*TW* Pedophile found guilty of raping 5 year old given a SUSPENDED SENTENCE

[SebastianTheCrab]

How? How??

If anyone knows how I can donate to the mum's bid to challenge his sentence in the High Court please tell me.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8843789/Mother-devastated-paedophile-walked-free-court-raping-five-year-old-daughter.html

Rape is permitted now, here, isn’t it. Even of small girls. The justice system doesn't think it's as big a deal as women stealing food or not paying their council tax.

He may have diminished capacity but shoddy journalism means we dont know

more likely reporting Restrictions

If reporting restrictions were so stringent I wouldn't expect his photo and address to have been published

And yet they apparently have

@Puzzledandpissedoff

If reporting restrictions were so stringent I wouldn't expect his photo and address to have been published

And yet they apparently have

I haven't seen his address published in any of the reports (I'm not counting social media posts here, where it has been).

Given the lack of information being published and the sentence passed I would bet a good amount of money that there is a lot more going on which we don't know about.

we don't know the specific details of this case, so it's very hard to comment

If only …

It was the SM post I was thinking of, Lockhart, but I do take your point about the address not being in mainstream reports

I also agree there's a lot we can't know, but still don't understand why he's not at least in a secure unit

@Puzzledandpissedoff

It was the SM post I was thinking of, Lockhart, but I do take your point about the address not being in mainstream reports

I also agree there's a lot we can't know, but still don't understand why he's not at least in a secure unit

Nor I, but this is why I would guess there are things going on behind the scenes.

The Secret Barrister often does a great job of breaking down why the sentences passed are as they are in these stories (which are almost always sensationalist and from tabloids), although I guess this case is probably something they can't cover at the moment.

I would be interested to know the reasoning behind it as I agree the sentence is baffling.

Where can I find the social media post? I've searched Facebook and Insta, nothing.

I haven't seen his address published in any of the reports (I'm not counting social media posts here, where it has been)

It’s in one of the online newspaper Reports. (don’t do Twitter / whatever sO don’t know about what social media is saying). Not mentioning name of paper as don’t want to incite an unnecessary Direct interventions

The general rule is that reporting restrictions expire when the young person attains the age of 18 as he/she is no longer a child in the proceedings and does not come within the child protection remit of the CYPA 1933 whether under section 39:R v CCC ex p W, B and C [2001] 1 Cr. App R (2)or section 49:T v DPP and North East Press 2003 EWHC 2408 Admin. The purpose underlying these sections is not to protect the interest of young people who have become adults. The Section 45 reporting restriction ceases to apply when the young person reaches the age of 18. In these circumstances, the court now has the power to impose life-long anonymity under Section 45A YJCEA if the relevant conditions are met. See section on lifelong immunity below.
I really don't understand this at all. It would make more sense if his name was withheld. As it stands it's the judge and his ruling that seem to be under restriction.

As it stands the sentence can only be challenged on partial knowledge. For me a suspended prison sentence would have made more sense if prison would have been inhumane, that way he could be immediately recalled. As it stands if he repeats the offence it years going to court again.

I don’t get it, even if he doesn’t have full mental capacity, what’s the justification for removing him for the SOR after 5 years? Do they think he will magically not be a threat in 5 years, and not want to rape little girls?

Someone upthtead mentioned the possibility of chemical castration as a possible reason for such a pathetic sentence.

I mean, I’m all for it for all rapists, but we all know that a mans desire to stick it into any and everything he feels like is more important than protecting women and little girls, so I highly doubt that’s true

Thank you wellbehavedwomen, I've used your template as the basis for my email to the attorney general, and I've set up a monthly direct debit to the Centre for Women's Justice.

Email sent, so disgusted for this poor child.

I haven't seen his address published in any of the reports (I'm not counting social media posts here, where it has been)

Our local paper, the Kidderminster Shuttle named the street he lives on. Well, lived ‘cos he has been hounded out of his home now apparently.

www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/18796612.mums-fury-kidderminster-child-rapist-gets-community-service-not-jail/?fbclid=IwAR3UFpJ9gmPPn2_xeReCDLCSiK6Hdqoxtm7PeN9V82hz3S7yVL-JHfz-Rdw

@Kantastic thank you for responding. but the question of the best way to prevent offences is very much directly related to this thread. Mob screaming for violence won't end violence.

The majority of the responders, rightly, call for massive protest about inadequate methods of dealing with violence including sexually motivated assault.
But, when it is perfectly obvious that the current way is useless, that it always was, and always will be, then calling for more of exactly the same seems to be an own goal, a missed opportunity. The thoughtful voice of women is excluded from legislation. Uncritically demanding lots more of the wrong thing is the wrong thing.
The cost of putting men or women into prison is huge. Other methods which are effective in preventing re-offending are cheaper.

I do N.O.T suggest the way to deal with violent offenders is to tell them they are naughty, and let them walk the streets.

