Guilty of sexual assault of a 6 year old girl - but no consequences

[feministfairy]

Do the rights and safety of little girls in Scotland matter so little to the judiciary? This defies belief:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/student-guilty-of-sex-assault-on-girl-6-will-not-be-punished-rpzdx6bmv?shareToken=a5f3f8d4d214df63fa3b4d0f4323ea4c

So - he evades the sex offenders register and is able to continue in preparing for a profession for which an advanced DBS is required. He will have children and women in his dentist's chair and be able to anesthetise.

I am a school governor. I am never alone with children yet must have an advanced DBS.

It wont have been a jury trial. The prosecutor in non jury trials is the procurator fiscal, in jury ones (even in the sheriff court) it’s her majesty’s advocate. This one was the procurator fiscal.

The Sheriff makes clear his decision was partly based on:

"the complainer’s family held no ill will against the accused’s family. [...] Their main focus appeared to be a wish to have the accused admit his culpability and address his behaviour.

That doesn't exactly marry up with this part of the Sheriff's statement:

he initially denied, but later admitted, his actions. The complainer’s parents agreed not to contact the police at that time understanding that the accused was to obtain professional help, to which he was agreeable. However, subsequently believing that he was backtracking on, and changing the nature of, his admissions they decided to contact the police.

Nor with the fact that Daniel must have pleaded Not Guilty (given he was found guilty after a three-day trial). Daniel's Not Guilty plead also meant the child was put through the additional questioning by the court.

Not much admission of culpability and wish to address his behaviour there.

No decision on the guilt or sentencing of a sex offender (with consequences thereafter for others, i.e. because of the offender not being placed on the sex offenders register) should be affected by the lenient views of the family of the victim. That's not their call.

So middle class wankers, sticking together, minimising and and brushing sexual assault under the carpet. Nice. I cannot believe this is still the state of play in the 21st century.

Blistory, I don't think the Sheriff's statement supports your suggestion that he was reluctantly forced to the absolute discharge by the lack of middle ground sentencing.

It says this:
the Sheriff reached the conclusion that justice could be served in this case by taking the wholly exceptional decision not to pass sentence and to grant an absolute discharge.

If he were unhappy with the lack of middle ground, he could have expatiated on this.

What bollocks. I’ve signed the petition.

I see it was PF (Procurator Fiscal) v Daniel rather than HMA (Her Majesty's Advocate) so won't have been a jury trial.

My understanding is that many, many criminal trials are non-jury. Describing it as "less serious" is less serious compared to rape, murder, violent assault.

The Sheriff appears to have reached that conclusion because any sentencing at all would have required an entry on the SOR. I think the minimum term would have been 3.5 years depending on the length of sentence.

I think if there had been an option to avoid the SOR, the Sheriff may have been more willing to sentence differently given that he had found him guilty.

Oh and very few people dislike Sturgeon more than I do but she is right. She can't interfere with the judiciary.

Oh and very few people dislike Sturgeon more than I do but she is right. She can't interfere with the judiciary.

Well quite. Imagine how THAT would look in the light of a certain upcoming high profile trial!

www.gdc-uk.org/api/files/Student%20professionalism%20and%20fitness%20to%20practise%20Full%20guidance%20for%20students.pdf

P8, point 10- fitness to practice- appropriate behaviour. HTF does a guilty verdict fit in with this?

I understand ethics are a strong part of medical training. His "curiosity" and does not fit with what he must know about acceptable behaviour.

1. His parents have proven themselves untrustworthy by not following through on counselling as initially (and I'll advisedly agreed). This case absolutely stinks.

The additional (horrible) details make it very clear to me that this is deliberate assault, not even disguised. He also created circumstances to be alone with the girl, and tempt her there to the computer. Grooming and paedophilia. Plain as day.

Why on earth would the sheriff be trying to avoid the SOR blistory? Unless he is misogynist paedophile apologist.

The SOR was made for men like Christopher Daniel. He is exactly the sort of man you don't want as your dentist and he should never be able to become one.

