Rape case - distressing content - have they got away with it?

[Ohcrap082024]

BBC news report

Hopefully this link works but I really wish it wasn’t necessary to post this.

Two teenage girls, separately raped by a group of boys. Premeditated. Filmed. Convicted. And still the rapists get to go home with a non custodial sentence. I’m disgusted but not shocked.

Those poor girls. Reporting what happened and giving evidence. Yes, they were believed. But the sentences are woeful.

I agree with you that there shouldn’t be an issue around believing the girls in this case as a jury has already listened to all the evidence presented and convicted.

However, the leniency of the sentences suggests that at least one person in that courtroom, who heard all the evidence, has chosen to “not criminalise” the 3 convicted rapists. This leniency could lead others to believe that what happened to those 2 girls wasn’t actually that bad. That perhaps the jury got it wrong.

I recognise that I am reaching quite a bit here but it is not out of the question that some people might still query the validity of the conviction. We’ve seen it before in high profile cases e.g. the footballer Adam Johnson.

Sure, but what has that got to do with the fact that the families don't have a right of appeal?

But, the judge has also failed in his duty towards the 3 boys. He has returned them to the very families and community which allowed these behaviours to fester. With no guarantee that the boys and their families will engage with any form of community rehabilitation.

If they fail to engage with community rehabilitation the consequences are serious - up to and including having the sentence reversed and being brought back to court with a view to resentencing with a custodial sentence.

It doesn’t. Sorry should have replied to the bit you were quoting rather than your comment.

The victims have up to six months to challenge the sentence under the unduly lenient sentence scheme.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/victims-and-bereaved-get-more-time-to-challenge-lenient-sentences

The counterargument that I have seen reported against a custodial sentence is that it may increase the likelihood of reoffending because it will bring them into contact with even worse influences, especially if they move to the adult estate.

I see where they're coming from with that argument but I think the risk to wider society with this case is that it sends out a message that could create more victims.

"Kirsty Brimlow, chair of the Bar Council of England and Wales, questioned whether children between 10 and 14 should be in the criminal justice system, as opposed to being supervised and "having their liberty curtailed in other ways outside of criminalisation".

Joseph said in her experience of sentencing, it was "not successful" sending a 15 or 16-year-old into a young offenders institution, where they then go on to prisons.

She said it would expose them to "such bad influences"."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy2x7wxjego

It is difficult to tell if their family were expecting them to be acquitted or were just in shock that this was really happening and what it would mean. I could understand being distressed by the situation even if you didn't condone what they had done. We will probably never know.

"In court, there were gasps and tears from the families of the boys in the public gallery each time another guilty verdict was read out.

The boys, who were all wearing white shirts and had their hair slicked back, also broke down and kept looking over to their families for comfort."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62ddy4qlk0o

Personally I would place under 16s who commit serious harm in specialist reparenting and therapeutic secure hospitals with compulsory therapy for their parents and siblings too. Their liberty absolutely should be curtailed because they are dangerous. That isn’t at odds with rehabilitation.
What seems to have happened here is they are neither being punished nor are they being rehabilitated.
I agree rehabilitation of teens and children who are likely a produce of their upbringing should be a primary aim. But removal of liberty can and should be part of that for serious offences. That is simply a safety issue. They clearly are not safe to be around girls.

Girl raped by boys spared jail tells BBC judge's decision was like 'rock in my face'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjrp98285yvo

I was sickened by this news and have completed the form.

I’ve just read the BBC article interviewing one of the girls. She is an incredibly strong and brave young woman.

If nothing else, at least she knows that there are people up and down the country who support her. I am
in awe of her bravery.

The public outcry may well produce something else. There will be future cases of this kind. We all know that there will. There are probably similar cases going through the justice system right now. I do hope that the public’s reaction of the past few days will make judges in the future think a bit more carefully about handing down ridiculous sentences to convicted gang rapists.

I question every single judge that gives light sentencing for sexual abuse crimes against girls and women.

Why do they really hand out a slap on the wrist?

Why do they have questionable morals when it comes to sentencing sexual abuse crimes against females?

Occams razor and all that.

So many males abuse females, so fucking many.

It makes me really fucking angry.

I’m absolutely horrified by this. It’s basically told every young boy in the UK so inclined that they can get away with rape and told every girl that there is absolutely no point in reporting rape and other sexual offences. The judge should be utterly ashamed of himself!

I am normally against the prosecution of young offenders with SEN but ADHD and low IQ does not cause rape at knifepoint; if there is a cause and effect between those two things then I would like someone to explain it to me.

Yes you can be more impulsive with ADHD and think less about consequences but that goes for suddenly deciding to do something good as well as something horrific. In other words the intent to rape, wield a knife, film the offences and separate one of the girls from her friend, were a series of distinct, ongoing, planned choices.

And I can’t believe that the judge took in to account the fact that they had clean records before, as if rape with a knife is somehow a mild offence! Outrageous and disgusting.

I haven’t read the entire thread so apologies if someone has already posted this out, but Laura Richards, formerly Scotland Yard analyst, former head of the homicide prevention unit, and sexual offences section, who broadcasts the Crime Analyst podcast on Tube, has a petition up on her Facebook page about this case and judges’ accountability, if anyone is interested in signing. Sorry I can’t link it with the device I am using currently.

She makes the excellent point that so many rape cases are impossible to get to trial, but when they do arrive at that point, the cry often goes up that there is insufficient evidence, while in this particular case there is unequivocal video evidence and therefore there is no excuse but to prosecute these violent and abusive crimes properly.

Quite frankly, if we’ve reached the point when we aren’t sending young men and boys to jail for rape, then misogyny has won.