Guilty of sexually assaulting a 6 year old - but no consequences

[feministfairy]

Unbelievable! This poor child (upsetting content)

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/student-guilty-of-sex-assault-on-girl-6-will-not-be-punished-rpzdx6bmv?shareToken=a5f3f8d4d214df63fa3b4d0f4323ea4c

There is already a thread on FWR but this needs sharing as widely as possible

I think there are extremely exceptional circumstances which might warrant no punishment, but they would be incredibly, incredibly rare.

For example, siblings which were kept 100% isolated from the world/locked away, abused themselves, and brainwashed from an early age thst it was the 'right' thing to. Perhaps in that sort of truly exceptional case, there should be no punishment, but then perhaps it shouldn't be prosecuted in the first place.

Or if he had MH problems or learning difficulties which fell short of him not being legally responsible, but still to the extent it would be unfair to blame him.

But barring those sorts of circumstances (which don't seem to be the case here) , I can see very little reason why this boy shouldn't be punished.

However, we clearly don't know what the 'exceptional circumstances' are, and it's possible that some of us would be of a different view if we did. I very much doubt they just relate to his future, background etc.

I know you are not suggesting this, but the legal proof of not being responsible for your crimes, is a tough one to meet. And anyone who met it would not be capable of being a dentist.

I wonder how often this happens?

It’s a very upsetting event but is it the dome thing to criminalise children for life and put them on the sex offender register for offences at aged 15 ?

If you were talking about a younger child and a one off event I might agree. If we were talking about a 17yr old and a 15yr old consensual relationship then the sex offender register is probably not the right answer.

However this is two years of sustained and planned abuse by a young man, old enough to have a driving licence at the time of the offences and a 6 yr old child.

He has got away with a revolting crime so that he can progress in a career where he will have access to women and chidren in a vulnerable state.

I can't help but speculate if the outcome would have been the same if he were not white, male and from an affluent background

We are shown stories like this so often now, the system, charities, excusing behaviour, pushing the boundaries. They just want the nod to diddle little children.

How can this be? Is there any way to raise a petition or some such? I don’t know how the law works in Scotland.

This is Brock Turner for the UK. I'm appalled.

His mum and dad must be so proud of him. Not.

My sympathy goes to the family and that little girl.

The article says although he was found guilty, legally he was not convicted. That is why it may not show in any DBS check, because there is no conviction.

I don't think that can be correct, though. Being found guilty equates to being convicted, unless there is some very peculiar quirk in Scots law. I suspect this is the journalist misunderstanding what an absolute discharge is.

No it is Scots Law.

"Absolute discharge Where a person has pleaded guilty or been convicted of an offence, in certain circumstances the court may, instead of imposing a sentence (and on summary complaint instead of convicting), discharge that person absolutely. No penalty is imposed, and in summary proceedings no conviction is recorded."

So no conviction is recorded. It is meant for very minor infringements of law that the judge thinks should never have come before the court.

It still shows up in enhanced CRB checks, but not ordinary ones.

Did anyone see in the Times that a female teen paedophile has been jailed? Funny, that.

Or for cases where the act of coming to court is thought to be punishment enough. So someone who had no criminal history, of good standing, who commits a minor act and is totally terrified and contrite, might be given an absolute discharge.
It is not meant for this kind of offence.

It says clearly that no conviction was recorded

Yes but it's a newspaper article which isn't necessarily correct. However, since your post someone has come on to confirm that this is correct for Scotland.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/teenage-female-paedophile-jailed-for-nearly-8-years-kc5skjkzt

I came on to confirm this is correct for Scotland.

What if he was dying, weeks left to live?
I don't think that is the case hut just wondering if that could lead to this scenario

i dont understand the scottish legal system as i work in the british system but this is highly unusual.

there HAS to be some reason for it - i just cant think of anything that would justify it unless he was forced to do it at gunpoint or something (which i very much doubt)

also he has been clearly identified so i cant see him being safe.

She gave a lengthy video interview to officers but her parents were later told that the recording had failed. She gave evidence over two hours during the trial via a video link and was cross-examined for another two hours by Daniel’s lawyer.

That poor young girl, to not only go through giving video evidence of the ordeal, but then for it to be conveniently "broken" so that she had to be cross-examined in court doesn't bare thinking about.

I was a witness to a crime and found the questioning bad enough - the thought of this young girl having to do that at such a young age and being forced to relive her trauma in court is horrible.

then he dies in jail.

Don't want to risk dying in jail? Don't sexually assault children, then.

Seriously, Stealth, are you suggesting that's grounds for leniency? For this crime?

Police Scotland said that the video problem had had no detrimental impact on the victim or the case.

The final words in The Times article. Yes, clearly nothing detrimental about being cross-examined in court about your assaults.

I agree Ryton got to be more to this story it just doesn’t make sense.

No I'm asking if that could be the sort of extenuating circumstances that would lead to them saying he's guilty but not actually convicting him. I'm not saying I agree.

ah right, I see.

It would be shit if it was. There are no reasons why this man shouldn't be in jail, or incarcerated in one way or another.

And before someone tells me off I am speculating.
But what can the circumstances be, the only options I can think of are:

• he's dying
• he's blackmailing someone
• he's secretly a spy and the future of the country depends on him doing his job
• he's managed to convince them he's a nice young man who made a mistake and needs to not have his career and life disrupted by such a minor crime