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 format is a bit dodgy because of copy/paste

Dear *,

I am writing to express concern about the response of the justice system in the case of Graeme McArthur.

On the 10th of June it came to light that McArthur forced a baby wipe into the bottom of a three month old baby, who was left fighting for his life and did not make a full recovery.
The day after committing this sadistic atrocity, he stuck his fingers deep inside the baby?s bottom in order to retrieve it, pushing the wipe further up and causing massive internal injuries including a
perforated bowel.
He did not tell anyone what he had done.

When the baby?s mother found him she took him to the GP because he was quiet, pale and whimpering. By the time he was admitted to hospital the baby was close to death and endured a four and a half hour operation to
repair his bowel, and they managed to remove the wipe from his abdomen.

The baby would have been crying in terror and pain for a long time. The crying would have escalated as McArthur stuffed the wipe into the baby?s bottom, which begs the question of why he didn?t stop, and I should imagine the crying continued the entire time he left it there. The wipe would have been crunched up and would not have been soft and malleable, but hard like a tampon. The next day as he stuffed his fingers deep inside the baby?s anus to retrieve the wipe this would have caused even greater pain for the baby; a man?s finger is larger than the width of a baby?s anus.

McCarther states that the crime was not sexually motivated, but at any rate this does not make any difference to the baby, and besides, who in their right mind should believe him.

Lord Turnbull judge, however, did believe him. Lord Turnbull concluded that McArthur?s actions were reasonable, if a little ?misguided? (in his words), and McArthur was let off without punishment, not even a fine.

I am certain that if he done this to a dog, to stop it from excreting in the house, he would have received a punishment,

I am writing this to give the baby a voice that was not heard in court. The voice that was drowned out by McArthur's protestations of innocence.

I trust you will look into this and see that justice is done,

Thank you,

Yours Sincerely,

I've spotted the mistakes and repetitions

Feel free to pick out and use any parts that you like. I highly recomment writing one, I feel much better now. I know it's a bit over-dramatic, but perhaps we should question why people don't get het-up over something like this. Not reacting is far worse than over-reacting IMO.

You have left your real name at the end of the first copy, sakura, I don't know if you might want MNHQ to delete that post?

Thanks for the letter.

Yes you used your name Sakura, have reported in case you don't want it seen.

Could do with some better reportage of the case to be honest - so many facts missing such as relationship to the child, evidence of learning disability, reason for delay in seeking medical attention...

Don't think one can tell a judge things he knows already and retain credibility.

The fact is, grievous harm has been caused whatever the reasons and diminished responsibility is not a cause for absolution so why is the sentence thus?

Nice work hobbgoblin

I will use that letter, am just going to delete the bit about "who in their right mind would believe him" as I think the rest of it is strong enough TBH.

Thanks so much for that sakura, I think that people are always more likely to actually act if they have something that they can CnP or use as a template

I read this and it made me sick to my stomach poor baby.

Just after I read a story about a boy receiving a custodial sentance for killing a hamster.

While I think the boy is a dick for hurting an animal I also wonder what kind of judicial system allows a man to almost kill an infant and walk away yet jail someone for killing a hamster.

does anyone know what relation this man is to the baby. I cannot beleive what he did its disgusting and so dangerous. I hope the baby does not have too much permanent damage

Abip - He was the child's father, it happened when the mother was at work.

This is an account of what happened - www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2010HCJ10.html

Thanks for the report, it is useful I think to read such things rather than judging by a few sentences in a news report.

the gist of it seems to be that the judge thought what had already happened to the accused (his son and elder daughter have been taken into care and will not be returned) was punishment enough.

So, what do we think now we've read the link provided by ILF?

It adds up. It is fair. It is logical. Nothing will turn back the clock.

I think we should be careful about forming lynch mobs on the basis of tabloid headlines.

