To think that there should be some consequences for Judge Nicholas Rowland

[BerryTwister]

I’ve just read that the boys who raped and filmed 2 girls have had their non custodial sentences changed to custodial ones. Judge Nicholas Rowland had originally let them off with non custodial sentences, but there was a public outcry and the Attorney General got involved. In court today it was stated that he had made a mistake, and the boys were remanded in custody.

I can’t find any information about what happens to Nicholas Rowland. Maybe nothing. But I really think there should be some consequence. Maybe some retraining, or perhaps not being allowed to try cases involving sexual violence against women and girls for a while.

In any other job, if you made such an error of judgement, you wouldn't just be allowed to carry on as you were.

Well, thats your opinion. Which particular bits are you so keen for others ro read? What do you think anyone has missed?

Well, you see, they were probably sluts who were 'asking for it', not like those poor, disadvantaged young boys who didn't understand how not to rape, and need everyone's help and support 🙄

@WrongKindOfFeminist@OtterlyAstounding Why are you making things up? It’s not compassion to rehabilitate young offenders if we can. We don’t lock up dc for very long periods so you are way out in your expectations and it won’t happen. The victims have been considered by Lady Carr. Did you read what she said?

Making what up? And what's your point? Just because it won't happen, doesn't mean it's not what should happen.

Also, it amuses me that you call them 'dc' – having read what they did and how they behaved, there's nothing 'dear children' about them.

What a strange question, as I have no idea which bits you decided not to read.

And absolutely you can have an opinion. But I'm the same way that someone who tries to review a book who only read the first chapter, your opinion will be under informed.

If you don't know fully what happened then you are in no position to judge either what should happen to these boys or the decisions made by judges who have read it all.

@OtterlyAstounding No, it should not happen. There’s a current debate about putting the age of responsibility up to 14. Like just about everywhere else. Maybe you should look at the justice systems for juniors elsewhere because we are not going to adopt your draconian ideas.

I see. So no particular bits that you think are being missed or overlooked.

No. I asked about your consideration for the victims.

Of course not, because that would involve having an ounce of compassion and respect for women and girls, and being willing to hold men and boys accountable for their crimes against them – which as you say, will never happen.

So you want me to tell you which bits you've missed when I'm not you and don't know which bits you've read and not read.

I'm not psychic 😂.

@OtterlyAstounding Oh don’t be ridiculous! Just bizarre to think this. The sentencing guidelines take in many factors and Lady Carr said the judge weighed up the facts very carefully. His conclusion was incorrect but at least give people credit for doing a difficult job and inevitably it’s not an exact science. The sentence has been changed so why keep on about it?

You find discussions of child abuse worthy of a laugh emoji.

@WrongKindOfFeminist What would this consideration for the victims look like for you?

@OtterlyAstounding seems to think it's the death penalty or life imprisonment for the perpetrators.

Is that what you would like to see? Do you think that would make a difference to how the girls feel about what happened to them? This is a genuine question - I'm not trying to goad. I'm genuinely interested in whether you think that would make a difference to the girls' ability to cope with what has happened to them.

This is a ubiquitous issue when the media and public form opinions on criminal justice but particularly prevalent on this thread.

How can anyone feel qualified to express such strong views without (a) knowing the actual facts of the case (b) knowing the law and sentencing guidelines the judge was applying (c) knowing what the judge and court of appeal actually said.

As a victim of CSA and rape, personally, I would've felt better if the abuser I'd reported (my stepfather) had been given life imprisonment or execution, instead of community service because he pled guilty and was 'sorry'. It would've definitely made a difference about how I felt, and how I coped as a teenager going forward, as I would've felt safe from him and as though society cared about me.

In that case @Circe7now is a great time for you to make the case. I'm open to hearing it.

No, I find your presumption that I'm a psychic who can tell you which bits of something you didn't read, worthy of a laugh emoji.

