1 year in prison for raping 8-year-old over 50 times

ibarelycare

A female paedophile has been jailed for having sex with an eight-year-old boy more than fifty times.
Loren Morris, 21, was 16 when she first slept with the schoolboy, who cannot be identified, and continued until he was ten years old.

Story (Yes yes, Daily Mail, whatever)


I know this is a worn out argument, but if this was a man who had raped an 8 year old girl over 50 times, there is no way he would be sentenced to just 12 month in prison and 12 months on probation.

The article repeatedly states that the woman "had sex" with the boy. This is disgusting. She didn't have sex with a child, she raped him.

The judge was lenient because he said she realised what she was doing was wrong....after TWO years of raping a child???

He went on to say "I have come to the conclusion that due to the concern and embarrassment caused to both you and your family that you will not be offending again, let alone committing sexual offences. I am also aware of the effect this will have on your baby. I am pleased to hear your parents have started to build bridges with you."

So he thinks a paedophile will not re-offend because she has embarrassed herself and her family??? If that was a man, his child would be taken off him and he would be on the sex offenders register for life. How can anyone allow this woman to raise a child, knowing that she has been sexually attracted to children in the past?

This article has made me so angry. A boy of 8-10 cannot be deemed to be able to give consent to a woman aged 16-18 to have sex with him. This woman is sick and dangerous and should be sentenced based on 50 counts of rape. :mad:

efb

She can't rape him,it's unlawful carnal knowledge or sexual assault

ibarelycare

efb wrote: »

She can't rape him,it's unlawful carnal knowledge or sexual assault

Well it should hold the same punishment. Do you think she should be allowed around children?

Gatling

efb wrote: »

She can't rape him,it's unlawful carnal knowledge or sexual assault

Its still considered rape

Gatling

ibarelycare wrote: »

Well it should hold the same punishment. Do you think she should be allowed around children?

For some reason only know to the judicial system women who abuse and rape kids are mostly handled with cottomn gloves for some reason ,
The same with abuse of power situations involving teacher student ,
Male teacher who has sex with a student is given a few years almost every time ,

A female teacher is rarely given the same heavy sentences in the same situation

tritium

Gatling wrote: »

Its still considered rape

Unless you're the CDC, who recategorise it as 'forced to penetrate' then exclude it from all reporting of sex crime statistics. Magically, when you do this the incidence of female perpetrators of sex crimes drops significantly.

Or if youre the Irish government , who have rape as a male specific crime.

Disgusting story BTW, that sentence is an insult to victims of child abuse, regardless of gender.

Holsten

What's the point of this thread?

Is it a surprise? It is widely known that women are treated lightly by the justice system.

Moofster

That's such a frustrating and disgusting event... I can't believe woman get less punishment for such a crime. She raped a child for god's sake!! She should'nt be able to see her child ever again, this is non sence : (

GenieOz

Holsten wrote: »

What's the point of this thread?

Is it a surprise? It is widely known that women are treated lightly by the justice system.

Do you just get off on wanting to let rapists go quietly?

ceadaoin.

I suspect there are other factors in this case such as the girl has learning difficulties maybe. The way it says she was struggling to accept the facts of the case suggests this. That said, obviously if it was a man raping an 8 year old the sentence would be a lot more severe and it isn't right that a female committing the same crime is seen as not as bad. It's also worrying that she has a child who she seemingly still has full custody of

padd b1975

Ivana Battychick must be thrilled with this outcome.

Soft Falling Rain

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I suspect there are other factors in this case such as the girl has learning difficulties maybe. The way it says she was struggling to accept the facts of the case suggests this. That said, obviously if it was a man raping an 8 year old the sentence would be a lot more severe and it isn't right that a female committing the same crime is seen as not as bad. It's also worrying that she has a child who she seemingly still has full custody of

Learning difficulties, or mental health issues.

But, I suspect, one could use that reasoning for many others who have committed similar acts....yet the sentences still don't add up.

Holsten

GenieOz wrote: »

Do you just get off on wanting to let rapists go quietly?

Huh? WHAT?!

Where do you get that from? This woman should be punished just as much as a man would have been.

What do you mean "wanting to let rapists go quietly"?!

