Judge says 13 year old girl seduced man online

[sethstarkaddersmackerel]

Daily Mail link

fgs. I thought you had to be intelligent to be a judge. Don't they at least give them basic training?

judge should be sacked.

redvelvetmooncupcake

UK Feminista: Partner & Feminist Organisations

Listed by region

redvelvet - UKfeminista has listings of local groups and a map. If there isn't one near you yet then either start one yourself or keep checking back, they are springing up all the time. Also if you can't find one and don't want to start one, post a message on the forum there, and on here, and if anyone is thinking about starting one they'll see your message and know there is a demand.

The judge is an equal opportunity "child as seducer" theorist. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3192883/Mother-was-seduced-by-14-year-old-boy-says-judge.html

The MoJ will prob not help much....separation of powers and all that....

Thanks for the links David and seth :)

Both the defendant and the judge have no place in society.

What can we do to stop this happening again?

I can't even begin to write what I think about the 5yo being raped - if I try to put it into coherent words my brain goes into revolt. How does that happen? Why can't the people who put this stuff up on the internet be caught and hung by their balls from lamposts? Or something equally unpleasant? I still have nightmares about the boy-rape descriptions in The Kite Runner.

I am horrified that there are still people who find it in themselves to somehow blame the child for encouraging paedophilia - that 13yo had probably been groomed already.

I still haven't got over the Texan gang rape of an 11yo - somehow it was "her fault" that those 18 boys/men are going to lose their reputations/go to jail. Bloody ridiculous scenario.

I agree his comments were vile BUT he has made a good sentencing decision:

He could (in line with other sentences) have either given him 6 months in prison (of which he would have served about 12 weeks) - this would have to be reduced by 1/3 because of his early guilty plea so effectively his punishment would be 8 weeks in prison.

Instead the judge gave him gave him 4 months in prison as part of a 2 year suspended sentence. This mean that the paedophile will be engaging with/on the radar of probation on a weekly basis (minimum) for 2 years. It also means if he offends at all he will most likely be sent immediately to prison - hopefully providing some sort of deterrant - which wouldn't have existed if he had been to prison - beyond his licence period which would be 8 weeks. He will have to complete 300 hours of community service. That is a lot of hours of your non-working time to spend doing unpaid , hopefully unpleasant work.

Don't get me wrong he is a revolting excuse for a man but under the bounds of our law the judge has probably given him the heftiest punishment possible.
I would also like to know why a thirteen year old girl was left unsupervised for hours and hours in order for this to happen. Her parents should be receiving punishment for utterly failing to protect her, poor child.

I agree Dittany, it's just as important to send amessage to other would be offenders as to punish this man. The 5 year old situation will stay with me forever now I've read it

I do think that these judegs are in cahoots with the offenders when it is a child sex crime... how else can it be explained??

it sickens me that people can do what they like to women and children and suffer no repercussions.

Having read the article, I don't believe the judge is describing the defendant as hard-working and highly though of - he is pointing out that it is difficult to reconcile this man's good reputation with the sex fiend he was behind closed doors. He also refers to his activities as 'perverted'.

His rationale for not giving him a prison sentence is as follows: "If I sent you to prison it would be for a matter of a few weeks only, hence, as I say, the puzzlement that many people would have about that. The weeks you wound spend in prison would do nothing to stop you doing this again. My concern is for the future - the protection of other children."

I don't agree with the reference to seduction, it's always inappropriate in this context, but I do understand why the judge decided to go for prevention of future damage instead of assigning him to a short stint in jail with a higher risk of reoffending. What's baffling is why this prevention program is not available to him when he's in jail: the judge shouldn't have to choose between punishment and prevention, he should be able to provide both as part of the sentence. Child porn is horrendous, there should be better options available to judges to deal with it.

Dittany - he was given a prison sentence. A suspended prison sentence is still a prison sentence. Should he re-offend again it will show he was sentenced to a four months in custody. I don't think it says anywhere that he showed the images to the thirteen year old. BTW please don't think I am defending him in any way whatseover but just trying to make sure the facts are correct.

YY Ciske - I completely agree about the sentencing options.

Sadly, I think prison alone all too often does not prove to be much of a deterrent. Recidivism rates are very high, including among sex offenders.

I suspect the reason for that is a prison sentence is usually not accompanied by some sort of rehab work to tackle the causes of the offending.

There should be both, but typically, the resources aren't allocated.

Dittany - stop googling sentencing guidelines and read the article again. He downloaded pornography. He incited the girl to sexual activity (both horrendous crimes) It doesn't say he showed her pornography.

I was telling you he was given a prison sentence. I didn't say he was sent to prison.
I am also able to read and trying to point out that you haven't read the article properly.
Your factual inaccuracy, lack of understanding of the law and use of emotive words like paedophile pervert scum undermine your arguments. That's my point.

Gosh Dittany, you can be very rude....Marys entitled to have her say too. And FWIW I don't think she was slagging you off.

That's your real problem here isn't it? People actually getting angry with men who do things like this.

What a ridiculous thing to say!