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.

hobgobblin, thank you for reporting the post. I had reported it myself too.

It's taken me a while before I could look on this thread again and do you know why?
I really felt by posting that letter I was going to get loads of people coming on here telling me that I was mad and over-reacting etc, etc, and that I'd got this fact wrong and that fact wrong and I just felt that I had to brace myself for having written it. But I wanted to post it to encourage other people to write.

I've come back on here and found this thread it's full of people who are just as shocked as myself, and except for this poster Someguy, who thinks we are a lynch mob, I'm so relieved that other people see the world the same way I do. Because, honestly, I am starting to think that maybe torturing babies is normal, and that I'm living in a fantasy utopia because I just can't accept that it's right for a man not to receive punishment for doing something like this.

I've just sent my emails off because seriously this man deserves to be punished.

This was no accident, look at the length of time he left the baby to suffer. What permanent damage has been done? It should take a certain type of letter but if enough people write then perhaps we can get this sentence changed. As long as it is not too emotive (hard under the circumstances.)

I basically put down the point of what had happened to the child, the first incident and then what he did later which must have been a very violent act.

Not sure where your voice can be heard but contacting MPs is probably appropriate - raising the issue of the lenient sentencing and asking an opinion.

To the person who said we can never really know if there is a sexual element or not....well that is why courts employ socialworkers and/or psychologists, to make that assessment. No one can ever really know but you base your opinion on your professional opinion which is what the report writiers did in this case. This opinion doesn't come out of the ether. It is based on research and theory - hence my shock at the way the judge rejected both of the risk assessment methods used by the professionals in the case.

Flip me. First I've heard of this story. It's so upsetting. Everything is just wrong in this country's justice system(s). I'm lost for words.

Awful, awful case, but it is worth reading the judge's reasons for his decision, which he has issued here:

www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2010HCJ10.html

To sum up, he says: In my judgement the accused presented as a distraught and flawed parent whose understanding and regret for what he had done was obvious. He is only too well aware that his conduct has had an overwhelming effect, not just on his son but on himself, his wife, his daughter and so many other members of his family. I also recognise that throughout his whole life, with the exception of that one weekend, the accused has conducted himself with a work ethic and as a supporter of his family. He has been in a lengthy relationship which has been burdened with medical difficulties and it is to his credit that he has been supportive and caring throughout. There is no suggestion whatsoever that he has ever been anything but a loving father to his daughter L and a caring husband to his wife. These features are not set out for the purpose of ignoring or overshadowing the offence and the serious nature of the injuries inflicted. They are set out by way of balance to set the individual with whom I am dealing in his proper context. Taking all of the factors together as best I can, in my judgement this case falls to be dealt with as an act of wholly misguided parental intervention, occurring at a time of considerable stress, rather than as an act of malice directed at the child. It is understood properly as it is described, namely culpable and reckless conduct...
I am satisfied as best as one can be that the accused is a law abiding man who is very unlikely ever to offend again. In particular I am satisfied that there is no likelihood of a repetition of the instant conduct. I am perfectly satisfied that it would be wrong of me to impose a custodial sentence, despite the fact that a focus on the harm done to a baby might seem to some to lead inevitably to that outcome. The truth of the matter is that the punishment which has already befallen the accused, with the knowledge of what he has done and the loss of both of his children [who have been taken into foster care], is in itself a substantial punishment already endured for more than a year. In this context I also take account of the fact that this situation will be ongoing and may never be resolved...
It is important to note that Mr McArthur retains the full support of his wife and wider family, all of who have attended these proceedings. That to my mind is a significant feature which I ought properly to take account of. It is also right to observe that in the correct circumstances compassion can properly feature in judicial assessment. In my judgement it ought to feature in the present case and I propose in the wholly unusual circumstances of this case to deal with the matter by way of admonition.'

So there were two reports, one - by social services - believed there to be a sexual element. The other by a ClinPsych who rejected a sexual element and the judge chose to agree with the latter.

I just cannot for the life of me believe there could not be a sexual and/or sadistic motivation.

If you are just a normal person how on earth could you just do that, like its nothing?

I just dont believe it - especially given his actions the following day.

I'm in knots with this now.

When I first read the thread I was in disbelief that the defendant 'got off'. Then I read the summary of the Judge's deliberation and disposal and felt that all in all, though question marks remained, he came to a fair verdict in the context of our justice system.

Now I think about the excuses and reasons given and read some of the responses here to his defense it seems very questionable again.

What does stand out for me is that Social Services tarnished the evidence through a failure to be objective. This does not surprise me in the slightest and is one of my biggest criticisms of the common practise of many within SS. Social Workers are not qualified Psychiatric experts and should remember this before withdrawing children and also when writing objective reports. It does not matter how much a case looks a certain way, whether that be sexual or whatever, the job of the social worker is to gather evidence.