Chemical castration is a term which distresses (male) legislators. Therefore, Hormone Re-balancing would be better use of the same or less taxpayer resources. It would almost certainly need to be combined with supportive, careful supervision, including frequent medical checks for hormone levels and, importantly, for Brain Activity Monitoring. An interesting mention in the radio 4 programme I referred to was that probation officers and prison officials could identify which prisoners would be back, with about 25% (?) accuracy. A team of researchers monitoring brain activity had about 89% (?) correct prediction.

This is yet another example of pretending Queen Victoria still lives. There are new, improved, unrecognisable ways to do things. No quill pens are needed any more. Hanging flogging and locking up never did much good. Even in Q.E's day, they had different places for debtors, mentally ill, frail, poor and hopeless people, but now, most alternatives are closed down, and we, society, just sit back to wait for repeat offenders to finally get put in prison, then let out to do exactly the same.

The Worcester element is interesting.

I employed a carpenter on the recommendation of a friend, who uses him a lot. He did a good job.

I later discovered that he is on the sex offenders' register on the instruction of Worcester Crown Court. He got a community order and 5 years on the register - looking at the court reports I was staggered at the leniency.

I dont understand why even if prison is not deemed appropriate why is he only on the sex offender's register for 5 years??

Why aren't people being better safeguarded? He needs safeguarding and being kept permanently away from children if he has significant additonal needs. And all children should be kept far away from him forever.

Why set it up so that he can reoffend?

@Billben you know what I really appreciate about that article? It ends by talking about the little girl and how brave she is and how she wants to donate the money from the sentence to the poor. Somehow it feels very powerful to centre her as a person.

@Mischance you raise an excellent example. The man you employed is a good carpenter, so he is better doing something useful in the world, not sitting in prison.
He is also on the sex offender's register. If absolutely nothing at all has been done to reduce the risk he poses to the public, then he should never leave prison for the rest of his life.
So, life sentences for all? Or, long sentences on the rare occasions they are caught, making them unemployable, idle, disconnected from society, aggrieved, and with nothing to do but plan the next offence?
Treatment and support to remove the urge to offend is not new, and has been practiced in other countries with success.
What do we, women, want most? Effective, measurable, brain activity and hormone monitoring, and treatment, and re-inclusion within the community, with reduction in offences? Or Victorian men's ideas, with a guarantee of more offences against us and our children?

he has been hounded out of his home now apparently

Unfortunately that was to be expected; I'm not suggesting it's right, but there's simply no way many would tolerate the risk of this individual continuing to live among them

A lesson, perhaps, in the importance of justice being seen to be done

20mum I dont think its a case of either/or.

Safeguarding & prevention, justice, and rehabilitation are all possible but in that order. Rehabilitate by all means but offenders shouldn''t have the right to access victims.
Victims should have the right to reparation and justice.

Well, exactly this is what was to be expected, he is driven from a place where some probation officer or social worker or mental health worker knows who he is and where he is. Either he will go off radar, which is good because......?

Or, he will use costly and scarce public resources, not to change his interest in offending, but merely to save him from the mob. He will be given, presumably, a scarce council flat in some different part of the country, as well as help to disguise himself (masks will help) and a new name. That, he is entitled to, because lynch mobs are the wrong way to sort the problem.
And having him live under disguise and a new identity while free to roam the new community is good, because..........?

Or, having him put in prison, then sent out to roam, totally unchanged in his inclinations, is a good thing, because.........?

Having him in a Reform centre would make a lot of sense. There should be some for substance abusers, some for alcoholics, some for people too mentally or emotionally variant to avoid offending. The latter group would include this man and other violent offenders, the prime clients for Hormone Re-balance, combined with whatever therapy and treatment is proved to work best in other countries, which have bothered to try logical methods.

@Thelnebriati thank you, your post is a good summation.
The only thing is, stopping predators wishing even to seek prey makes a lot of sense. Occasionally caging them doesn't. Not if they are then let out with even more determination to offend, and certainly with many new ideas and knowledge, from fellow offenders, on how to do it more effectively, and with less chance of being caught.
There's no safeguarding, the moment the cage opens. There's no prevention. Justice is a thing rarely achieved in any field of law, or life, though of course it would be nice. Rehabilitation, which you understandably put last, is the only useful thing to aim for.

I agree that, under the present system, putting offenders in cages is the only way to stop them having access to victims among the general public. But it won't stop them attacking others in prison. (Notably, those rapists who, in full possession of penis, demand to go into a women's prison !) Plus, caging people with others who are more experienced, hardened, and can pass on helpful tips to fellow offenders, must be counterproductive.

@Handsoffisback

lockheart I haven’t read it in a newspaper, but it wasn’t a historic offence.

Can I ask how you know that? I cannot find anything which confirms this.

P.S. I wish physically injured people could have the word Rehabilitation left for them. Reform Centre is to reform junkies or offenders. The word rehabilitation is needed for a place where physiotherapists and others help people who are certainly not junkies or offenders.

Women have been at risk of having the word Woman taken from them. Disabled people have little enough. It's wrong to take away even the little they have.
That, word stealing, was my only quarrel with the man who wants to close all prisons. (I think he has a book on it, which would be interesting to read, but I don't know how to search Radio 4 and find the reference)