GenieOz

Holsten wrote: »

Huh? WHAT?!

Where do you get that from? This woman should be punished just as much as a man would have been.

What do you mean "wanting to let rapists go quietly"?!

Any thread that speaks about rapists or raises awareness of them you just want it shut down or don't see the point of it.
Just an observation.

Muise...

padd b1975 wrote: »

Ivana Battychick must be thrilled with this outcome.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

shopaholic01

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

Learning difficulties, or mental health issues.

But, I suspect, one could use that reasoning for many others who have committed similar acts....yet the sentences still don't add up.

Surely a one year prison sentence wouldn't be given to someone with these conditions? Certainly for mental issues she would be sent to a psychiatric hospital/wing?

It's farcical, she was outside the court laughing awaiting sentencing. She will also only have her name on the sex offenders register for 10 years.

All sex offences should carry the same sentencing, regardless of gender. A man would be vilified if the genders were reversed.

OldNotWIse

Gatling wrote: »

Its still considered rape

It's not.

Jimoslimos

Gatling wrote: »

Its still considered rape

It's not though. Two things are required - 1) a penis and 2) penetration of the victim.

Still sexual assault though. Maximum sentence would be 5 years given her age at the time.

Holsten

GenieOz wrote: »

Any thread that speaks about rapists or raises awareness of them you just want it shut down or don't see the point of it.
Just an observation.

Not at all.

I simply don't agree with mob justice, vigilantism, mass hysteria and kill em all type attitudes.

I enjoy these discussions but in this case it's just one out of many that show the clear lenience that women are afforded for some unknown reason. Similar cases happen throughout the country every week.

OldNotWIse

Holsten wrote: »

Not at all.

I simply don't agree with mob justice, vigilantism, mass hysteria and kill em all type attitudes.

I enjoy these discussions but in this case it's just one out of many that show the clear lenience that women are afforded for some unknown reason. Similar cases happen throughout the country every week.

I agree with you. There's another thread that houses a resident Mirror reader who polices it by chasing away all reasonable discussion with hysterical posts about beasts, monsters, "roaming the country" etc. Of course if you dont chime in with your pitchfork you're practically one of them :rolleyes:

Worth noting too, did you see yesterdays Independent, there was an article in it re the raw deal that men tend to get in the family courts, with maintenance demands leaving many of them below subsistence?

Artful_Badger

Imo its more important to hand out sentences based on the threat to others in society than handing out punishment and making sure everyone gets their due.

She was banned from having contact with children under the age of 16 without supervision and put on the sex offenders register for 10 years.

She was also 16 when it started and it wasnt still going on. So I'd be inclined to think she wouldnt be much of a risk and I wouldnt be overly concerned that she's only serving one year of a two year sentence tbh.

With limited resources and imprisoning people an expensive business it would be prudent not to waste time, money and energy locking low risk offenders up just to enact some sort of revenge for their crimes.

meoklmrk91

I find this really, really upsetting, for many reasons. One being what has been said already, a man in the same position would not have gotten off nearly as lightly. Another being that that little boy is gong to have to live with this for the rest of his life, untold damge has been done and it was only worth one year in prison, simply because he was a boy. Also the fact that a person who is clearly a danger to children has been allowed to keep her own child is very worrying, she has shown that she is attracted to children, shame will not cure that, otherwise the vast majority of peadophiles would stop being peadophiles, she is a danger to all children and quite frankly the only access she should have is heavily supervised.

What planet are these people living on? Just because of her sex she is not only getting away near enough to scot free for her despicable crimes they are putting her own child in danger. Are they that naive? Do they really think that this was just a one off? Because 50 times does not an accident make. And she gets credit for stopping without being caught? Well bully for her for figuring out that what she was doing was seriously wrong, doubt that would have made much difference to a man and doubt it made much difference to the boy that she raped but hey bully for her.

****ing rediculous case!

Tiddlypeeps

I do agree that women tend to get off easier in these kinds of cases but this is very lenient, I'd imagine her age played a much bigger factor in the sentencing than her gender.

Femme_Fatale

Jesus Christ.

Rape is having sex with someone who does not/cannot consent. There's a tendency to think the perpetrator has to penetrate the victim in order for it to be rape, but no consent is no consent.

