Guilty of sexual assault of a 6 year old girl - but no consequences

I don't think that every women who is raped is traumatised. Some women are and some women aren't and each reaction is valid and legitimate.
Woman ie adult human female with adult resources to make sense of sexual violence.
This was a six year old child molested for two years and now seeing the perpetrator walk free and the crime minimised. He has wilfully shoved his sexual needs into her life, her view of the world and the adults around her will be shaped by the two years he molested her. How can anyone claim there be no long term repercussions after this? Ffs.

Personally I think it is in the public interest for him not to become a dentist, but maybe that’s just my opinion.

I feel a bit sick that he now knows all the buttons to press and the ways to get away with it and can put it into place next time.

Just maybe, Blistory, there isn't ever going to be a time when the default assumption for sexual assault victims is that they'll just be able to take it in their stride. Stop minimising the trauma many people do suffer.

I suggest you start another thread for the discussion you want to have about how we should all get over sexual assault and not let it ruin our lives because it's making victims out of us.

While this thread can concentrate on why it was felt appropriate to let a young man off scot free for abusing a young child. Your pie in the sky views about how we should perceive rape and sexual assault in an ideal society have absolutely no bearing on whether this young man should have faced a higher penalty for his serious criminal offence suffered any consequences at all. Happy to have that discussion with you on a different thread.

Having one's body and boundaries violated, whether or not you realise it fully at the time is serious and has many and varied repercussions. There is no right or wrong way to react to it. Experiencing trauma or being tramatised has nothing to do with being fragile and everything to do with the pernicious and insidious nature and effects of sexual abuse.

Nailed it. 27 years from my own I'm still deeply traumatised. All sexual abusers are definitely monsters imo, and have an undercurrent of meticulous planning and deceit underpinning their abuse alongside with ensuring they won't be disturbed.

Agree with all your posts too @Ereshkigal

Wading in ? It’s a forum.

You’ve quoted me asking questions not unilaterally declaring that i’ve got it right and that everyone else is wrong.

And I don’t just randomly throw thoughts out on potentially distressing topics. Don’t you think that it’s worthwhile exploring why so little has changed in terms of rape and sexual assault being used to keep women fearful and compliant ? Can’t you be open enough to consider that maybe, just maybe, our views on rape are still shaped and formed through patriarchal beliefs and institutional structures and that feminist analysis requires different perspectives to be considered ? Perhaps to be rejected, perhaps to be embraced.

I don’t just want to support women who have been assaulted, I want to support the next generation of women by ensuring they don’t get assaulted in the first place. If that makes for difficult debate, I'm okay with that.

If you're basing this on personal experience of how you dealt with being assaulted you can only speak for yourself, as I do. If you have no knowledge of what it's like to be raped/sexually assaulted then I think you should listen a little more to the women who do before wading in with your views.

And this is about a six year old child. This judge is not in a position to know this man's motivation. He could very well be a danger to other children. Yes, a danger. Because it is a serious matter to sexually assault someone, especially a six year old child. It's bizarre that you are trying to minimise it.

What you proposed:

Is it possible that supporting the narrative of women as victims and survivors serves to uphold patriarchal norms

whether our understanding and approach to it needs to change.

So how do you suggest that "change" might work in terms of the criminal justice system, which is what we're actually discussing here? How would it not diminish the trauma felt by most victims of rape and sexual abuse? You're minimising sexual assault and you're suggesting that punishment isn't always appropriate. Call me an old fashioned non-liberal feminist, Blistory, but I think it is. There is no way for a sexual abuser to know the effect their crime will have on the victim. And they don't care, or they wouldn't do it. It has no bearing on the serious crime the perpetrator committed.

. I don't think that every women who is raped is traumatised. Some women are and some women aren't and each reaction is valid and legitimate.

That was what I said. Each reaction is valid and legitimate.

And I wasn't stating my view on how crimes in Scotland are prosecuted but merely stating the accepted principle that they are prosecuted on the grounds of public interest and not the interests of the victim/complainer.

