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.

They can work until they’re 75. There’s no compulsion to do so and I’m sure in practice many don’t. I’ve just checked and the majority retire in their mid 60s.

Thank you for laying out your arguments.

Regardless of the legal and sentencing rules, child rape that has caused immense and likely long lasting suffering to two girls must have consequences. Effective consequences.

FWIW I'm in support of rehabilitation, the rule of law, and due process.

But when the rules and the process look at a case of child rape and come up with an utter abomination of a decision, public outcry is entirely justified.

This outcome, for whatever arcane and complex legal reasons, was a moral outrage.

Thanks @WrongKindOfFeminist and @JJkate for both putting eloquently what I’ve been unable to articulate.
to my uneducated brain, the argument appears to come across as “well it’s said she said earlier she consented to giving oral sex and a threesome” and the continued “but they’re only children, they don’t know this was wrong, so having punishment isn’t fair”.

I think it’s clear that it was rape, at least for the counts where they were actually found guilty. In that the perpetrator could not have had a “reasonable” belief in consent. No reasonable person would expect that a teenage girl would consent to sex with multiple boys being filmed in a recreation ground when they were not showing signs of enthusiastic consent, even if they had consented (somewhat reluctantly) to sexual activity before and said, again reluctantly, that they consented to a threesome.

But I do think it goes to the culpability of the boys. They were boys of very low intelligence (probably to the extent that they didn’t have the cognitive abilities of the average 9 year old who would be below the level of criminal responsibility) and of little education. Whether they really understood the nuances of consent here and the lifelong consequences and trauma caused is doubtful. Though the psych report found they had some understanding of consent.

From the victims’ and society’s perspective they are just as dangerous with those mitigating factors as they would be without. But they are relevant to sentencing.

I think that this case quite clearly shows that rape is not just an adult crime. Teenagers are capable of sex and sexual offenses long before we regard them as adults in all other respects.

So we can choose. If teens are considered adults from 13 in the eyes of the law then they should be treated by adults in other ways. Emancipate them fully.

So clever people are more evil and deserve more punishment? How come? I'm genuinely interested

If a boy or man is literally incapable of not raping women because he does not have the necessary understanding of consent, he should not be walking the streets.

No reasonable person would expect that a teenage girl would consent to sex with multiple boys being filmed in a recreation ground

That's a pretty good point. I must confess I was wavering over the verdicts a bit but I think we can say for certain there was a point where the girls genuinely withdrew consent and a point where the boys were being so awful with both words and deeds that they must have realized any upfront consent no longer applied.

Except Count 1. That verdict was just wrong.

I think it's pretty clear cut than an average adult in those circumstances would be totally aware that comment had been withdrawn.

Whether the same applies to a teenager with the level of understanding of a 9 year old is less clear cut. 'I'm not ok with this any more' is more nuanced than a straight no. However that goes to whether or not they should have been convicted, which is for the jury, rather than the sentence. They were the ones who heard the evidence on this and clearly believed the boys did know she had stopped consenting.

The entire situation makes me terrified of being a parent of teenagers in the future tbh.

If it helps, Babyboomtastic, the teens I know are for the most part very moral, very aware of consent, and absolutely unaccepting of rape and coercion.

Not to say it doesn't happen, of course it does and always will, but it is in no way considered acceptable. This is teens of both sexes, from a range of social backgrounds.

It makes me terrified that it was thought that these boys didn’t know what consent was, didn’t know that rape is wrong so what’s to stop them doing it again, were back in the community.
females are just collateral damage aren’t they, as long as the boys were told they were brave to come to court, and they have their supporters appalled for them at the thought of any consequences.

That is really interesting. The schools I have seen, via my DC, thoughtfully teach about consent, starting young with things like the pants rule and later with clarity about the law. Whilst I am sure that some home schooled children are given very clear information by their parents, some home schooled children or children not in education probably don't get this properly explained. This really lets those children down.

That's terrifying, but it's also terrifying that those girls were travelling to meet boys they'd never met before, for sex, especially such a young age.