Bipolar Joe

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Jesus Christ.

Rape is having sex with someone who does not/cannot consent. There's a tendency to think the perpetrator has to penetrate the victim in order for it to be rape, but no consent is no consent.

Unfortunately, due to wording, only if the victim is penetrated is it considered rape, legally. This is a MASSIVE oversight.

Jimoslimos

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Unfortunately, due to wording, only if the victim is penetrated is it considered rape, legally. This is a MASSIVE oversight.

It's not an oversight. Rape gets worded differently because it is a different offence. In addition to the psychological effect it carries the additional risk of physical trauma.

OldNotWIse

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Jesus Christ.

Rape is having sex with someone who does not/cannot consent. There's a tendency to think the perpetrator has to penetrate the victim in order for it to be rape, but no consent is no consent.

No. Rape is penetration of a vagina by a penis.

Rape under Section 4 is penetration of a vagina by a handheld object that is manually manipulated.

But for what its worth, I share your sentiment, but its important to get the law right.

Chorcai

Irish courts view men as bad and women as mad. This very issue of sexual assault/rape and how each term is applied differently to a man or a woman was on the radio the other day. There was PHd student talking about her studies into this, think it was on Radio 1 drive time, worth looking for and listening to.

tritium

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Jesus Christ.

Rape is having sex with someone who does not/cannot consent. There's a tendency to think the perpetrator has to penetrate the victim in order for it to be rape, but no consent is no consent.

Not if you're the CDC its not...

Artful_Badger

Chorcai wrote: »

Irish courts view men as bad and women as mad. This very issue of sexual assault/rape and how each term is applied differently to a man or a woman was on the radio the other day. There was PHd student talking about her studies into this, think it was on Radio 1 drive time, worth looking for and listening to.

But surely part of the reason (although I'll admit the Irish judicial system isnt known for its impeccable reasoning when it comes to sentencing) would be that male offenders of sexual crimes would be significantly more likely to re-offend, statistically speaking. And offences involving males (in relation to kids a similar age to the victim here) would more often than not involve force, threats, violence and a have a more traumatic effect on victims.

I'm in no way trying to down play what this woman did but it started when she was herself a child of 16. She stopped doing it when she was 18. She was only caught as the kid was bragging about having sex with her. Which means he probably wasn't forced or threatened to get him to go along with it. Still utterly wrong and reprehensible and she was rightly convicted and jailed for it. But...

The chances of her doing what she did being down to her being an actual paedophile seems to me to be low. Lets not be misled by sensationalist moron feeding headlines from a muck raking rag like the daily mail. A paedophile is not someone who has sex with under age kids, its someone who is primarily sexually attracted to children. And its that which is of concern when sentencing as its that which determines the risk of re-offending.

I haven't seen the stats but I'd assume women would be statistically less likely to be motivated by paedophillic tendency and less likely to re-offend as a result than men convicted of similar crimes. So perhaps its not men bad, women good but a difference in the severity of the majority of crimes and risk of re-offence of the offenders ?

Then again I dont got me no phd and I've never been on the radio...

Muise...

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I'm in no way trying to down play what this woman did but it started when she was herself a child of 16. She stopped doing it when she was 18. She was only caught as the kid was bragging about having sex with her. Which means he probably wasn't forced or threatened to get him to go along with it. Still utterly wrong and reprehensible and she was rightly convicted and jailed for it. But...

The chances of her doing what she did being down to her being an actual paedophile seems to me to be low. Lets not be misled by sensationalist moron feeding headlines from a muck raking rag like the daily mail. A paedophile is not someone who has sex with under age kids, its someone who is primarily sexually attracted to children. And its that which is of concern when sentencing as its that which determines the risk of re-offending.

When I was a 16 year old girl I didn't consider myself to be a child, though legally I was, and I only got jiggy with boys my own age. I knew what I was doing and had a fair sense of right and wrong. Had I sexually abused a child, I'd have been lying through my teeth to use my age as an excuse.

And who cares what the tabloids write? She wasn't convicted of being a paedophile, she was convicted of sexually abusing a child. This deserves punishment (a tabloid attitude, I know) regardless of the risk of recidivism.