Should be SOR as a minimum. Certainly needs to be attending mandatory sex offender courses. He has equivocated about his guilt. Not a good sign. Getting off scot-free simply reinforces his thinking that he isn't really guilty of anything.

The girl will be affected. Its impossible for this not to. I just hope that she has the help she needs to stop it ruining her life.

If NS can't do anything surely there are still grounds for an appeal for being too lenient. WTF is the point of a justice system if one man can decide to take no action against a guilty criminal and there is nothing that anyone can do about it.

What he did was wrong - of course it was - and he deserves to be punished.

The Sheriff doesn't however appear to think the boy - and he was and is a boy - was a paedophile which is significant. He has found him guilty of a sexual assault on a child which is also significant. The boy didn't seek out victims to abuse, he didn't escalate his behaviour, he doesn't appear to be a threat to others. Neither family seemed to consider it to be something that couldn't be dealt with by counselling and parental support. Those factors appear to have influenced the Sheriff. He's not known for being a maverick Sheriff and has had no difficulty in passing sentence against others for domestic violence and assault so I doubt His Lordship suddenly took leave of his senses.

The fact that the Crown Office dropped their appeal also suggests that they found the Sheriff's decision to be supported by case law and sentencing guidelines. There is a sliding scale of assault which is reflective when it of how we pass punishment and how we consider rehabilitation. If we don't like it, we should petition to change that instead of the mass knee jerk reaction that is happening right now online.

Don't get me wrong, the only victim in this is the young girl but I have no doubt that this boy is being punished. He has been accused of rape and being a paedophile, he's been named and shamed online, he's had death threats and his name will be searchable long after social media has moved on.

Sometimes, as a society, the right thing to do is to help the bad guys turn into good guys. It doesn't diminish that little girl in anyway if our justice system finds a different way to ensure that the boy who did this never causes that kind of harm again.

The SOR is a blunt tool and it's perhaps time that we reconsidered the mandatory nature of it. On another level, perhaps it's also time to rethink the mantra of sex offenders as monsters. Because they're not and by believing in the bogeyman, we allow seemingly nice, normal men to hide in the open. By treating victims of sexual assault as being scarred beyond belief and traumatised for life, is, in my opinion, sexist and stems from the view of women as fragile, as possessions, as being no longer 'pure'.

You make a lot of fair points Blistory but

It doesn't diminish that little girl in anyway if our justice system finds a different way to ensure that the boy who did this never causes that kind of harm again

Nothing’s happened to this boy. He’s received an absolute discharge. Effectively let off completely despite a conviction. The girl’s parents weren’t baying for blood and only reported it when it seemed the boy’s family wasn’t taking it seriously.

The irony is it will probably affect him more now than if he’d just been put on the SOR and found a different career. It probably would have barely been reported then and forgotten about quickly.

Sorry if anyone did this to a 6 year old girl in my family. I would have gone straight to the police, what were the parents thinking trusting the other family to deal with it. They were so naive.

By treating victims of sexual assault as being scarred beyond belief and traumatised for life,

But many sexual assault victims are traumatised. And it often has long reaching consequences years after the fact. As a survivor, I've experienced panic attacks in the last year stemming from rape 18 years ago. It's impossible to say what the effect on this little girl will be. This young man used her for whatever selfish reasons he had. "Curiosity"? For two years? Bullshit.

You obviously have a lot more faith in the legal system and judiciary than I do, and I can't say I understand why.

It doesn't diminish that little girl in anyway if our justice system finds a different way to ensure that the boy who did this never causes that kind of harm again

I do disagree with this. We do away with blood feuds and we devolve our justice to the state. In return we expect a few things:

1. Removal of the offender as needed from society. This prevents further harm and provides a visible removal of the offender
2. Rehabilitation if possible/suitable - if not, back to point 1.
3. Retribution - some form of sanction on the offender. This satisfies the social need for revenge.

The man here has not been subjected to any of these measures. He’s had, as the article says, no therapy or counselling. He’s had no sanction, and he hasn’t been removed from society.