They are absolutely not to blame for the rapes. What ended up happening to those girls was not what they'd agreed and not what they consented to. But even the idea that your teenage daughter might choose to meet a boy she didn't know for sex under some dodgy underpass is horrifying.

As a mother of daughters everything about this case is disturbing.

Even the consensual part of this is horrifying though from a parental perspective.

I think punishment needs to be considered carefully when it comes to the ages of the perpetrators, their capacity to understand why what they did was wrong, and what ultimately will be the best course of action to help rehabilitate them so that they don't commit the same crime again.

If you look at the statistics of crime and recidivism around the world, the reality is that prison is not an effective means of punishment in terms of it being a) a deterrent and b) a means of rehabilitation. It's a very expensive holding pen full of people who have largely been very failed by multiple people and institutions in their early life. Around 25% of prisoners in the UK were in the care system as children or young adults. That tells you a lot.

So we need to think of other means of punishment that will enable people to learn from their mistakes, deal with the often traumatic and chaotic childhoods they have experienced that have led them to commit crime in the first place, and enable them to become productive members of society in the future. I would like to see more community based sentencing, with restricted movement and close monitoring replacing prison, with enforced unpaid work involving giving back to the community, apprenticeships to learn useful skills, etc, and the opportunity to do restorative work with those they have harmed. Having to engage with those you have harmed and understand why your behaviour has been harmful can often lead to really meaningful outcomes for both victims and perpetrators.

The girls in this case have been through something horrific and horrendous and I feel for them and their families enormously. However, the boys in this case have been out of formal schooling for several years, have low intelligence, and SEN. Treating them as if they are fully formed, well-adjusted adults who fully understand the implications of their actions and should be locked up for life as a result is not appropriate in these circumstances. If you actually read the documentation, it's clear that they didn't fully grasp what they were doing and that is one of the reasons behind the original judge's initial decision.

So @EnidSpyton the boys didn’t know what they did was wrong, won’t know what they did was wrong?
Having to engage with those you have harmed and understand why your behaviour has been harmful can often lead to really meaningful outcomes for both victims and perpetrators.
are you actually saying rape victims should meet with their rapist to help rehab the rapist?!
how on earth would this be a meaningful outcome for a victim, when professionals are saying, “ ah it’s not their fault, they don’t know any better, you as the rape victim should be helping them”

@EnidSpyton thanks for those examples Enid. They sound like good ideas. I must say I'm wary of the "X can't be held accountable/responsible because of X condition or experience". I think this has become quite prevalent in lots of places these days and I think it's harmful to both the person and others. If we leave aside children, why can't an adult with SEN be held accountable for their bad behaviour?

@EnidSpyton and, I read the documentation. Which bit shows clearly that they didn't know what they were doing?

That's not what I'm saying.

I don't think you understand what restorative justice is.

It's about providing opportunities for the victim and perpetrator to meet, so that the perpetrator can fully understand the impact of their behaviour.

It is only ever done consensually and is not about the victim 'helping to rehab' the person who committed a crime against them. Often victims can find it incredibly healing to be able to go through the process. It is mutually beneficial.

Rather than responding with a knee-jerk emotional reaction, I would recommend doing some reading around it and coming to a more informed perspective.

If they are unable to understand what they did and why they shouldn't have, then getting them to 'engage' with their victims might be very dangerous indeed.

Rather than responding with a patronising and offensive post, I suggest you try some empathy and consideration.

I mean fucksake, the boys get sympathy for their difficult lives, but we are being told not to be 'knee jerk'.

I'm not talking about these boys in particular. You asked about what other forms of punishment there are outside of prison, and I gave examples generally, not specifically in reference to this case.

Restorative justice is obviously not always appropriate.

Is there any evidence that 'community based sentencing, with restricted movement and close monitoring replacing prison, with enforced unpaid work involving giving back to the community, apprenticeships to learn useful skills, etc, and the opportunity to do restorative work with those they have harmed.' is going to help the victims, and/or stop these boys from reoffending?

I'm not being sympathetic to the boys. I'm being realistic about their circumstances and their intellectual capacity.

Punishment is only effective if people are able to engage with why they are being punished.