I guess pitchforks and frothing don't take much thought. Who needs to know what actually happened when we can just get angry instead eh?

What's ridiculous, or bizarre?

There seems to be more concern and compassion for the perpetrators, than the victims. I'm also not sure what's so ridiculous in asking if they're capable of gang rape as children, what will they escalate to as adults? Will they be capable of learning not to abuse women or girls if they haven't by this age? Will they ever not be a danger to the women and girls around them, given how deeply ingrained their misogyny and sexually violent beliefs seem to be? How likely is genuine rehabilitation, and given how undereported sexual violence and domestic abuse are, how would you even know?

I read the documentation. What actually happened were two disgusting rapes. Am I missing something?@Babyboomtastic

I read the documentation too — at least, what happened, the sentencing, and the notes from paragraph 178 on, while skimming over the rest.

I agree, two disgusting occurrences of rape via coercion and intimidation clearly took place, with the three boys acting in a pack rape manner, egging each other on and taking deliberate pleasure in degrading their victims.

I'm really not sure what we're supposed to be reading that would change our perspectives?

Compassion for victims and believing that we should try to rehabilitate where possible aren’t mutually exclusive. They can go together.

There’s no realistic prospect within our criminal justice system or international human rights standards of locking up thirteen year olds for life. This would very rarely happen even for more serious crimes. Even if we multiplied these boys’ revised sentences by 10, they would still get out one day.

So just from a practical perspective, you need to consider the best way to make them safe in once living in society.

Theoretically you might be able to rehabilitate within a custodial setting. As someone said upthread, taking a child offender away from a disordered or abusive home and the context in which they offended should be a good opportunity for reducing reoffending. But realistically YOIs are not doing that the majority of the time at present. Children can spend 22 hours a day in a cell, there is a lot of violence, the facilities are understaffed and underfunded. So the offenders who come out are even more likely to offend than those who went in.

I have no idea if it would be possible to rehabilitate these specific boys. But I would think that if (as is very common) a child offender has a different home life, has been abused themselves often including sexual abuse for perpetrators of sexual crimes (often to the extent that they have been removed from their family and are in care), has significant learning difficulties or mental health problems, addiction issues, limited education etc, there is a lot that could be done to try for more overall benefit to society and less cost than locking them up for life. And because a child does not have the same understanding of issues like consent and the same impulse control etc as an adult, there is at least the potential that they develop to the point that they will not offend in future with the appropriate interventions.

Just that this poster says said couldn't face reading the facts (which I totally understand), but that she didn't need to, but that she didn't need to know what actually happened to be able to judge what sentence the boys should have.

If someone has read what happened and feels these boys should be imprisoned for life or executed, then fair enough. I disagree, but it's based on a knowledge of what happened.

There's a reason that rape (like most offences) has comprehensive sentencing guidelines with categories, aggravating and mitigating factors etc. The factual background is important. The psychological impact on the victim is an important part of that and what HHJ Rowland didn't take enough account of.

Just that.

You've read it and come to a conclusion based on it.

The poster I was debating with hadn't read it. Or more precisely had read some, but not all, but bizarrely wants me to tell her what she didn't read (but obviously not in any detail).

So where is the compassion for victims? I see none of it in your posts, or the posts by others defending these boys, and excusing their actions.

Additionally, what about a thought for the victims they may well have in the future, should their 'rehabilitation' (which is what, exactly?) not work?

I’ve posted some of my views earlier in the thread. But basically I think that the court of appeal sentences were about right and a custodial sentence was appropriate. That the boys’ very significant learning difficulties may have contributed to their ability to understand consent and the criminality of their actions in a context where the girls initially at least appeared to express consent. That I can understand why the initial judge came to the decision he did based on the guidance and don’t think he should be sacked or rebuked. And that there should be more resources put into rehabilitation in general but particularly for young offenders and that it is right for the youth justice system to prioritise rehabilitation.

But there’s a range of valid opinions here.