AIBU to think these boys should have been incarcerated?

[newrubylane]

BBC News - Teenage boys sentenced for raping lone girls
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clypg68e2neo

I've never started an AIBU before, but I'm genuinely really shocked. I'm just not sure how this sentence is justifiable. Their actions were premeditated and deliberate, they were carrying a knife and they filmed themselves. They're obviously a danger to women/girls, and probably to other boys too.

If anyone knows how and why this sentence might have come about, I'd be interested to hear it.

Its interesting to see what happened with Jamie Bulgers killers

The perpetrators were held in secure childrens homes and the Judge was concerned about the impact that transfer to prison might have on any progress they might have made when in the 'Juvenile' estate

One of the perpetrators went on to lead a 'normal' life - the other one didnt so remains in prison.

No worries.

I think it’s unlikely they’ll get sentences long enough to get into the adult estate tbh, but let’s see.

But there may be a good reason for this that you may want to be angry about namely that being transferred to an adult prison could undo any good work done in the Juvenile estate

Sentences have been sent by the Attorney General to the Court of Appeal. Breaking news story on the BBC.

BBC News - Sentences of boys spared custody over Hampshire rape referred to Court of Appeal, PM says
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y779yeq0eo

And if these animals had attacked your daughter??

Sorry but they are criminals and need to serve jail time. Big crimes carry big consequences and 13 / 14 is old enough to understand right from wrong.

Will they end up in the sex offenders register

No, I don’t think they will get sentences to take them into adult prisons because, at their ages, they’d have to get sentences of more than 9 or 10 years, which while you might feel justified is unlikely.

AG referrals that result in prison sentences usually take a little off to account for the fact that the defendant has been taken to court twice through an error of the system.

In T and V’s case the trial judge recommended 8 years, which is what they served. The judge who made that remark was only saying aloud what the trial judge would have legally been obliged to consider in making his recommendation.

This was answered quite extensively 5 days/ 40 pages ago

Sentences have been referred to the Court of Appeal: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y779yeq0eo

Thanks @AlcoholicAntibiotic - that is good news. Here's hoping a more reasonable sentence is determined.

I bloody hope so 🙏

Are they going to be able to find them if they do change the sentence and send them to prison? It's just another major fuck-up by the British judiciary. The judge should be struck off.

Do judges undergo any sort of appraisal like doctors do? I'd be fascinated to hear what other senior judges make of his sentence decision and what they themselves would have recommended.

Judges are a law onto themselves. There needs to be some kind of oversight because they hand down farcically lenient sentences far too often IMO. They are completely out of touch with the views of normal people who are victims of crimes while judges sit safely, far away in their gated communities and ivory towers.

This is the 2nd case of the judge using his "himpathy" on a sex offender later deemed lenient at the court of appeal

https://www.instagram.com/p/DYw0y7aCDuv/?igsh=MTR4ZnNnN2F2Y3hqbQ%3D%3D

Judges in England are required to follow the sentencing guidelines and can only depart from them in exceptional cases. They do not just make it up. I suspect the reason the judge in this case did not give a custodial sentence is down to the guidelines for sentencing children and young people. These say that sentencing should focus on the child or young person as opposed to being focussed on the offence, and should focus on rehabilitation where possible. Also, both UK and international laws dictate that custodial offences should be a measure of last resort for children and young people, and may only be imposed when the offence is so serious that no other sanction is appropriate.

I could quote more from the guidelines in the same vein.

I think the judge has got this wrong and that this an offence that is so serious it requires a custodial sentence. But I can see why a judge reading the sentencing guidelines may have thought this sentence was appropriate.

Despite the Attorney General recommending an appeal that may change sentencing, huge harm has already been done that will negatively affect the reporting of rape / sexual abuse.

So don't criminalise them, don't send to jail... what then?

10s of 1000s of rapes go unreported, women do not have any faith in the justice but when very brave females do step up, their attackers should face ... what exactly?

You re treating this crime as if it was a 1st offence shoplifting or fighting and thats why we have so much disrespect for the justice system, the police, judges et al.

Men and it is mainly men, think they can do what they like and in many respects they can, aided and abetted by people like this judge and yourself.

Justice needs to be seen to be done.

But but but the boys should be commended because they behaved themselves in court. 🙄

There is a petition to look into the judge and whether he should be allowed to practice (is that the word?). I dont think anything will come of it because as soneone else said, they can do what they like as long as it vaguely takes into account sentencing rules.

I really hope the girls and their families feel seen and somewhat supported even a little bit because of the press this is getting and the outrage that people feel. I hope that brings a tiny bit of comfort.

is there any mechanism for this case to lead to a change in the sentencing guidelines?

broadly I agree that the sentencing of under-18s should be focused on rehabilitation. But some crimes are so serious that the offenders must serve prison time, no matter the age.

is there truly already no mechanism for the law to recognise the sadistic, premeditated, cruel nature of this crime and therefore issue prison time? Or is it a case of the law being misogynistic and not recognising the seriousness of rape?

That post does not give enough information to identify the alleged case and the alleged comments by the Court of Appeal seem unlikely. I'm not saying this is false, but it would have been helpful if the offender was identified allowing the appeal judgement to be found.

@Anonemousse - No, it is not enough for a sentence to "vaguely take into account sentencing rules". A judge must follow the sentencing guidelines in any but the most exceptional cases. These set out the starting point, maximum and minimum sentences for each offence. If a judge steps outside them on either the high or the low side, they know the sentence may be appealable.

In this case, if the offenders were adults they would be in prison. However, rather than set out specific sentences for children and young people, the guidelines define an approach in which, in line with both UK and international law, custodial sentences should be rare. I think the judge has got this wrong and that these offences are so serious that they require a custodial sentence. But, given that the relevant guidelines push strongly against custodial sentences for children and young people, I can understand the judge's decision even though I disagree with it.

If the offenders were adults, they would be facing at least 10 years in prison less any discount for pleading guilty, and possibly as much as 19 years. The law recognises the seriousness of rape.

Under the sentencing guidelines for children and young people, the judge could have decided that the offence was so serious that jail was the only appropriate sanction. Under the specific guidelines for children and young people convicted of sexual offences, these offences justify a custodial sentence or youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision and surveillance or fostering. The judge in this case has opted for youth rehabilitation orders with intensive supervision and surveillancey. He could, and in my view should, have gone for a custodial sentence.