to think the legal system should not place white victims of sex crimes below Asians

[oldshilling]

www.theguardian.com/law/2015/sep/17/asian-child-sex-victims-suffer-more-than-white-children-court-rules

There has been a lot of news about certain Muslim men choosing to sexually abuse white girls rather than members of their own community, because of cultural differences making white girls often easier targets, and perhaps because perceptions of about non-Muslim women.

In this case, however, a Muslim man chose to sexually abuse Muslim girls, and was given a longer sentence on the basis that Muslim/Asian girls will suffer more than white girls, a decision that the Court of Appeal has confirmed.

AIBU to think that this is disgusting, particularly given the targeting of tens of thousands (at a minimum) of white girls by Muslim men.

So is it acceptable if a heavier sentance happens because of harm if that harm is not related to race or religion?

This is my view exactly Helena. The issue of some members of society treating women like chattels and the view that they have brought shame on the family by being raped ( I suspect much more shame than it would be to have a rapist as a son) needs to be addressed and challenged, not accepted as an aggravating factor. I suspect that their values are a little too similar to the views of the British aristocracy for that to register with the establishment though.

Was it a heavy sentence though, heavier than other similar sentences? Wish the judge could have given him longer.

The actual judgment is here

www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/r-v-ul-nasir-judgment.pdf

"The first two points advanced by Mr Shafi [defendant's counsel] are that too high a starting point under the guideline was applied to all counts and that insufficient account was taken of the principle of totality. As to those we observe that the judge when sentencing noted factors concerning the vulnerability of the victims, and noted further factors as regards the nature and circumstances of the applicant’s conduct. These factors, taken together, are such that, despite the considerable efforts on the part of Mr Shafi to
demonstrate the contrary, there is no basis for saying either that there was an incorrect starting point or that no adjustment for totality was made by the judge. As Her Honour Judge Cahill pointed out, had she been sentencing in
relation to each victim individually, the facts of the present case would have entitled her to have moved up a category. She deliberately refrained from taking that course. In this way she ensured that the overall sentence was, as required by the principle of totality, just and proportionate in relation to all the offending behaviour before the court.

In her sentencing remarks the judge observed that J [aged 9 in 2010-2011]was finding it difficult at school because her friends knew what had
happened, leading to problems and shame for her. In relation to G [aged 13 in 2010-11], the judge observed that she had had difficulty as a result of what the applicant had done to her. This had caused G to behave completely out of character: she had previously been a young girl doing well at school, and now was not doing as well as expected. For the family as a whole there had been enormous implications. The father had said that he and their mother were struggling and felt socially isolated because, within their particular community, it brought great shame on the whole family when
things like this happened. He was also concerned about the future marriage prospects for his daughters. The applicant, coming from this community, knew only too well the effect upon the children and their family and this was an aggravating feature.

In this regard Her Honour Judge Cahill was, entirely properly, having regard to the particular harm caused to the victims by this offending. As it happened, that harm was aggravated by the impact on the victims and their family within this particular community"

So the judge unequivocally states that because a Muslim girl is likely to be ostracised from her community for being sexually assaulted, someone who sexually assaults a Muslim should be punished more harshly than someone who sexually assaults a white girl.

When a British white child is raped she will get the support of her family. Maybe these muslim children are victims of two crimes. White children who are raped are victims of crime 1.

1. Being raped
2. Being outcast by their family and community for being dirty goods.

The people guilty of the second crime are the local asian/ muslim community not the rapist. It is possible that a girl who has been a victim of crime number 2 will need more support paid for by the tax payer. It would be hard to criminalise making your children an outcast for being raped.

I feel that child rapists should be locked away for as long as possible irrespective of their colour or the victim's skin colour.

Not necessarily.... Really Tired. A lot of catholic families still operate in a similar way.... its only 19 years since the last Magdelene laundry closed.

To say that someone WILL get the support of their family if they are white is a MASSIVE assumption.

A white child might not get support but most people i imagine from the community will not accept or agree with that. If it is expexted and accepted in even a fair part of the muslim community as par for the course, then that is a huge issue.

