, that is my personal opinion as to what might have influenced his attitude re underestimating the harm the victims suffered. I've read both judgements. The sentence appeal judgement is of a very different tone to the original judge's remarks.

 

[icowden]

This is victim blaming. And 'Wanted a go'? What a way to describe the rape of 14 year old girls.

No it isn't. It's a description of how teenaged boys would be thinking.

It's a deliberate minimising of the power dynamics between a victim finding themselves in an isolated area with one boy, then 2 other strangers turn up. It's an attitude to rape that belongs to decades ago - ie. If the victim isn't kicking and screaming he/she must have consented to some extent. You take no account of coercion, pressure, or fear on the part of the victims.

No, it's a reasonably accurate description. Yes there may have been coercion and pressure, but I didn't see anything of that in the Judge's sentencing remarks.

The girls consented to sex (reluctantly by the sounds of it) with the initial boy who they knew over the internet. There is nothing to say they consented to sexual activity with the other ones who arrived. But hey they didn't run away screaming or violently fight them off so they must have, right?

That's not what I said. You really do need to start reading and thinking and not projecting your own bias. The court has the accounts of the victims and the perpetrators. They have been taken into account.

You seem to want to portray this as a violent rape and have the boys sent to prison for 20 years to become hardened criminals. The Justice system disagrees with you. It thinks that we should address the cause and rehabilitate the boys. Make sure that they learn that what they did was wrong, so that they don't do it again and become fully paid up members of society again minimising the cost to the taxpayer and maximising the life outcomes.

 

[spen666]

As I just said, that is my personal opinion as to what might have influenced his attitude re underestimating the harm the victims suffered. I've read both judgements. The sentence appeal judgement is of a very different tone to the original judge's remarks.

It was never a part of the appeal, nor part of the C of A judgement that your fairytale about the judges mindset was accurate.
Courts deal with facts not your fantasies. There is not a single shred of evidence to support your base;ess and vile accusations against the judge

 

[AuroraSaab]

That's not what I said. You really do need to start reading and thinking and not projecting your own bias. The court has the accounts of the victims and the perpetrators. They have been taken into account.

You literally said:

This is a very dismissive and minimising account of what happened. Consenting to sex with one specific individual but then being coerced into sex with two others who turn up isn't 'it got out of hand'. And it happened twice.

I am still of the opinion that a perception of promiscuity by the victims played a part in the leniency of the original sentences.

You seem to want to portray this as a violent rape and have the boys sent to prison for 20 years to become hardened criminals.

No. I think the crimes were serious enough to cross the custody threshold. You didn't. The appeal judges didn't agree with you.

The Justice system disagrees with you. It thinks that we should address the cause and rehabilitate the boys.

Which can be done along with a custodial sentence. It's not either/or.

Make sure that they learn that what they did was wrong, so that they don't do it again and become fully paid up members of society again minimising the cost to the taxpayer and maximising the life outcomes.

You make no mention of the life outcomes for victims of such crimes and how unduly lenient sentences affect both them and wider society.
It's not all about what outcomes would best suit offenders.

 

[icowden]

This is a very dismissive and minimising account of what happened. Consenting to sex with one specific individual but then being coerced into sex with two others who turn up isn't 'it got out of hand'. And it happened twice.

No it isn't. It is what we are told happened. They initially consented to sexual acts, but then things got out of hand and they ended up in a position where they had no consented.

I am still of the opinion that a perception of promiscuity by the victims played a part in the leniency of the original sentences.

Of course. It would have been very different if the girls had been abducted and forcibly raped from the start. That isn't what happened.

No. I think the crimes were serious enough to cross the custody threshold. You didn't. The appeal judges didn't agree with you.

Correct.

Which can be done along with a custodial sentence. It's not either/or.

Also correct. So are you happy with 4 years?
(I'm willing to guess that you aren't)

 

[BoldonLad]

No it isn't. It is what we are told happened. They initially consented to sexual acts, but then things got out of hand and they ended up in a position where they had no consented.

Of course. It would have been very different if the girls had been abducted and forcibly raped from the start. That isn't what happened.


Correct.


Also correct. So are you happy with 4 years?
(I'm willing to guess that you aren't)

Isn't that what is frequently referred to as "date rape"

 

[icowden]

Isn't that what is frequently referred to as "date rape"

I suppose so. That tends to be a US definition. In the UK I don't think there is a particular distinction.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I'm happy with 4 years. They are having 231 days taken off the sentence, plus the time they spent in detention taken off it too, so, depending on their behaviour too of course, they won't do 4 years in an actual detention facility. The 10 year restraining order has also been replaced with an unlimited one.

I realise it must be a disappointment that they are actually facing some serious consequences but the sentences given will restore some confidence in the justice system for similar victims. It's probably not looking good for your suggestion that rapists go round schools telling kids to be less rapey either.

 

[C R]

@icowden, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

 

[BoldonLad]

I suppose so. That tends to be a US definition. In the UK I don't think there is a particular distinction.

Is that so?, I feel sure I have read it in connection with UK cases.

 

[icowden]

Is that so?, I feel sure I have read it in connection with UK cases.

I think the press like it, but I'm not sure it has any standing in law.

 

[tarric]

It's not my opinion. It is factual and indeed is covered by the fundamental human rights. we observe.

These children committed a crime and IMO neither sentence reflects the severity of the crime they committed.