Having one's body and boundaries violated, whether or not you realise it fully at the time is serious and has many and varied repercussions. There is no right or wrong way to react to it. Experiencing trauma or being tramatised has nothing to do with being fragile and everything to do with the pernicious and insidious nature and effects of sexual abuse. Even if this girl manages to come out of this experience feeling mentally strong and well (and I hope she does) then it will be in spite of what he did to her, and after her emotional hard work, and it is no reason not to punish and sanction the people/ men who abuse.

I totally agree.

And we're talking about a fucking six year old here.

The point is that you cannot make a default assumption that little harm is caused to women by sexual assault.

You are minimising sexual assault, Blistory. You're implying there is something wrong with the person who is traumatised by it to the point of it affecting the rest of their life.

It's not for you to say how women (or men) should deal with the experience of sexual assault.

This is all sounding like something a misogynist would say. Do you not understand why it is insensitive?

And yes, I think you're extremely naive about the criminal justice system view of women and women's lives, either in Scotland or anywhere else.

Questioning how we perceive rape and sexual assault isn’t minimising sexual assault, in my opinion. Isn’t there merit in considering whether our perception of these crimes is influenced by patriarchal structures and influences more so than we realise ?

Is it possible that supporting the narrative of women as victims and survivors serves to uphold patriarchal norms ? It’s easy to hold on to patriarchal power if women are afraid. Doesn’t it suit those who oppress women to have rape as a weapon in their armoury ?

And I wasn’t aiming for a best ever take but simply wondering, given that incidences of rape and sexual assault aren’t actually decreasing, whether our understanding and approach to it needs to change. That maybe we buy into a view that unintentionally harms women. That we restrict women by framing them only ever as victims and survivors and extrapolating that it must shape them forever thereafter and generally in a negative sense.

And yes, I accept that my posts on here were framed from the perspective that the prosecution of crimes in Scotland is done to protect the public interest and not to serve the interests of the victim so the Sheriff’s reasoning was, to my mind, entirely consistent with that given the statement put out.

Please don't tell me to piss off.

It really isn't your best take ever. It is minimising sexual assault. No one can know how someone will react to it. Some brush it off with a shrug. Many do not and cannot.

the Sheriff considered the offence to be the result of an entirely inappropriate curiosity of an emotionally naive teenager rather than for the purpose of sexual gratification.

so angry. It's all about the poor little offender, isn't it?

How the hell is him becoming a dentist a contribution to society?Someone else will take his place if he doesn't, and maybe I'm morally peculiar but I think that society would be better off with a dentist who hasn't molested any children.

Well, let's hope this person never gets overcome with another fit of "entirely inappropriate curiosity" while he's got a child conveniently sedated.

The man here has not been subjected to any of these measures. He’s had, as the article says, no therapy or counselling. He’s had no sanction, and he hasn’t been removed from society.

When society sees justice fail like this otvis damaging. And the damage to the victim is incalculable

This.

I find this completely incomprehensible.
Yet more contempt for women and girls.

Thanks user135.. that's kind of what I hoped. To me this isn't about the sex of the abused child. Evidence indicates CSA has serious long term repercussions that might unfold over time, maybe when your own sexuality emerges and you gain adult perspective. We're not privy to the case but two years of unacceptable behaviour seems very worrying and not without intention and we couldn't know the impact on the child. It seems such a weird ruling. I don't think discussion around a seemingly strange decision is knee jerk nor unwelcome.

Considering all of these factors, the Sheriff reached the conclusion that justice could be served in this case by taking the wholly exceptional decision not to pass sentence and to grant an absolute discharge.

In what kind of fucked up world is that any kind of justice? Justice for whom? Not the abused CHILD, not her family.
But awww the poor wittle innocent curious boy won't have his future ruined.

It's always about the fucking predators future and reputation and career. If only they cared enough about those things as to no actually fucking abuse someone.

Justice my big fat arse!

It said he had been temporarily suspended from university. I wonder what will happen there now since he has no conviction plus it sounds like he abused the girl before he was a student.

I don't think his coursemates will be welcoming him back with open arms.

