2 - 2.5 years jail for child grooming
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Stuk  Top half 19 Apr 18 8.03pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Yes, let's pretend they are White in the interest of race relations. Why? You know what race they are. It's still not the point. The point is the sentences seem both short and bizarre. How will they police a Snapchat ban and what will stop them from using other social media? Particularly as Snapchat is already on the wane it would seem.
Optimistic as ever |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| simonmdt x 19 Apr 18 9.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
I'm sure the judge is fully aware but the public aren't, which was kind of my point. It immediately undermines the perspective of the sentence being just. In which case 'the public' need to educate themselves. And I don't mean that facetiously. If people can't be both to understand how their county works then they're idiots and Brexit voters. Ignorance is never an excuse As for what you think are lenient sentences, I would ask that you look at what they were actually charged with, look at their ages, look at the ages of the victims. Grooming is such an emotive word and as such irrelevant in the eyes of the law. Gromming is a media catchphrase and not a criminal offense. I'll give you a real life example of how the law works. A 15yr old sends a picture of his cock to his 15yr old girlfriend (why I don't know, or frankly care) So, what was the crime he was charged with when her parents found it on her phone? The taking and sharing of child p***.graphy. As a result he is now a registered child offender. The law is a blunt instrument, devoid of emotion. And it should be viewed as such
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| topcat Holmesdale / Surbiton 20 Apr 18 11.00am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by simonmdt
The judge will be fully aware that serving half of a sentence is only possible with good behaviour, if they act otherwise, additional months are added, up to the final sentence. What people tend not to appreciate is that serving half the time given by a judge is your actual sentence, the second half is there to allow bad behaviour inside to be punished without the need of being charged for something new. No prison can function without the cooperation of the inmates and this is regarded as the best way to keep them in check and onside. I think it used to be the other way around, that prisoners would have time added to their sentence for bad behaviour but this was open to abuse by prison officers. Much better to have a big incentive to make the prisoners behave.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 20 Apr 18 2.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by simonmdt
In which case 'the public' need to educate themselves. And I don't mean that facetiously. If people can't be both to understand how their county works then they're idiots and Brexit voters. Ignorance is never an excuse As for what you think are lenient sentences, I would ask that you look at what they were actually charged with, look at their ages, look at the ages of the victims. Grooming is such an emotive word and as such irrelevant in the eyes of the law. Gromming is a media catchphrase and not a criminal offense. I'll give you a real life example of how the law works. A 15yr old sends a picture of his cock to his 15yr old girlfriend (why I don't know, or frankly care) So, what was the crime he was charged with when her parents found it on her phone? The taking and sharing of child p***.graphy. As a result he is now a registered child offender. The law is a blunt instrument, devoid of emotion. And it should be viewed as such
Most people don't go anywhere near a court in their life. It's odd enough that we are expected to know all laws, without ever getting any education on them, never mind to expect the public to also know how each type of court and their sentences work. What on earth you've brought Brexit in to for I don't know. As for what they were actually charged for it's Adam Johnson x about 10 more offences. Forget their ages, they were and are all adults and the victims were all children. I'd also look at the line the judge used where "He added: "Some sexual activity was extreme. It fell short of rape. There were acts of degradation." The cases where there are young consenting couples of the same age are daft.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.