How is this boy not considered dangerous? I am shocked

[shooooes]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5398n821rlko

14 year old boy stalked and stabbed a girl who refused to date him, however was deemed not dangerous by a judge and given a restraining order. What goes through these judge's minds? Unbelievable.

100% agree.
But it is what it is, saying anything will just get you labelled racist / uncaring / disablist (insert as appropriate).

Totally disagree. I can't see anyone labelling anyone as bigoted for voicing that a 14 year old who inflicted multiple stab wounds in what looked like an attempted murder on another child should be appropriately punished, and is a danger to society.

Judges are bound by sentencing guidelines I think. So they are restricted about what they can do/say- despite what they might thing personally.
There are some books around this - Unlawful killings by Wendy Joseph QC is very good.
Also The Secret Barrister is an excellent book too.

Ahhh, the “you can’t say anything these days” trope, trotted out when people don’t actually have anything sensible to add to a debate.

MN is bad for letting racism, abelism etc stand unchallenged. You’ll be fine to say whatever it is you feel.

Agree seems like a slap on the wrist. He also needs to be added to the Claire’s law list as stabbing a former partner with intent to murder is serious violence. The only positive is if he violates the 3 year restraining order, he will go straight to jail.

Agreed. It's disgraceful.

This country doesnt gice a shit about violence against woman

I saw this on the tube last week and laughed as I initially thought it was SATIRE.....

This is the shining example of success?????

A man is bold and deviant enough to rape a woman in public and gets 46 weeks
... so will serve what? 23 weeks?
Her life is in ruins and he spend 4/5month at his majesty's pleasure....

Absolutely pathetic stuff.
Build more prisons and lock all these fuckers up.

Women arent angry enough.

If the sexual assault was rape, I agree.

But sexual assault also covers any unwanted touching of a sexual nature.

This is true, but it is also the case where leniency is applied unjustly, particularly when it comes to VAWG. The biggest problem here is, the youth courts don’t have the same protections as the adult court where sentences can be appealed. That needs to change.

He can’t be added to the list because he is 14.

Yes, I know but I think that should change. Future partners deserve to know he did this at 14.

This seems like the real life version of ‘adolescence’ tv series. Except the girl didn’t die - but the intent, behaviour and misogyny is the same! And 14 years old too.

How can anyone think he’s NOT a danger? What stops him from trying to do the same to another girl? Does a girl have to die to imprison such a deviant boy/man?

Another victim of imprisionment being seen as the very last resort for Youth offenders.

That says sexual assault and not rape. Rape (ie, the intentional and non-consensual penetration of someone’s mouth, vagina or anus with his penis) would have carried a much longer sentence.

As for the story above, it does feel hard to justify such a soft sentence. I can only consider that the boy’s guilty plea (what else could he do?), remorse and engagement in some sort of rehabilitation and education programme lessened the sentence. He may be deemed young enough to be weaned off that sort of extreme behaviour especially if there’s a root cause to it.

It still doesn’t feel like justice though.

And thats OK because...?

If he kills someone, it isn't a positive. It happened to my neighbour, her Mother and even the dog. Even though he had broken his bail conditions, he was NFA'd.
Being on bail, not supposed to approach the victim didn't stop this. All is needed is the intial attending officer, to not think action is needed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3j47vedg7p9o
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/09/disciplinary-action-for-police-officers-over-shana-grice
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvn06yl7kd01o
We could all post links all day. There's been posts lately by mother's of sons who feel outrage that their toddler son may one day be seen as a threat. Or feel insulted that some mums are making it their mission to teach their sons empathy. But these cases are the fears mother's of daughters face and the murders/assaults are starting younger and younger.

This needs to go back to the courts. This "child" needs to be sentenced properly .what kind of message is this sending out to those who choose to carry knives?
If the law refuses to protect people, the public will have to start doing it themselves 😡

Because I think a four year prison sentence is about right for groping.

I never understand what goes through these judge’s mind. I can only assume the comments about him “not being dangerous” is something to do with sentencing guidelines and what is deemed “dangerous”.

Honestly we need to be less afraid of throwing people in jail. Poor girl.

Adding to my reading list!

A restraining order has specific requirements and is not being bailed. They are very different. A restraining order usually says where he can and cannot go, has a curfew, regular check ins with the police and usually court ordered rehabilitation- ie anger management therapy, a deradicalisation course, and so on.

If he violates any term, he goes straight to jail. It is nothing like being on bail.

I mean unless you say something racist or abelist then nobody is going to call you such for expressing outrage at this sentencing.

After the girl ended their brief relationship, she blocked the boy's number on her phone to prevent him from contacting her. While there is no suggestion this led to the attack, the Hollie Gazzard Trust, a Gloucestershire charity that aims to raise awareness of and help reduce domestic violence, warned obsessed partners are "more likely to physically come round and find you" when blocked.
Jane Harvey, the charity's chief executive, added: "If we have to go down the route of reporting to police and getting the criminal justice system involved, what we need is evidence of the unwanted contact in order for the police to be able to prosecute the case.
"By blocking someone, we potentially lose evidence that could help secure something like a conviction or a restraining order."

I understand what they mean about needed evidence for the RO (which let's face it he's probably going to ignore anyway) but to me this is pretty cold from a woman's charity. So this girl was just expected to put up with being stalked with unwanted messages because the boy wouldn't be told no.

Racist against who? The attacker looks white.

Fear not. MN is tolerant of racists.

Just make sure you do it in the approved fashion. Read a few other thread first to get your eye in.

But wasn’t the sentence appealed where those minor boys raped a girl earlier this year and the sentences were increased.