The Harm is Relatively Modest !! How does this judge know?

[SapatSea]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11880719/Flasher-51-exposed-teenage-girls-masturbated-view-spared-jail.html

A man who 3 times exposed his penis and escalated to masturbation at a bus stop in front of the same girl then was further emboldened to indulge his sexual fetishes on the school bus. However, the judge has seen fit to give him a suspended sentence - usual reasons - of previous good character, good work ethic - blah, blah, blah and concluded that the offences were ones where "the harm is relatively modest." The man gave no explanation of why he had sexually offended just that he was remorseful - well that's okay then

How the jeff does the judge know what harm has been caused especially in the longer term? The girls testified they are now wary and frightened in situations where men might sit next to them or be near them whilst alone. Apparently this is "modest harm".It seems the judge was also swayed at the strong mental health of the girl who filmed and reported the man.😡Doesn't he realise this sort of behaviour often escalates.

I see this sort of crap being reported on each week over the course of my life with the same lame mitigating factors - family man, good character, well respected employee etc being given great weight and the damage to chidren,girls and women glossed over. So depressed things haven't moved on and no amount of marches,petitions, asking for the sentence to be looked at or writing to my useless MP's seems to change the culture.

So the judge has clearly learned nothing following the highly publicised cases involving police officers.

It’s outrageous.

The judge (like all judges) is following sentencing guidelines. They have some leeway in determining the ultimate sentence but for this kind of offence with a guilty plea, a custodial sentence would be unusual.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/engaging-in-sexual-activity-in-the-presence-of-a-child/

it reminds me of the judge in the horrific Ealing Vicarage burglary & rape who when sentencing the 3 offenders didn't give the 2 men who had raped her an extra sentence on top of their burglary charge because the victim's trauma "wasn't so great". She was a virgin and they had gang raped her and sodomized her ....

Ffs, it’s almost as if the girls don’t matter

Sickening

"the harm is relatively modest". Please god, let this judge experience something that frightens and distresses him and lingers in his mind as sickeningly, and knocks his confidence as much as this. Not a man exposing himself and following him, because obviously that wouldn't disturb him. But something that harmed him as much as this sexual harassment harms girls.

So the judge could have given a custodial sentence but he chose not to? Did the accusers call the harm 'modest?' cos no-one else gets to judge that.

To pass a sentence at either end of the sentencing scale the judge would have to justify their decision. If they don't then the defendent will appeal and the sentence will be changed.

Did the judge not choose a sentence at one end of the sentencing scale? The light sentence end? The sentencing scale also does not appear to require him to call the harm from the sexual assault modest.

This.

I just feel that in cases like this if the victim is articulate and seems mentally strong and stoic that judges assume she suffered "modest harm" which may not be the case at all.

And how is it relevant to the man's sentence? He didn't know the character of the girl.

I think it is possible to complain about an unduly lenient sentence

Judges are still in the dark ages when it comes to women and girls. It's enraging.

The judge didn’t say this, defence counsel did as part of the plea in mitigation.

the judge stated:

“Although she admits that she has the mental strength to not be too affected by the incident, others, unfortunately, have been impacted more”

I remember that. Horrendous comments from the judge. She was raped and sodomized and assaulted with a bottle as well, while her father and boyfriend were made to watch. She spent the rest of her life campaigning for rape victims, and was a brave woman. Her father forgave the rapists on her behalf, at which point I lost all respect for him and his version of Christianity (there is no obligation to forgive unless the sinner asks for forgiveness, which this lot of scum did not - I hope they are somewhere nice and warm these days).

This worries me, which is why I am not in favour of 'victims' statements'. A person who is very articulate may be assumed not harmed and someone inarticulate assumed unharmed because they cannot express the harm. A crime needs to be punished for what it is, in the Ealing rape case gang rape, sodomy, sexual assault whilst making the victim's family watch. Life, I think, for that lot. Burglary on top. I had not realised, though I remember the rape, that the judge gave no sentence for the rape - he thought it was okay and legal to rape a woman if she was not upset by it? There was a huge row about what he said, as I remember.