To think that there should be some consequences for Judge Nicholas Rowland

I thought the sentence was outrageous, I suspect however that the issue is more with the guidelines than the judge. I’m happy to be corrected if that’s wrong. If the issue is the guidelines, hopefully these will now be revised.

I thought the sentence was outrageous, I suspect however that the issue is more with the guidelines than the judge. I’m happy to be corrected if that’s wrong. If the issue is the guidelines, hopefully these will now be revised.

No doubt this is the attitude, but the girls who have to live with this for the rest of their lives are also “children”. Should society prioritise the teenage rapist or the teenage rape victim/other girls who may be raped and filmed if these thugs are left in society to carry on?

We’re all here trying to work it out. Explain to us why the case is so complex please.

@KateSixer I agree with you completely.
People don’t seem to understand how complex and difficult cases like this are and just believe the simplistic details given in the media.

This.

I work in this area and am regularly stunned by what offences get a YRO and not custody - firearms offences, sec 18 offences wounding with intent, GBH as well as rape offences. So I don't think its down to misogyny.

This one caught the medias attention but I think the public would be shocked if they knew the court outcomes day to day.

It's deemed a bad thing, indicative of possible system failures if a YOT has 'too many' custodial sentences given to children in a year and the aim is always to bring the number down.

It would be considered very bad form and not 'child first' to want a child to go to prison.

Hi @KateSixercan you please explain the nuance? I would like to understand and am open to hearing the explanation for this.

I'd just say I think this was a much more complicated and nuanced case than people see it here.

Not saying the original sentence was right or wrong. But obviously nothing is ever as simple as it seems on the surface.

It’s relevant to the issue of understanding consent and risk. One has intellectual capacity in the bottom 1% compared with his peers, the other was in the bottom 5%: That deals with culpability.

If you’re banging people up because they’re generally a danger to the public, then there are separate ways outside the criminal law to deal with that. Essentially, you’re treating them as though they have a highly infectious and untreatable disease, like Typhoid Mary. You don’t blame someone who’s contaminated like that but you take action to contain the danger. But you have to be care, given the history of states and rich families locking away inconvenient people.

Well maybe if those carrying out these criminal acts are seen to actually have consequences, it won’t look so attractive to others. There are little to no consequences for violent criminal acts by those below certain ages, so why not rob, attack rape etc, especially when you will get to have people fawning over you tell you that, “yes it’s you, poor lamb who is the victim here.. you don’t know any better, none of this is your fault”

The original verdict was outrageous and in my opinion gave a frightening insight into the mind of the person giving it. I am glad it was appealed.

And what about “child first” for the victims? Those who have been raped, robbed, assaulted, threatened?
they don’t matter do they? They of course have to realise that expecting their attackers to have to see consequences for their actions is nasty, awful “retribution” as one poster has said, and this is just unfair, and they need to how negative it is for the attackers, it may even harm the poor souls job prospects…

Are you saying the girls were complicit in their rapes then @DannyDeever then? That they are somehow to blame?

I think the poster was alluding to the current thinking in the judiciary. That putting young people in the criminal justice system creates a lot of long term problems.

And what about “child first” for the victims? Those who have been raped, robbed, assaulted, threatened?
they don’t matter do they? They of course have to realise that expecting their attackers to have to see consequences for their actions is nasty, awful “retribution” as one poster has said, and this is just unfair, and they need to how negative it is for the attackers, it may even harm the poor souls job prospects…

This.

I work in this area and am regularly stunned by what offences get a YRO and not custody - firearms offences, sec 18 offences wounding with intent, GBH as well as rape offences. So I don't think its down to misogyny.

This one caught the medias attention but I think the public would be shocked if they knew the court outcomes day to day.

It's deemed a bad thing, indicative of possible system failures if a YOT has 'too many' custodial sentences given to children in a year and the aim is always to bring the number down.

It would be considered very bad form and not 'child first' to want a child to go to prison.

I'd just say I think this was a much more complicated and nuanced case than people see it here.

Agree. Before I read the judgement WiggyPig posted I was all for stringing them up. Now I've read that I don't know what to think. I've certainly put my pitchfork away.

I can tell you having served as an officer in a YOI, that there is a drive to not send young people to jail as the current judiciary think criminalisation of them leads to far worse problems - mental health problems and never able to reinsert themselves into society owing to employers reluctant to give jobs to people with criminal records. I can see the logic of this.

No, it won't be disastrous. As has been pointed out, sentences are changed by the Court of Appeal regularly. If we sacked every judge concerned, we would have none left.

He followed the sentencing guidelines, and therefore this is not the horrendous error some people think - it's very much a matter of discretion and judgment. Really this case, including the appeal, shows the system working precisely as it should; we can't expect infallibility, and that is precisely why we have an appeal system in place.

@NoisyHiker Id vote to put people like you in there with them. We absolutely need rehabilitation of children/teens. They were not adults and we are already out of kilter with most decent nations in terms of criminal age for dc. This awful retribution heaped on dc is too much. We all accept there needs to be punishment but what you suggest is it civilised. We should never be that nation.