We should also remember that no testing framework, no collection of qualifications or years experience can determine absolutely what went on.

The Judge did not imply - to me, at least - that the defendant should be viewed favourably because of his positive history. Rather that, this was taken into account when considering the likelihood of his re-offending.

I have no idea what went on that night and neither do any of us but it is clear that for some undisclosed reason, this father made a huge error of judgement. Even if fear or confusion or illness were contributing factors, the behaviour was violent and selfishly motivated. The baby was harmed.

The Judge's purpose was to protect the child in future, ensure that the defendant was punished and the public protected as necessary.

I happen to feel that the Judge succeeded in all of the above.

I agree with your last statement. From what I can tell. You would have to have heard his defending statement and dealt with him personally to get a truer idea. Instead we have the Judge's biased opinion.

I mean the child has been protected in his removal from the parents. The Judge was correct in assuming that the likelihood of re-offending was slim.

It all seems rather a mess. It's uncomfortable because there is no scapegoat here. With Climbie and Baby P we could blame lack of intervention and gaps in service provision. This was out of the blue. I think that makes us clutch as straws and hold on to punishment as a way of righting the wrongs perhaps.

I still don't understand why the children were taken away from their mother.

it seems that the judge has thought the SS over-reacted and were making assumptions about motivations for the behaviour of the man, and that is what led him to give this lenient sentence.

Assuming that the mother is not implicated in any abuse or anything, why aren't the children with her, and the father in prison?

The whole thing seems cockeyed.

re the sexual element thing - my point is that whether there was a sexual motivation or not, the man inflicted violence on this baby in the most unpleasant and painful way, not once but twice, and when the child became ill, repeatedly failed to tell doctors what had happened, thus endangering the childs life further. That in itself is surely enough to warrant a custodial sentence.

That is teh bit that disturbs me to. That there is no mention of how hard it would have been to do this, that force would have been used, that the baby would have been struggling and screaming.

The way the judge talks about what the man did is as if he just popped the wipe up there, then tried to pop it out again, in an almost casual sort of way. It totally fails to communicate the callous violence that these assualts involved.

But in terms of how the Judge must act, he cannot sentence based on the fact that this might have only been the first discovered incident.

Without other evidence how else could he have dealt with the case? Based on the facts presented it seems unlikely that there is a history or a future of such abuse. That is the salient point to my mind.

I'm not so much saying the reality is not actually different but there is no real evidence of anything else.

I also agree that the description of HOW the wipe got where it did is disturbing and is an area that seems to have left many questions left unanswered.

I would guess that a whole load of weird stuff was going on in that family with the mother's mental health and possibly her husband's and such things contributed to a bizarre expression of the effects of these circs by the man.

I imagine that they would have examined the baby pretty carefully for signs of sexual abuse.

Thing is, whether his motivation was sexual, or sadistic, or sexually sadistic, or because he couldn't be arsed to change the nappies, or because he lost his temper... What he did was so terrible, that whatever the motivation, he should have been sent to jail. He violently assaulted a tiny baby and nearly killed it. he failed to tell the doctors what he has done when the child was at deaths door. He should have received a custodial sentence.

I think the judge did it to cock a snook at SS. To make a point to them.

i still don't understand why the children were removed from their mother, That is really troubling me.

That makes it seem as though I am blaming the mother. I'm not. I'm saying that, a parent under strain creates a new dynamic within a family and that this may have led to the father failing to manage the situation and thereby failing himself, his wife and his child.

ISNT - I think it must have something to do with the "support" the mother is giving this bloke which the report talks about.

It sounds like a classic case of SW's taking children away from a home where they perceive that one parent is standing by unable to or refusing to protect her children from the other parent's abuse. That is the only reason I can see for it, but obviously it's difficult to tell from the info we have.

I was just thinking about what you were saying Dittany, that if there was semen or some other suspicious substance inside the baby/on the baby wipe, I would have thought with swabs and DNA and things that they would have been able to find it.

You are right that it's not possible to say one way or the other. All I am trying to say, is that even putting aside question-marks over his motivation, I would have thought that what he did was bad enough to warrant a custodial sentence.

Hmm that doesn;t read very well.

I mean I am sure they will have looked carefully for physical evidence of sexual abuse, and didn't find any. That doesn't mean that prior sexual abuse hadn;t occured, or that the baby wipe incident wasn't sexually motivated. Simply that they didn't have any hard physcial evidence definitive sexual abuse.

I am more inclined to believe that he acted out of anger. I have no reason for thinkin that either.

Whatever the reason that he did it, it was terrible violence, and he should have been punished with prison.