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

He was a child who acted inappropriately and deserves to be punished for what he did.

He was 17.

You say he deserves to be punished, Blistory.

What punishment do you think he deserves?

I'm from Scotland and have a 4 year old DD. Feel fearful of the society she is growing up in.

And she was six.

I don't know what punishment he deserves but I do believe the aim of the justice system should be to punish and then rehabilitate. I don't think we should punish people based on assumptions about future behaviour.

An appropriate punishment can only be known to those who have the facts of the case. In this case, the judge of first instance has heard the evidence, observed the witnesses, read pre sentencing reports and considered the gravity of the crime, the impact on the victim, the impact on the accused and considered the risk to the public. He then has sentencing options within fairly restrictive guidelines and established caselaw.

My initial point was that the Sheriff appears to have taken the view that whilst a guilty verdict was necessary in the interests of justice, the sentencing outcomes tilted the balance too far against the interests of the accused. It reads to me as if he considered that the least harm was to put possible, and what he appears to have considered likely, rehabilitation above punishment, but only in the context of this particular case and having considered the circumstances.

If our justices are going to err on the side of caution because they think sentencing guidelines are overly harsh, shouldn't we consider that it's time to reflect on those guidelines, particularly the mandatory aspect of them ? And from there, I wondered whether the SRO was perhaps too blunt a tool to be used in all instances of sexual assault particularly if it resulted in absolute discharges instead of a more moderate punishment. Which led me to considering how we view sexual assault in the first place.

He didn't wangle his way out of it. He was a child who acted inappropriately and deserves to be punished for what he did.
Yes he did and he should be on the Sex Offenders Register.
Acting inappropriately as a 15-17 year old is behaving like a child not spending two years wilfully molesting one. He sexually molested a 6-8 year old for 2 years and like countless other males before him he has wangled his way out of any justice.

I don't know what punishment he deserves but I do believe the aim of the justice system should be to punish and then rehabilitate.

This young man has been neither punished nor rehabilitated. Its not exactly a state secret that paedophilic behaviours are at the high end of the recidivism range.

The superior environment referred to is a family where the parents were apparently in denial and lied about getting him therapy.

Its also inappropriate to make assumptions about the victims recovery at such an early stage. Unless of course they are of secondary importance.

I'm still amazed that persistent abuse of a child over a period of two years is considered a "minor" offence not needing a jury trial.

He did try to wangle his way out of it.

He pleaded not guilty. His lawyers cross-examined the child in court for two hours.

That is wangling.

My point is that it's not that punishment wasn't deserved but that an appropriate punishment doesn't appear to have been available to the Sheriff.

The SRO isn't meant to be a punishment in itself. It's meant as a protection for society against sexual predators who would repeatedly offend. But it isn't risk based, it's based on offence, regardless of the seriousness of the offence, the risk of reoffending, the individual circumstances of a case etc. It doesn't recognise that not only are there levels of sexual assault but that there are different categories of offender. It appears that the Sheriff has taken the view that this was not a case of sexual attraction to children in general, that it was situational rather than planned, and that the risk of reoffending was low.

We do t know that though do we? Because none of that has been made public

He should be on the register. There is absolutely no reason at all for him not to be. Situational abuse is not lesser - men will Almost always be in a situation where children are available. That’s why most abuse takes place in that kind of setting.

This case has had no transparency, no sense of justice being seen to be done, no justice for the victim, no removal of the offender from the public sphere, no repercussions for the offender and no sense of future public safety.

It’s a mess.

We do t know that though do we? Because none of that has been made public

The sentencing statement does make some of the information available and it was published online on Wednesday.

And for situational, yes it appears that the Sheriff did consider him a situational offender. Situtation offenders are considered to be at much less risk of offending. It doesn't mean that the actual offense is lesser.

"But it isn't risk based, it's based on offence,"
Clearly it isn't
Glad he's a situational offender, let's just keep our fingers crossed he's never in the situation where he's with someone he could feel curiius and immature enough to abuse again. Say, them lying sedated on a chair and him in control.

He didn't wangle his way out of it. He was a child who acted inappropriately and deserves to be punished for what he did.

Completely minimising it again. And yes he did wangle his way out of it.

He should be on the register. There is absolutely no reason at all for him not to be. Situational abuse is not lesser - men will Almost always be in a situation where children are available. That’s why most abuse takes place in that kind of setting.

This case has had no transparency, no sense of justice being seen to be done, no justice for the victim, no removal of the offender from the public sphere, no repercussions for the offender and no sense of future public safety.

This this this.

The problem is that when this happens again in another family, that family may very well decide not to report the offender to the police. Because they know that in the Christopher Daniel case, a young girl went through all the difficulties of reporting to police and having to give evidence in court and the guilty man got a complete discharge in the end anyway. They will not want their child to go through all that for what is effectively nothing at the end of it.

And the offenders who are going around molesting young children will continue offending. And escalate in their offending.

There are very dangerous real-life consequences to this discharge.

I said on another thread and will repeat it here.

"You can just see inch by inch how certain groups of individuals are trying to change society, whether by changing laws, infiltrating schools, or hiding behind charities."

I agree, justasking. I find it very concerning.

They will not want their child to go through all that for what is effectively nothing at the end of it.

Exactly the reason why a large proportion of women who are raped choose not to report it.

The rights of women and children not to be abused by men, and to be regarded as less important and valuable than men, is being downgraded at alarming speed.

I think the wording of the petition is so strong people are reluctant to sign. Sex offenders register yes. Prison, maybe not so much.

www.change.org/p/the-government-imprison-christopher-daniel-and-place-him-on-the-sex-offenders-registry?recruiter=499857131&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial.pacific_post_sap_share_gmail_abi.gmail_abi&utm_content=okt_psf_tw_clinks%3Aclink

Petition signed.

What crimes do you think are worthy of prison

Situation offenders are considered to be at much less risk of offending. It doesn't mean that the actual offense is lesser.

I’d be interested to see the research that shows that. And how they’ve controlled for the fact that most sexual assault and abuse IS situational - the ‘dragged off by a stranger’ crimes are a minority. Most rape is committed by men known to the victim. Most sexual abuse is committed by people known to the victim - family members, people with access.

I’d also like to know how the researchers in the work you will cite differentiate between situational (family) and situational such as, say, a gymnastics coach or doctor who has spent years getting into the role so that they have access to children.

I would also ask you - if Christopher Daniel pitched up at your surgery, was assigned as your dentist and your six year old daughter needed dental work done under sedation, would you allow that unsupervised?

Child sexual abuse is unforgivable. It’s unforgjveable if it’s ‘curiosity.’ Its unforgivable if it’s a one off, it’s unforgivable if the offender is a middle class boy with a bright future ahead of him. There are too many apologists for child sexual abuse. And too many people working to remove hard won safeguards

Signed.
I hate the speed with which society is moving to remove hard won rights for women and children.

StealthPolarBear Fri 01-Feb-19 13:12:02
What crimes do you think are worthy of prison

If this question is directed at me personally stealth I would hang him up by his balls for a while, then hang draw and quarter him a la Braveheart style. I am just saying more liberal folk might baulk at imprisonment.