I'm pleased he didn't get his sentence reduced, but I do find the argument worrying. (For once, I'm not in agreement with limited about this.)

It seems to me that there is a real problem with putting a lot of emphasis on the impact on the victims for the simple reason that the criminal doesn't choose his victims on the basis of which ones will suffer the most. The crime is the same, whatever the ultimate impact on the victims.

I remember that in the Ealing Vicarage rape case, the rapists got a relatively light sentence because the judge decided that Jill Saward (the victim) had appeared calm in court and therefore hadn't been too traumatised by it. This wasn't true - she was very traumatised - but even if it was, the idea that the men who attacked her should have got a lighter sentence is outrageous. They didn't think, when they raped her, that she looked like the kind of woman who wouldn't be traumatised by it.

If you sexually abuse a child, you sexually abuse a child. There aren't really any extenuating circumstances, and there aren't really contextual circumstances that make it worse, because it is always a terrible crime. You can't possibly say that Asian girls as a group will suffer more than white girls as a group and, more crucially, you can't say that the abuser deliberately picked Asian girls in the belief that it was worse for them.

YANBU. This ruling has appalled me more than I can say.

"Was it a heavy sentence though, heavier than other similar sentences? Wish the judge could have given him longer."

The offences were 2 counts of 'sexual assault of a child under 13' (Sexual Offences Act 2003 s 7) in respect of a 9 year old, and 4 counts of 'sexual activity with a child' (Sexual Offences Act 2003 s9) in respect of a 13 year old.

He was given 4 years for each count in respect of the 9 year old

There are 3 categories of offending for this: Category 1 - (any of) abduction, severe harm, violence, forced entry to the home; Category 2 - (any of) touching naked genitals or breasts, child particularly vulnerable due to youth or personal circumstances, prolonged detention or sustained incident; Category 3 - anything not in Category 1 or 2

And then within each Category you can have 'A' culpability where any of these factors are present:

alcohol/drugs are used
significant planning
conspired with others
grooming
abuse of trust
committed during burglary
sexual images of victim recorded
commercial exploitation
deliberate isolation of victim
racial, homophobic, transgender, disability, or religious aggravation

If none of those factors are present, it's Category B.

They are talking about the 'starting point' being too high, which either means that the defence were arguing that the offence should have been Category 3, but was instead Category 2, or that the culpability should have been B but was actually A, or perhaps both of those.

The 'child being particularly vulnerable' brings the starting point for the offence from 1 year up to 4 years (assuming, based on the judgment that Culpability was 'A' - abuse of trust, perhaps?), and the range from 6 months - 2 years up to 3 - 7 years.

However the specifics of the offence are not given, so it's not clear to whether the offences were otherwise Category 2 or 3.

With regard to the 13 year old, the sentence was 3 years

Here the Categories are simpler - any kind of penetration is Category 1, touching naked breasts or genitalia of the victim, or causing the victim to touch the offender's is Category 2, and otherwise it's Category 3. Here the victim's vulnerability does not affect the Category, however it does affect Culpability: 'specific targeting of a particularly vulnerable child'.

Due to the sentence of 3 years, it is clear that the Culpability for the offences was 'A', because without higher Culpability, the maximum sentence is only 2 years, even with a Category 1 offence.

The culpability factors are similar to the other offence with the addition of 'Specific targeting of a particularly vulnerable child ' and 'Significant disparity in age' or 'Offender lied about age'.

Given the 3 year sentence, there is only 1 possible offence type 'Category 2', 'Culpability A'. This would cover oral sex by the victim on the offender, or him touching her genitals or breasts.

If the culpability was lower, the range for sentencing is only community order - 1 year sentence. Given that the appeal was on sentencing, not fact, and based on the 'starting point' then the only question here was whether he was more culpable or not. If he was not more culpable, then the starting point for the offence was only six months.

It is not clear why the younger child's offences were put in Category 2. If there was touching of her breasts or genitals then he can only be arguing about Culpability (2 years vs 4 years), but otherwise it could be the difference between 1 year and 4 years if the child's background bumped her up a category.

