Teenage gang rape case

[briantrumpet]

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=04clpd7h0b0


I think he's referencing this.

Haha, had forgotten that one, but they really did have a high strike rate, unless my recollection is playing tricks. Also I think probably most of the sketches aren't uncomfortable for 'outdated attitudes'.

Parents hated it, so I had to go and watch it in another room... they the deal was they could only afford a B&W licence, but then we had two TVs instead.

 

[BoldonLad]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cd0m38xndp3t

Sentence review, gives detention.

 

[spen666]

Sentencing is not about the victim. It is about achieving the best possibility of reoffending. Yes, the victim is taken into account, but the sentence is about the crime and the perpetrator.

Its about the victim, and society as well as the crime and the perpetrator

As shown today by the CofA appeal decision

 

[spen666]

Which is why the Judge specifically considered it:

From Part 1:

From Part 2:


He goes on:



Therefore he very clearly sets out that he has taken into account the impact on the two girls involved.

He may well have considered the impact, but its clear from the CofA decision he got it wrong when considering the emphasis and weight to be placed on it

 

[tarric]

IMO still not a long enough sentence for the crime committed, sentenced to 4 years will do 2 and then 2 in the community on licence.

 

[Beebo]

IMO still not a long enough sentence for the crime committed, sentenced to 4 years will do 2 and then 2 in the community on licence.

I think we have to accept that their age and mental abilities would always limit the sentence.
I presume they will be on the sex offenders register for life?

 

[tarric]

I think we have to accept that their age and mental abilities would always limit the sentence.
I presume they will be on the sex offenders register for life?

I accept it should play a part, but IMO it should not be the overriding part, what sort of message does this convey. If due to their mental abilities these children are a danger to others then should they not be segregated from society. While I understand mental heath is a serious problem it is becoming more and more of a card to be played.

P.S. they can apply to be removed after 8 years.

 

[icowden]

I accept it should play a part, but IMO it should not be the overriding part, what sort of message does this convey. If due to their mental abilities these children are a danger to others then should they not be segregated from society. While I understand mental heath is a serious problem it is becoming more and more of a card to be played.

It has not been suggested that these children are a danger to others. In both cases the girls went willingly with the boys, engaged in sexual activity but then it went further than the girls wanted. One boy is possibly more dangerous as he was the ring leader. It was suggested that the second boy was joining in due to peer pressure and not realising it was wrong, and the third boy was younger and an onlooker.

Thus the sentence was aimed at rehabilitation.

 

[BoldonLad]

It has not been suggested that these children are a danger to others. In both cases the girls went willingly with the boys, engaged in sexual activity but then it went further than the girls wanted. One boy is possibly more dangerous as he was the ring leader. It was suggested that the second boy was joining in due to peer pressure and not realising it was wrong, and the third boy was younger and an onlooker.

Thus the sentence was aimed at rehabilitation.

Interesting viewpoint.

 

[Pross]

Yep, “they were prepared to have sex with one boy and then others joined in against her will” isn’t the mitigation some are making it out to be. Then there’s the conspiracy to lure them into it (doesn’t seem to support the “they were too thick to know it was wrong” argument) and the videoing it and sharing it to add to the victims’ horrendous experience and humiliation.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It has not been suggested that these children are a danger to others.

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.

In both cases the girls went willingly with the boys, engaged in sexual activity but then it went further than the girls wanted.

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.

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.

 

[spen666]

I accept it should play a part, but IMO it should not be the overriding part, what sort of message does this convey. If due to their mental abilities these children are a danger to others then should they not be segregated from society. While I understand mental heath is a serious problem it is becoming more and more of a card to be played.

P.S. they can apply to be removed after 8 years.

Think you are conflating punishment and protection for society.

If someone one is a danger to public owing to mental health issues, then it is right society is protected.

That however is different from punishing someone.

 

[icowden]

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.

You have to read the whole thing. Not just cherry pick. I refer to you to: That risk would be reduced if there is continued engagement wit the YJS.

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.

Again, entirely wrong (your words). The third boy was only an onlooker. The second one was encouraged by the first. The girl didn't run away screaming when the second boy wanted a go. As I said, they consented to sex initially but it got out of hand.

'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.

No it wasn't. Stop making things up. That is simply wrong.

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.

Correct. The girls did. That is why the boys were charged. There was very strong doubt however that the second boy understood consent or the withdrawal of it.

 

[tarric]

Think you are conflating punishment and protection for society.

If someone one is a danger to public owing to mental health issues, then it is right society is protected.

That however is different from punishing someone.

IYO.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Again, entirely wrong (your words). The third boy was only an onlooker. The second one was encouraged by the first. The girl didn't run away screaming when the second boy wanted a go. As I said, they consented to sex initially but it got out of hand.

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

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.

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?