Sentencing in sex abuse crimes

97i9y3941

Serious question,i always notice in the sex abuse cases that appear before the courts,that the perpetrator gets a mild slap on the wrist for destroying someone elses life,even if the abuse has been going on for years the abuser would get a very light sentence,i suspect do to our over crowding jails we cant lock them all up and throw away the keys,every so often even you would hear the rape crisis center damming an sentence,so why hasn't nothing changed,why is all on deaf ears,what sort of message do we send out to people?.

Denerick

I'm not even going to go near this can of worms. I would suggest that most of the hysteria about this is tabloid driven. Is there any evidence that sexual crimes have radically increased over the last 20 years? When you see 7 or 8 year old girls holding up signs saying 'death penalty for pedos', you know the world is motivated more by sensationalist headlines in the Sun than what actually happens on the ground in terms of sentances and convictions.

liah

Denerick wrote: »

I'm not even going to go near this can of worms. I would suggest that most of the hysteria about this is tabloid driven. Is there any evidence that sexual crimes have radically increased over the last 20 years? When you see 7 or 8 year old girls holding up signs saying 'death penalty for pedos', you know the world is motivated more by sensationalist headlines in the Sun than what actually happens on the ground in terms of sentances and convictions.

The crimes are unlikely to have increased. In fact, they've probably fallen, overall.

The reporting has increased massively, though, and TV shows like How to Catch a Predator are making people paranoid. I'd wager the massive increase is also due to a lot of false reports, as sick as it is to think about.

seenitall

Huh??

OP posing one (interesting and relevant) question, about the appalling lightness of sentences passed on convicted sexual abusers, other posters proceeding to answer another (presumably self-posed) question altogether, about hysteria, paranoia and false reporting of sexual crimes. Related but distinctly separate issue.

Denerick

seenitall wrote: »

Huh??

OP posing one (interesting and relevant) question, about the appalling lightness of sentences passed on convicted sexual abusers, other posters proceeding to answer another (presumably self-posed) question altogether, about hysteria, paranoia and false reporting of sexual crimes. Related but distinctly separate issue.

What would you rather do with them? People weren't asking these questions 20 years ago because they weren't fed a 24 hours news cycle based on rousing the masses. How better to do that than scream 'PEDO' on the front headline? I think its a national hysteria thats gotten out of hand.

seenitall

Crossed wires again.

How are paranoid media and national hysteria and which hunt on peados and whatnot, to blame for judges passing ridiculously light sentences for this type of crimes, on people that have been proven to be guilty of them in a court of law??

Denerick

seenitall wrote: »

Crossed wires again.

How are paranoid media and national hysteria and which hunt on peados and whatnot, to blame for judges passing ridiculously light sentences for this type of crimes, on people that have been proven to be guilty of them in a court of law??

What is a ridiculously light sentance and how has this changed from 20 years ago?

The Corinthian

seenitall wrote: »

How are paranoid media and national hysteria and which hunt on peados and whatnot, to blame for judges passing ridiculously light sentences for this type of crimes, on people that have been proven to be guilty of them in a court of law??

They are to blame for highlighting light sentences in child sexual abuse cases, while not doing the same for the rest of the criminal system.

For example, that good behavior will get a sentence reduced by a third is not something limited to child sexual abuse cases. Neither is the reduction of sentences due to health reasons (a common occurrence in child sexual abuse cases due to the age of many of the defendants). Or that time served prior to trial or sentencing counts.

In this the "paranoid media and national hysteria and which hunt on peados" are to blame in that they focus on something that is in reality true of our entire criminal system.

seenitall

Denerick wrote: »

What is a ridiculously light sentance and how has this changed from 20 years ago?

A person in Galway just recently got one year inside for sexually abusing his granddaughter for three years (she was 9 to 12 years old).

He got one year inside for commiting untold damage to someone's psyche and life, and changing the course of it forever. One. Year.

I don't care if this kind of sentencing hasn't changed in 20 or 2000 years, it does not belong in a civilised society and is little more than a veiled insult to the victim and those who will forevermore be indirectly affected by his crimes. Not even mentioning the message that is being sent to the potential similar sex offenders out there.

The Corinthian, I see your point. I just still think it is not particularly on-topic of the OP.

The Corinthian

seenitall wrote: »

The Corinthian, I see your point. I just still think it is not particularly on-topic of the OP.

Fair enough. However, if you are suggesting a review of how we deal with child sexual abuse cases, then it would be more than prudent to also reform related areas of the law first.

Pace2008

Denerick wrote: »

What is a ridiculously light sentance and how has this changed from 20 years ago?

Read the thread again from the top. You're arguing with phantoms. The OP did not claim that sex crimes were on the rise, nor did he use the sentences handed out to criminals, say, 20 years ago as a metric to compare against punitive measures handed out today -- you were the first to mention anything like that. I suppose you could argue that there's a spotlight bias in the media in that they're only covering the cases where the perpetrator receives a seemingly light sentence, and it may not represent the reality of what’s happening in the courts.

The Corinthian wrote: »

They are to blame for highlighting light sentences in child sexual abuse cases, while not doing the same for the rest of the criminal system.

Really? I try to avoid the red-tops for the most part these days, but from what I see this kind of misreporting isn’t reserved to sex crimes. A quick scan of the Daily Mail and Sun websites shows a similar attitude towards offences of a non-sexual nature:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1272874/Convicted-burglar-accused-assault-released-bail--look-dog.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1271039/Soldier-freed-jail-brutal-attack--rejoin-Afghanistan-regiment.html
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/2934614/Aunt-asks-Wheres-the-justice-for-Arlene-Gerchie.html

miec

I don't know enough about the sentencing overall, but I was pleased to read in one of the side columns in the Evening Herald last week that a father got seven years for sexually molesting his daughter. I know it is not a huge amount of time but to my mind it is a lot better than in the past.

The Corinthian

Pace2008 wrote: »

Really? I try to avoid the red-tops for the most part these days, but from what I see this kind of misreporting isn’t reserved to sex crimes. A quick scan of the Daily Mail and Sun websites shows a similar attitude towards offences of a non-sexual nature

I see your point, but am not sure if the red-top media treats other cases with the same level of venom - or perhaps it is only our perception and in reality they treat them equally.

Nonetheless, the public hysteria that surrounds child abuse, as opposed other, cases is well recognized - unless we are hysterical about this hysteria.