To be sick of living in a country that has decriminalised crime (Scotland)

[Torven]

As you'll all be aware, it's very hard for an under 25 to be sent to prison now even if they commit a really violent assault or rape that leaves the victim with lifelong injuries. There is no reason for under 25s not to commit crime (aside from their own moral compass:-/ ) unless they're planning to go into a line of work that requires a background check.

Now, the law is being changed so that criminals won't be held in prison on remand except in very rare cases. So, victims will have to cope with dangerous people living alongside them for months and maybe years.

Why do people keep voting for this? And calling it "kindness"? It's frightening. Criminals might be vulnerable but non-criminal vulnerable people are completely stuffed. If you don't have a big threatening guy to chase people off you're fair game.

Both cases I quoted were given custodial sentences

Well if he didn't know her before the first rape, he obviously did before the others. He raped her several times over the course of a few months.

Explain to me why that mitigates the crime, I would have thought it compounds it.

As I said, it's about the facts at the time.

Unless somebody can provide links to a report of the trial and or what was said at sentence we don't know what those facts were.

Prison works because it keeps you safe while your attacker is locked away. Don't belittle a few years' peace of mind.

Yeah but in reality your attacker is probably learning new criminal skills while inside.

Yeah but in reality your attacker is probably learning new criminal skills while inside.

Great, we'll just not bother then.

I'm confused @Bromptotoo are you saying that there can be 'facts' that make rape ok?
And in particular when a 14 yo is raped? Like she's possibly known him = there's OK reasons?

He's clearly guilty of rape; convicted by a Jury.

The issue at hand is the sentence. There must be something in the facts that led the Judge to give the order he did.

Until we know that we're flying blind.

@Bromptotoo the pertinent fact was his age and the change in the law that means that the under 25s should no longer be incarcerated if it can be avoided. Its easily avoided if you prioritize the rights of the criminal over those of his victim. And the judge did.

I think for rape at 17 and the girl was only 13. The boy needed to be punished weather prison would have worked or not for him in the long run isn't relevant to the victim. I suspect if this happened within your family you would take a different stance.

Following the thread with interest OP I had no idea about this law in Scotland.

That's not how I'm seeing it at present. Might be different if I knew the facts around the incident.

On the whole, I'd prioritise rehabilitation over what several posters here are openly calling retribution or similar. Doing so is a philosophy of my own thinking and it ain't going to change.

If, in any case involving a young person, they're sent to gaol as a fay laddie and emerge as a skunk addict with a degree in other offending from the University of Crime who exactly is helped?

There's no reason why incarceration and rehabilitation can't be combined. We're talking about a rapist here, not someone who shoplifts, so a lad that is already a violent, dangerous criminal. Why are you worried about him bring corrupted in prison, he's already corrupt. Be more worried about who he may be influencing in daily life.

Maybe you missed the point of the post. If under 25s can get away with violent crimes, then your safety and the safety of your family are at risk. The government is supposed to be for all the people, not just violent Ned’s who will treat this new law as a ‘get out of jail free’ card. Come back when your wife, daughter, mother or sister have been raped; or your children have been beaten up by a gang of thugs; or your property has been made uninhabitable by robbers. The list is endless. Yes, it would be safer in England!