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.

Agree old shilling The Ched Evans case is a good example The young woman even had to leave the country FFS!

Look at the victim of Ched Evans. She was white.

Many white women and girls have their lives utterly ruined because of rape or sexual abuse. Loss of relationships, withdrawal, substance abuse, self harm, mental health problems.

Sometimes families will side with their attacker and they will lose them all.

And why "religious considerations aside" - the PP mentioned RC, we have (more) extreme religious sects around here with exactly the same types of views about women and girls - they are all white.

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

So, that's just not true, is it.

Please don't start calling posters racist because they are concerned about the impact of this statement on victims of child sex offences.

I really like that idea sock, I would assume they have something similar already though. If they don't they need to.

Not everyone has the same life to begin with. To be treated equally isn't as simplistic as it seems.

x posted with Whirlpool and i totally agree with you Whirlpool.

"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."

Erm, no. Frothing? Someone's been "treated more special"? They are child sex abuse victims of course they haven't been "treated special".

You seem to think that people are saying that he should have got less?

When in fact most people, I'm sure, will agree that it is concerning to put child sex abuse victims in a hierarchy, and the people convicted should get a fucking long time mitigation or aggravation or no.

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

I'm guessing you mean sentencing.

Why not?

The victim should be one of the most important considerations. Crime has the largest impact on the victim

So I'm now calling people racist? Please don't put words into my mouth.

A judge would take into account any impact from any background. It just so happens she's an Asian Muslim, this wouldn't even be up for discussion if it was a white girl who'd been affected and there wouldn't be a petition.

Child sex abuse victims are already put in a hierarchy which is why the victims of all those men in the 70s and 80s, the victims in children's homes, the victims of politicians, and the victims in the recent swathe of grooming cases could not get anyone to listen to or help them.

This type of message just plays into that, can't you see that? And it is a message that will run, as it is what society already believes. That woman was asking for it, that girl looks way older, that victim, well that crime is terrible as it was daylight and she had a long skirt on, yes lock him up and throw away the key, the others can go free.

ruined because of rape or sexual abuse. Loss of relationships, withdrawal, substance abuse, self harm, mental health problems

And this should be taken into account when sentencing.

Would there be such a uproar if the victim was white had not been able to attend school since due to trauma was showing signs of a serious mental health issue brewing that was not there prior and this was taken into account?

Seems a ridiculous line to cross - so an abuser of a child with no relatives and single parent will get less of a sentence - obviously no close rellies to ostracise the DC, or Jehovah's witnesses - will their DCs be treated the same after, as mentioned above RCs, what about a new immigrant to the country with no one around to refuse to marry them, their abusers might as well get off free?????

Or that's the way it's going. Utterly ridiculous sentencing and provocative.

NeedsASockAmnesty I was responding to a poster who said:

"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."

Are you agreeing with that perspective, given that you have flagged up what I wrote in response to those statements?

You seem to think that people are saying that he should have got less?

Making such a big deal about this perticular case is in effect saying ohhhhh this offender shouldn't have had that reasoning used when being sentenced.that it was wrong to consider the victims harm.

If we swapped around the race there wouldn't be a petition.

A white British girl gets horrifically abused and is struggling with school and the effects upon her. Her attacker says he shouldn't get a longer sentence as well it's only rape and it's a particularly hard sentence compared to others..

Bollocks that there would be a petition.

Are you posting as two posters?

I'm really not sure what else to say here.

The position seems to be that the term should be longer due to the fact we have to take into account the misogynistic culture the girls live in.

Taking into account the feelings of misogynistic cultures doesn't seem to have played out well so far does it, even before you look at the misogynistic culture that is already in existence in the UK.

This smacks (strongly) of the type of judgement on victims that has caused such immense pain for so many, and allowed so many sex offenders to get away with it. So you get a child that no-one cares about - already at risk - already "shunned" by their community, society at large - and you abuse them. And that's not so bad is it, because well, they are low value. It doesn't matter so much as if a nice wealthy girl with a loving family and a bright future ahead of her is abused.

None of this is anything new and it is already embedded in our society and is the reason so many victims have failed totally in getting any form of justice.

Whirlpool.