Anyway, he was sentenced to 4 + 3 years, but it appears that the sentence could have been less than half of that. The extent to which the victims' backgrounds affected this is not 100% clear from the judgment.

However, if, as is potentially the case, he was sentenced to 4+3=7 years for offences that if committed against 'trash' white girls would have resulted in a sentence of only 6 months + 6 months = 1 year, that is very concerning indeed.

For once, I'm not in agreement with limited about this.

It had to happen one day hackmum

This is the key point

"We observe that the judge when sentencing noted factors concerning the
vulnerability of the victims, and noted further factors as regards the nature and circumstances of the applicant’s conduct. These factors, taken together, are such that there is no basis for saying that there was an incorrect starting point "

So it's actually spelled out very clearly that the fact that the victim is from an Asian family, she is in legal terms more vulnerable and therefore offenders against her will be punished more severely.

One thing that I think everyone agrees on is that penalties for being found guilty of sex offences are often too light.

To me these type of crimes are as serious as you can get, they should be put away for a much longer time and only released when a knowledgeable and society-centred panel are as sure as they can possibly be that they will not offend again. If there is any indication they might reoffend then they should stay safely locked away.

I've already said this on the feminist board.

You cannot expect everyone to be treated equally when they haven't all started off on the same starting point.

I can see why the judge has done this. I agree with the judges decision and I'm glad that judges take into account the effects of the crime on to the individual with sentencing. I'm glad there is a discretion over sentencing.

Some of you cannot comprehend how it would be for her as you come from a place of white privilege. Instead you are frothing about what you think is an unequal decision not realising treating everyone equally is actually not treating people equally.

"come from a place of white privilege"

White victims of sexual abuse are privileged? Fuck off.

I can't agree with you.

Our society already places different types of women and girls in a hierarchy of "good victim" and "bad victim". This is the sort of idea that says a prostitute isn't going to be particularly adversely affected by being raped. We have been working so hard to get away from these ideas.

So your denying white privilege?

No-one is denying white privilege.

People are disagreeing with your idea that child sex abuse victims should be placed in a hierarchy.

Brand im white I was also brought up Catholic. I was told i was "ruined for all other men" and that i had "spoiled myself"

No one is denying white privilege FFS!

In the hierarchy of victims of sex crimes, black women and girls are often right at the bottom of the heap. In terms of likelihood of victimisation, and access to justice.

So according to you, members of this group are the most privileged of all, likely as they are to get the most minimal response from the criminal justice system.

Whirlpool the judge has sentenced (not a harsh enough sentence imo) this rapist and took into account the impact it has had on her.

All crimes have this. I expect, to put it simplistically, a burglar who burgles an elderly lady who now can't cope with life because of the crime gets a harsher sentence Because of the effect now on her life then say a young couple.

That's not to say a white women who won't get half of what this Muslim girl will get in her community hasn't experienced a traumatic event. But religious culture say Catholic aside it won't have the same wider impact. Her whole world won't suddenly turn their backs and collapse on her because of what some perv did.

"Her whole world won't suddenly turn their backs and collapse on her because of what some perv did."

Seriously? So you've never heard of slut-shaming?

The purpose of offending is to punish the offender. It doesn't have an impact on the victim.

All crimes that have a victim has the impact on them took into consideration. We don't have a set number of years per crime. She also may or may not have been the only one.

Also how do we know that it hasn't got anything to do with her culture and the police have had this man on their radar for a while and know what he does but couldn't get a guilty verdict before now.

There are lots of reasons why some perpetrators get higher sentencing then others and we've all jumped on the band wagon frothing that someone's being treated more special then us thanks to his defence using this.

So why not have a high sentance set that acknowledges the seriousness of the act and that be the starting point for every offender,then have additional time penalties that get added on top of that?

For arguments sake base line 10 years

For each harm add 1 year for each aggravating factor 1 year

So a victim who an increase in a health problem +1
Suffers trauma +1 (obviously this would get added on to everyone)
More significant trauma +1
Loses out on education due to offence +1

You could add all manner of harms but some of these harms may very well be more likely to happen to different groups

Obviously ive used those figures for my ease of adding.

Why shouldnt sentencing take into account victim impact?