When society sees justice fail like this otvis damaging. And the damage to the victim is incalculable

Disgusting

I am truly sorry that any women or girl experiences sexual assault in any form. It shouldn't happen. Ever.

But we have to be realistic that not all sexual assault is on the same level and affects the victim in the same way. This, in my opinion, was at the lower level yet we're telling this girl that she's a victim, that she'll be traumatised for life. Why are we doing that ? Why aren't we as a society, picking her up, supporting her and teaching her resilience ?

We jump to these conclusions and rarely give a thought to how or why we think the way we do about our reactions to rape and assault. We rarely examine our own thinking in the age of posting every instantaneous reaction on Twitter. I don't think that every man who rapes a woman is a monster. I don't think that every women who is raped is traumatised. Some women are and some women aren't and each reaction is valid and legitimate.

But it keeps women in their place if we're brought up to fear rape as the worst thing that could happen to a women. It stops us convicting men of rape because nice men don't do that when in fact, the vast majority of rapes are by the nice men. Not all men are like that ? Bollox, that's a platitude when the reality is a significant number of men are but we don't report them because we think that rape needs to be really, really bad and is only carried out by monsters. A significant number of men ARE like that. Society needs to learn that rape isn't henious because of the traumatic effect it has on a 'decent woman' rape is henious because it's a tool that both nice men and monsters use to keep women in their place. Rape is henious because it evidences that men's right to climax is more important than a woman's right to control her body - not because rape is automatically an evil crime or the worst crime ever.

The boy didn't seek out victims to abuse, he didn't escalate his behaviour, he doesn't appear to be a threat to others

How does anyone know this? No one can know this.

What expert opinions did the sheriff seek to help him form his opinion that the young man is neither a paedophile nor a risk? The families are highly unlikely to the expertise necessary.

The SOR seems perfectly suitable here. It will stop a man who was guilty of sexually touching the intimate genitalia of prepubescent child (surely by any definition that is an act of paedophile - I don't think 15 year old boys are routinely going around doing this even when they may be being sexually coercive to older girls), from taking jobs where he can work with, be alone with, vulnerable people.

He can do other jobs. If the Sheriff thinks so highly of him, he can recommend him to all his friends and family so he can get a job where he will be less of a risk to children and have less opportunities to groom children.

Being on the SOR does not preclude other forms of rehabilitation, nor would it be for life.

I know perfectly well that paedophiles and abusive men are not caricatures or easy to spot. It is precisely because he can now just go and be another man or a paedophile hiding in plain sight that he needs to be on the register.

By treating victims of sexual assault as being scarred beyond belief and traumatised for life, is, in my opinion, sexist and stems from the view of women as fragile, as possessions, as being no longer 'pure'.

Blistory That is one of the most misogynist, minimising statements I have ever read.

Having one's body and boundaries violated, whether or not you realise it fully at the time is serious and has many and varied repercussions. There is no right or wrong way to react to it. Experiencing trauma or being tramatised has nothing to do with being fragile and everything to do with the pernicious and insidious nature and effects of sexual abuse. Even if this girl manages to come out of this experience feeling mentally strong and well (and I hope she does) then it will be in spite of what he did to her, and after her emotional hard work, and it is no reason not to punish and sanction the people/ men who abuse.

Knee jerk, reaction. Piss off.

By treating victims of sexual assault as being scarred beyond belief and traumatised for life, is, in my opinion, sexist and stems from the view of women as fragile, as possessions, as being no longer 'pure'.

I think if this thread had been on another board on MN, most people would be up in arms, regardless of the sex of the child.

Please don't tell me to piss off.

@girlofgold
Re- the GDC as he isn’t yet a registrant they have no power until he applies the the register on qualifying. Then they could refuse him.
When I was at dental school we had to abide by the GDC guidelines and rules, but this was enforced by the university/dental hospital.
As 18yr olds professionalism was drilled into us (and throughout the course). Our conduct outside of the classroom/clinic could and would be taken into account.

I would hope his university are doing this. As where I studied I am sure he would not have been able to continue.
Even if not for his crimes, but for bringing the profession into disrupte.