@girlofgold
Re- the GDC as he isn’t yet a registrant they have no power until he applies the the register on qualifying. Then they could refuse him.
When I was at dental school we had to abide by the GDC guidelines and rules, but this was enforced by the university/dental hospital.
As 18yr olds professionalism was drilled into us (and throughout the course). Our conduct outside of the classroom/clinic could and would be taken into account.

I would hope his university are doing this. As where I studied I am sure he would not have been able to continue.
Even if not for his crimes, but for bringing the profession into disrupte.

Please don't tell me to piss off.

By treating victims of sexual assault as being scarred beyond belief and traumatised for life, is, in my opinion, sexist and stems from the view of women as fragile, as possessions, as being no longer 'pure'.

I think if this thread had been on another board on MN, most people would be up in arms, regardless of the sex of the child.

The boy didn't seek out victims to abuse, he didn't escalate his behaviour, he doesn't appear to be a threat to others

How does anyone know this? No one can know this.

What expert opinions did the sheriff seek to help him form his opinion that the young man is neither a paedophile nor a risk? The families are highly unlikely to the expertise necessary.

The SOR seems perfectly suitable here. It will stop a man who was guilty of sexually touching the intimate genitalia of prepubescent child (surely by any definition that is an act of paedophile - I don't think 15 year old boys are routinely going around doing this even when they may be being sexually coercive to older girls), from taking jobs where he can work with, be alone with, vulnerable people.

He can do other jobs. If the Sheriff thinks so highly of him, he can recommend him to all his friends and family so he can get a job where he will be less of a risk to children and have less opportunities to groom children.

Being on the SOR does not preclude other forms of rehabilitation, nor would it be for life.

I know perfectly well that paedophiles and abusive men are not caricatures or easy to spot. It is precisely because he can now just go and be another man or a paedophile hiding in plain sight that he needs to be on the register.

By treating victims of sexual assault as being scarred beyond belief and traumatised for life, is, in my opinion, sexist and stems from the view of women as fragile, as possessions, as being no longer 'pure'.

Blistory That is one of the most misogynist, minimising statements I have ever read.

Having one's body and boundaries violated, whether or not you realise it fully at the time is serious and has many and varied repercussions. There is no right or wrong way to react to it. Experiencing trauma or being tramatised has nothing to do with being fragile and everything to do with the pernicious and insidious nature and effects of sexual abuse. Even if this girl manages to come out of this experience feeling mentally strong and well (and I hope she does) then it will be in spite of what he did to her, and after her emotional hard work, and it is no reason not to punish and sanction the people/ men who abuse.

Knee jerk, reaction. Piss off.

I am truly sorry that any women or girl experiences sexual assault in any form. It shouldn't happen. Ever.

But we have to be realistic that not all sexual assault is on the same level and affects the victim in the same way. This, in my opinion, was at the lower level yet we're telling this girl that she's a victim, that she'll be traumatised for life. Why are we doing that ? Why aren't we as a society, picking her up, supporting her and teaching her resilience ?

We jump to these conclusions and rarely give a thought to how or why we think the way we do about our reactions to rape and assault. We rarely examine our own thinking in the age of posting every instantaneous reaction on Twitter. I don't think that every man who rapes a woman is a monster. I don't think that every women who is raped is traumatised. Some women are and some women aren't and each reaction is valid and legitimate.

But it keeps women in their place if we're brought up to fear rape as the worst thing that could happen to a women. It stops us convicting men of rape because nice men don't do that when in fact, the vast majority of rapes are by the nice men. Not all men are like that ? Bollox, that's a platitude when the reality is a significant number of men are but we don't report them because we think that rape needs to be really, really bad and is only carried out by monsters. A significant number of men ARE like that. Society needs to learn that rape isn't henious because of the traumatic effect it has on a 'decent woman' rape is henious because it's a tool that both nice men and monsters use to keep women in their place. Rape is henious because it evidences that men's right to climax is more important than a woman's right to control her body - not because rape is automatically an evil crime or the worst crime ever.