Does anyone else think this man really ought to have received a custodial sentence.

[BAFE]

here

quite graphic, sorry

just can't believe the man wasn't punished in any way.

The MP has twin DDs apparently (Wikipedia), and I imagine they are v small as he is only in mid-thirties, so hopefully he HAS recent personal experience of babies and will sympathise with people being horrified by this.

Perhaps he can raise a question in the Scottish Parliament about the case -- eg at first minister's questions? Dunno if they do that sort of thing really. I don't actually have a vote in the UK so am embarrassingly unsure about politics.

(I know that is no excuse as I do live here ... must really sort out my citizenship)

oh, you think it's unverifiable about the shower head thing do you SomeGuy? Sadly it really happened and the man did not contest that fact but he was let off because an expert thought there was a tiny possibility he might have been suffering from a reaction to an anti-smoking drug.

There are plenty of cases where a woman was raped but the man was let off because the judge thought he might have thought she consented, even if she clearly didn't.

I don't think you know very much about this stuff.

Actually what you have posted demonstrates just how awful child abuse is as a crime and how leniently it's treated (as shown in appalling detail here). Children are incredibly vulnerable.

I know it is perhaps difficult to see or understand when you are not on the receiving end of sexism and but it does often appear when you see ludicrous sentences like this that that crimes of violence against women and children are not taken particularly seriously.

Off the top of my head, take the case of the actor who was left off a particularly hideous assault against his girlfriend because he'd been taking an anti-smoking drug (that was the defence line).

sethstarkaddersmum, cryptic references to a few news stories that people may or may not have heard of (and I have found that one now, the 'anti-smoking drug' bit was necessary as 'shower head throat' alone didn't do it), don't amount to evidence that men are let off crimes that women would not be, firstly because no comparable anecdotes about sentencing of women were offered, and secondly because a handful of anecdotes does not amount to evidence to prove a case.

How did this man end up looking after this child? What is the relationship, not that it matters in the slightest...

I would imagine that he is the father.

Ah dittany, you are quite beyond parody. Criticising your arguments means I must be a misogynist, classic.

you called the act unverifiable. I pointed out it was, in fact, verifiable, and gave you information which enabled you to do so.

FWIW there is plenty of serious criminological research out there showing women are treated more harshly by the criminal justice system (more likely to go to prison for the same crime etc) but I would have to get books down from my shelves to find refs and there's not a lot of point as you won't follow them up or believe them.

surely if he was the father that's how it would have been reported?

maybe saying what the relationship was would have identified the child?

IME the courts are under SO much pressure not to imprisn anyone who wont reoffend that its increasingly unusual to go to prison.
without reading the probaiton reports its TRULY impossible to get the whole picture of the offence and the offender.

Maybe a long community sentence will keep him under probations eye for more than a few months inside.

Women are treated more harshly within the criminal justice system - as has been stated above, tons of research on it.

What tends to happen is that women are sentenced by gender role. The women who commit acts of violence, seen as outside of their societal role are punished more harshly than men sentenced for the same thing. It's all wrapped up in society's perception of women.

Clearly it's more complicated than that but there is tons of evidence for it.

Obviously he should have gone to prison, but to claim, with the help of some anecdotes about men sentenced under a different legal system, that this is proof of sexism, rather than an incompetent/foolish judge, is rather a stretch.

i wonder what the potential prison sentence was

ah he pleaded guilty so that will knock a third off anyway

Research is great, random unrelated news stories not so much.

I am interested in research, I have no doubt that there are gender differences in sentencing, I don't think a single case should be taken as proof of that though.

I found this on the Home Office website: rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors170.pdf, a little dated, it does discuss gender role sentencing by examing 'typical' and 'atypical' female crimes.

For the 'typical' crime of shoplifting, women were several times less likely to be imprisoned, and almost twice as likely to be given a discharge, and for the 'atypical' crime, first-time male and female offenders were treated equally, but for recidivists women were far less likely to be imprisoned.

Contrary/more recent research would be of interest.

I must say I'm struggling to understand why a woman who dipped her child's dummy in methadone to stop him crying is sentenced to 3 years and a man who caused massive internal damage to a baby to stop him producing a dirty nappy is simply told "Don't do it again, will you?"

Jesus Christ.

That child had to suffer for a whole day and night in agony whilst the wipe was lodged in his bowel, further to this he then had to suffer the pain of it being forced up even further. Has the judge any fucking idea how excruciatingly painful that would have been? The bastard didn't TELL ANYONE WHAT HE HAD DONE?

It is a miracle that poor, poor baby survived. I just can't believe what I am reading. Like it was some kind of fucking mistake to force a wipe up a practically newborn baby and then not say anything. What kind of animal does that and what kind of judge allows him t walk free?

I actually feel sick

Does this mean he can have contact with babies again?

Actually the methadone dummy child narrowly escaped death too according to the article I read so that sentence was more than justified IMO.