This is quite incredible

The judgment reads more like a critique on the social workers working practices than on the actions of the person on trial. Although he doesn't condone the mans actions he seems to see them as more of a stupid mistake than anything else. Which perhaps would be OK if it "just" been the initial action, but his follow up action was just foul and then not to tell anyone, even when the baby was in the hospital and the consultant told them the cause of the baby being so ill was more than just reckless conduct, however an upstanding person he had been until then. I got the impression that the judge was almost trying to make up for the fact that the children had been removed and were likely never coming back.

I am amazed at the judges comments. I have worked as a probation officer in the English system and officers routinely write reports using risk assessment tools. These are validated and researched and generally accepted by the judiciary to provide an effective method of risk of serious harm and re-offending. Because everyone uses the same method, it is an attempt to standardise and objectify risk assessment.

All English report writers are trained in OASys which has it's faults but I have seldom seen a judge call into question the whole profesional base of the tool as the judge has done in this case. As well as the professional opinion of those making the assessments.

I am not as familiar with the risk assessment tools in use in the Scottish system but am suprised at the judge undertmining their theoretical base.

However I know that the LSI-R has a robust research base internationally. The RAG assessments have limited research base but a good theoretical base and criminal justice social workers in Scotland use this one routinely to assess risk of serious harm. It is the one the Scottish Executive tell them to use - they haven't invented it.

The judge of course can do what the wants and totally dismiss the opinion of the professionals in the case which is what happened here.

Excuse me ranting on - I'm a bit of a geek on these matters. From a knee jerk reaction, rather than a professional one, my first thoughts were that I would agree with the social workers. I think there probably WAS a sexual element to it.

Why did SS remove the children from their mother?

I don't understand.

And they've never been returned, and won't be returned?

This sexual element business - none of us can know.

But even there was a sexual element, I still don't understand why the children were removed from a parent who was in no way implcated in any abuse or negligent behaviour?

I agree that it seems that the judge was reacting to the way the case had been handled by SS.

What I find a bit disturbing in his judgement (unless I have missed it?) is that when he described what the man did it was just "oh he folded it and put it up the baby" as if that was an easy and casual thing to do. Whereas in reality the baby would have screamed its head off and struggled. Actually presuming that the baby would have screamed its head off, how does that tie in with him doing it to keep things quite for his wife

Anyhoo

Anyone know why SS took the kids?

someguy why do you describe this thread as a lynch mob? We have not arranged to meet and booked a night train to scotland.

Do you feel that people should not speak out when they see the judicial system do something that feels all wrong?

That report is shocking.

It seeks to minimise what the bloke has done IMO.

He put a wipe up the baby's bum (very difficult) and must have ignored the ensuing screaming, he then failed to ask his wife if she'd removed the wipe (we assume,the report isn't specific) then he failed to tell the hospital what he'd done, thus endangering the child further.

The dog that didn't bark is the wife - the report mentions that he has the support of his family and the children have been taken into care, presumably because his wife supports him? There's something missing from the story here. Exactly how does she support him and is this why the DC's are in care?

Don't forget he put his entire finger up the childs anus and hooked it and wriggled it around to try and get the wipe out again. It would not be easy to get your finger up there, the baby would have been screaming and struggling. The report does not reflect the violence and horror of what he did.

If my baby's bottom somehow accidentally ate a baby wipe I would be going to the doctor to get it removed.

I am really interested if anyone can shed any light on why the children were removed from the mother. I simply don't understand that.

Hi (dorothea here). Just came back to this damn thread which is so so horrible to focus on, yet necessary.

I have yet to write my letters/emails to the names Glasgowlass provided (hoping to do it this evening or tomorrow at latest, but am on a newborn-and-toddler management schedule). Fifitot or Dittany, or indeed anyone else, have you any suggestions about how best to maximise chances of such correspondence being listened to -- eg key things to emphasise?

I really want to get this right but the circs make me too emotional to judge the content properly so would appreciate tips.

Sorry to be kind of asking everyone else to do the hard bits, that isn't how I mean to come across. Am just a bit hormonal.