Do you even realise how a lot but not all, Asian and black Muslim women get treated. In some countries they get an honor killing for being raped, sometimes they have to marry their rapist. This sort of thing has happened within the Muslim community in the UK as well. The way their community will look at them is a huge part of the impact this girl will be going through. It's not an exaggeration to say her whole world that she knows will be falling apart.

Even if her family are supportive her community may not be so supportive. Her own dad fgs started on about marriage material. That's what the judge took into account, the effect on her and how people Inc her family.

Any crime with a victim gets the victims impact took into account.

How her family now view her* not that the dad is upset but how that transcends on her.

OK gotcha.

You're obviously not going to respond to anything I have said in response to you.

Great you've given RC people a pass as "proper victims" though, that's nice.

Are you agreeing with that perspective, given that you have flagged up what I wrote in response to those statements?

Sorry just realised that I had quoted you before.

Does it look like I'm agreeing with the poster before? I am just saying that the harm caused should be accounted for in the sentencing. What ever that harm is. Some victims will experance different harms.

Some people will not experance the same things others do, they will all experance harm but that harm will not be the same.

I.e when I was raped I did not end up having to move, some people will.
I did end up not being able to work for a long time due to my injuries and health some people will not experance that.
I did not end up with night terrors some people will
I did end up with a life long phobia of stainless steel
I did spend 9 months freaking about my child being my SGB husbands or not

It is all harm and it should all increase a sentance and be acknowledged

I think your looking at all this the wrong way round

This smacks (strongly) of the type of judgement on victims that has caused such immense pain for so many, and allowed so many sex offenders to get away with it. So you get a child that no-one cares about - already at risk - already "shunned" by their community, society at large - and you abuse them. And that's not so bad is it, because well, they are low value. It doesn't matter so much as if a nice wealthy girl with a loving family and a bright future ahead of her is abused

Under my system that would be an aggravating factor in victim selection so increase sentance

Jasvinder Sanghera, chief executive of Karma Nirvana, a Leeds-based national charity which works with the survivors of honour based abuse, said the judgement provided “an injustice” to other victims of similar sexual abuse that are not from a South Asian community.

She's an extraordinary woman. I've had mixed feelings about this, particularly in terms of interpreting the judges intent, regardless of how clumsily reported but I'll take my lead from her.

You see I'm not even sure.

I think that if one woman is raped and seems to cope fine
And another is raped and copes not at all
Both of these are valid reactions
But the crime against the first woman is not lesser.
Both men when found guilty should get banged up for a nice long time. No need for mitigation or aggravation. It's a heinous crime, off you go mate.

I do understand that impact on victim is taken into account generally and why. Stealing £100 from a very rich person will be seen as less bad than stealing £100 and that's someone's entire life savings.

However, it doesn't sit right with me, with serious sexual offences. A rape is a rape is a rape. That is what we have been fighting to have recognised, isn't it. Committing a sexual offence against a child is wrong wrong wrong, no matter what their background or if they are "off the rails" or drug users or not going to school, this is the problem we had (and probably still have) in bringing people who abuse the vulnerable to justice. People don't care so much.

Fundamentally I suppose I feel that anything that feeds into, perpetuates or acknowledges this hierarchy, where we are in society right right now, is at all helpful.

Is this the highest ever sentencing for this crime?

Whirlpool we don't have a set amount of years per this crime though. The sentencing is determined on the victims impact.

Yes and I am saying that does not sit right with me for the reasons I have tried to outline above.

So 2 children are raped. One attacker gets a longer term because the parents of the victim are right bastards. The other attacker gets less because she has nice parents.

That makes sense? I don't think it makes sense. I am feeling that for offences of this nature where already I felt large amounts of concern over the ability of the authorities to bother much with it, and that when they do the penalties are often laughably low, now I feel that the way the terms are constructed leaves rather a lot of room for leeway.

How many victims have seen these rules used to mitigate and reduce, including many cases that have made the papers where the judges have made the most outrageous statements about attackers being "good family men" or children being "no angels" or whatever (2 off the top of my head the second isn't recent I am sure there are more recent ones though). How many of those balance out the ones where aggravating factors actually come into play?

Why are the terms so short in the first place?

Whole thing stinks IMO.