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.

Thanks for the update. I know we need to wait for the next stage in this but I am a bit perplexed. We know that the boys premeditated, arranged for one to meet the girl but then for the others to turn up, they denied the charges, said there wasn't a knife which was disproved. They also put the blame on the girls, encouraged each other in the crime, blocked a girl from their social media .... and so on. They are capable of some things and dangerous to other children.

I think the remarks have left me even more confused like the previous poster

‘no violence or exploitation’
”I do not find there was planning in either part”

From what has been reported, there was weapon use and pre-meditated actions like removing the AirTags.

According to that the sentence should be youth focused, not offence focused which seems inconsistent with other laws which mandate that certain categories of offences are treated more seriously based on the nature and motive of the crime and given additional sentences for being 'aggravated'.

The nature of these crimes, being multiple attacks and conspiracy by two or more males against a lone girl on each occasion, and the aggravating factors, which are several, don't feature at all. The judge did give details of what he considered when sentencing but also, based on what we've read, to say there wasn't violence or explotation seems extraordinary.

I’ve just read the BBC article and the judges comments. Bloody hell. No planning? No violence nor exploitation? That’s ridiculous.

I’ve posted my thoughts and I will post again:

They planned it, they raped her, they filmed it and they enjoyed it so
much that they did it again

The judge in this case is at best a fool. But the fact that he referred to the girls as having consented to some sexual activity in his sentencing remarks tells you that that was in his mind when drawing conclusions. So not just any fool, a misogynist fool in plain sight.

The message to the girls from the judge is “You got yourselves into a sticky situation, it got out of hand, the boys didn’t really know what they were doing, let’s leave it there”.

And the message to other boys… hang out with your mates, sack off school, be a bit thick, rape a couple of girls, get away with it because you don’t really understand. FFS.

If I was a parent of a teenage girl
living in the Fordinbridge area, I would want to know how my daughter is going to be kept safe from these teenage boys who have such low intellectual capacity that they don’t know that gang rape is wrong.

I’m even more angry now than I was before.

The whole justice system in this country is rotten to the core.
Why does it matter to the victim whether the rapists were a bit thick?
They should have been jailed for a substantial period of time, 20 years or more.

Just to add one more thing to my above post ... this is playing on my mind because it continues to be so awful for the two girls. At least one of the boys was capable of reading a face and recognised that a girl was very sad and so bought them a drink to cheer them up. I know, it is all so dreadful, but I am just giving facts to show that there was full awareness there. If they have to have different sentences based on the judge's interpretation of mitigating factors then I don't understand why it should all be downplayed for all of them.

So much going wrong rn. Enraging and upsetting in equal measure.

how intellectually disabled can they really be, to repeatedly draw girls out to isolated locations on the pretext of a date, only to gang-rape her with a knife, film it and spread the video around?

To me that is sadism and requires complex planning.

I could understand if maybe one of them was really disabled and maybe tagged along with the crowd, but at least one of them and most likely more would have had to display complex thought and planning to achieve this in the first place.

what the hell does this mean? how can he possibly be sure that they didn't threaten her with the knife to go with them? They had the knife, they used it on her later, on the balance of probabilities they probably did use the knife as a threat.

L said she was made to go with you because someone showed her a knife. I listened very carefully at the trial to what people said. I looked the at CCTV very carefully so I am sure that that did not happen. If someone did have a knife it was only used to cut her trousers and I am sure that they were made to do sexual things because she was shown the knife. If someone had used a knife in that way, my decision today would be different.

Maybe an argument for being sent to a secure hospital indefinitely. If they are unable to not rape women because of a mental impairment, they cant be allowed to be free.

The judge also said that there had been "no violence or exploitation" but their crimes had been aggravated by the boys acting together and filming.

Rape is violent. By definition. I dont understand this comment.

Having read the article again and considering what has already been reported, it would appear that the 2 of the boys have been assessed as being significantly intellectually behind those of their peers. So much so that they do not have a full understanding of consent and right vs wrong. Hence their sentences reflect that.

But one boy isn’t. The judge stated that his ADHD and slight cognitive difficulties do not reduce his personal culpability. So why did he receive the same sentence as his co defendant of the same age who is intellectually impaired?

Surely, that has to be a key question for the review of the sentences. If the culpability isn’t equal why are the sentences?

They were smart enough to use social media and a smart phone. As I have said, I taught literacy in a YOI to many of the traveller community. They are almost uniformly illiterate as they are not sent to school. The Judge appears not to know this as he thinks illiteracy is a disability. They are not disabled or thick.

Glad Charlotte Proudman is representing one of the victims.

According to that the sentence should be youth focused, not offence focused which seems inconsistent with other laws which mandate that certain categories of offences are treated more seriously based on the nature and motive of the crime and given additional sentences for being 'aggravated'.

The law regarding sentencing for children and young people specifically states that the principal aim is to prevent further offending and that the courts must have regard to the offender's welfare. Sentencing Act 2020 S58.

L said she was made to go with you because someone showed her a knife. I listened very carefully at the trial to what people said. I looked the at CCTV very carefully so I am sure that that did not happen. If someone did have a knife it was only used to cut her trousers and I am sure that they were made to do sexual things because she was shown the knife. If someone had used a knife in that way, my decision today would be different.

The above is the bit from the report that completely foxed me.

The judge was sure that the girl was not co-erced into going with them because of the knife. Fair enough, if that was what the evidence showed - so the charge of kidnap falls.

He then said that if there was a knife it was only used to cut her trousers - the use of the word only here is of concern - first of all it is a crime to carry a knife and secondly cutting a girl's trousers with them is not a small thing - to say only in this context is inappropriate.

He is sure she was made to do sexual things because she was shown the knife, and then says that if someone had used a knife in "that" way [which he says they did? - it is not clear which way he means] my decision would be different - what the heck does that mean?

On two of the boys the assessment was that they are still a danger to females, so he decides to let them go free to offend again.

I can see that their youth and poor mental capacity cannot be ignored, but neither can the protection of girls. In some ways the poorer their understanding the more a custodial sentence might be needed to drive home the point that they have done wrong - they would understand that. As it is there will probably be some talking therapies which will wash by them.

I do not envy the judge in this case - he was between a rock and a hard place when it comes to making a decision within the guidelines, but his decision to ignore protection of girls is in my opinion misguided.

Judge Nicholas Roland needs to be investigated.

His name keeps being quietly omitted from ongoing news updates about this case

There is an online petition that has been created to investigate him. It's nearly at a quarter of a million signatures.

Yes, I've signed it, but I'm also still frustrated at how news outlet updates are leaving his name out, or only adding it at the bottom of a pay wall article and he's not in the headlines

I've just googled her and read the Wikipedia page about her. I am shocked by the amount of abuse she has been subjected to - showing that there is still a long way to go for equality. I'm so glad there are women like her championing the cause. I watched the Believe Me dramatisation this week and horrified by how those women were treated. I thought we had come some way since then, but this case makes me question that.

I understand that Charlotte Proudman sees a lot of shit in the Family Courts. For example, why was the killer of Sarah Khan given her custody?

I totally agree.