Woman has sex with underage boy, yet husband gets harsher sentence for encouraging it

The Corinthian

Peregrinus wrote: »

Except, of course, that perceptions of "bias in law and social attitudes with regard to cases such as this" are themselves the result of media reporting of such issues. So what you're saying, in a nutshell, is that BrokenHero has more faith in the Daily Mirror than in the legal system on this issue because he generally places his faith in the likes of the Daily Mirror.

I'm afraid not. Many examples of these biases are at this stage well documented. Or have experienced it first or second hand. Additionally, you don't really have to read a newspaper to get confirmation that certain laws very blatantly discriminate on the basis of gender - Daily Anything not required.

It's inevitable that as people witness and educate themselves more and more of this, their faith in the legal system will diminish.

Don't get me wrong; I agree with you that he's jumping the gun on his conclusions - I'm just saying that it's increasingly understandable why he might.

BrokenHero

Peregrinus wrote: »

Because we're not idiots. The trial ran for three days. The newspaper report gives it a few paragraphs, mainly focussing on the judge's summing up, but even then quoting only a few extracts from it. Not a single witness who gave evidence is named, and there is no account at all of what any witness said. Conclusion: they have left it out.

The judge's summing up generally set out the points on which cases have hung and extrapolate on the reasons behind length of sentencing.

Why? They don't normally.

Of course they do. If there are significant factors about a case which are paramount to why a judge issues a particular sentence, then they will reference it and that is just what he did when he spoke of control. If this women was in fear for her life for example, you can be God damn sure the judge would have said as much in his summation.

Actually the various media reports report practically no evidence at all - just the summing up. But, yes, the reports are strikingly similar. But that's because the all the media sources are relying on the same local court reporter or, at most, couple of local court reporters.

The trial took place in Caernarfon (pop: 9,600). Amazingly enough, neither the Daily Mirror nor ITN has a Caernarfon bureau. The usual form is that the only reporters attending a trial in a country town will be from local media - the Caernarfon Herald perhaps, or the Daily Post. And even they probably didn't attend for much of the trial (which is why only the summing-up is reported) - the paper probably only has one court reporter, and even if he is full time on court reporting (which is unlikely) he has to spread himself around; there is more than one court case running on any day.

Recognising that, because the story is salacious, it may attract more than purely local interest the local papers (as well as running it themselves) will have offered it to the national media, who pay the locals if they pick up these stories and run them. Hence, they all run basically the same story, written by the same reporter. But the fact that they don't report on the evidence presented doesn't mean that no evidence was presented. It means either that the reporter wasn't there when the evidence was presented, or that he was, but the editors have cut the story down to what they think is their readers' attention span, and have focussed on the summing up because all the salacious details are neatly encapsulated there.

All the above is speculation, nothing more and nothing less. You have no solid reason to believe there are aspects to this case which have not been reported and which would excuse this clear example of nonsense and misandric sentencing.

Grayson

Peregrinus wrote: »

Except, of course, that perceptions of "bias in law and social attitudes with regard to cases such as this" are themselves the result of media reporting of such issues. So what you're saying, in a nutshell, is that BrokenHero has more faith in the Daily Mirror than in the legal system on this issue because he generally places his faith in the likes of the Daily Mirror.

Statistically women get lighter sentences than men. They are also convicted less than men. In every crime except murder.

that doesn't mean that this particular case is biased in any way, but in general there is a bias towards women for most crimes.

CdeC

policarp wrote: »

The young lad went back for seconds.
Lots of young lads wishing they could've been in his position. . . IMO.

I think this kind of way of thinking is very damaging. He may be scarred for life. He may never have a healthy normal sex life.

A young lad being drugged and made have sex is rape and I think long prison sentences for both was warranted. Young lads shouldn't be told, well why didn't you enjoy it?? Sure it was a woman wasn't it?? This is so wrong.

I am not sure why she received a shorter sentence. Seems odd but maybe her defence was different.

Tasden

I just assumed that whoever supplied the drugs got the longer sentence because its an additional crime or whatever.

P. Breathnach

BrokenHero wrote: »

... All the above is speculation, nothing more and nothing less...

As is your interpretation.

Intensive Care Bear

Who the hell would want to have sex with someone taking mephedrone, that stuff smells like stale piss.

Egginacup

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

Surely you can tell that they mean both? And it's pretty dishonest to say "guy". He was underage.

Scummy scummy couple.

I understand that people like to draw lines when it suits them and the whole age of consent thing to me is a grey area. There's a lot of people out there who howl to the heavens if someone aged 16 has sex. They'll scream about underage this and minor that. These are the same people who, if a 16 year old murdered someone, would bay for blood and insist that he or she be tried as an adult. Cliches like "old enough to do the crime, old enough to do the time" will spew forth from them.

I just don't know how I feel about this whole thing. The judge is sounding off like these people are depraved monsters. I just don't get the same sense of revulsion for what they did. Sure, the law states that what they did was wrong and it was kind of perverted but assault is also illegal yet some people are into pain and sado-masochism.

blaze1

I'm sure the young lad felt totally bamboozled, free drugs & a ride. fecker would've been the envy of his mates.

Buona Fortuna

1210m5g wrote: »

Who the hell would want to have sex with someone taking mephedrone, that stuff smells like stale piss.

Someone into golden showers maybe.

The Corinthian

blaze1 wrote: »

I'm sure the young lad felt totally bamboozled, free drugs & a ride. fecker would've been the envy of his mates.

Ahh, and there we have the male equivalent of "the bitches are all gagging for it"...

DiegoCosta

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but it's common for people who co-operate in the same crime to get different sentences, reflecting different levels of responsiblity, control, direction, etc.

The thing is, people here are assuming that the difference in sentencing here is entirely down to the fact that one defendant is male and the other female. In fact the newspaper reports specify several other points of distinction which might be relevant - he is 46 and she is 24; he took the initiative in proposiing the encounters and she acceded; he supplied the drugs to the boy; he taunted the boy. The critics here are assuming that the judge ignored all these factors in sentencing, and gave him the heavier sentence purely on account of his gender, even though the judge is reported as explicitly stating an entirely different reason for the disparity in sentencing.

Why is it relevant that he is 46 and she is 24, they are both adults. It was her responsibility not to have sex with underage children.

Shrap

DiegoCosta wrote: »

Why is it relevant that he is 46 and she is 24, they are both adults. It was her responsibility not to have sex with underage children.

It's more relevant that they got together when he was 40 and she was 18 - little more than a child. It's very easy for someone of that age to fall under the influence of a much older and much more dominant person (whatever gender).

It might not be considered grooming, as 18 is considered to be adult, but from the information given on the face book police alerts page there was a clear power imbalance in their relationship and the judge took that into account. He didn't excuse the woman, but it looks from this as if the sentencing was fair.

Much more info in this than the newspapers: https://www.facebook.com/policealertsUKnewsreportsUk/posts/850691148296956

DiegoCosta

Shrap wrote: »

It's more relevant that they got together when he was 40 and she was 18 - little more than a child. It's very easy for someone of that age to fall under the influence of a much older and much more dominant person (whatever gender).

It might not be considered grooming, as 18 is considered to be adult, but from the information given on the face book police alerts page there was a clear power imbalance in their relationship and the judge took that into account. He didn't excuse the woman, but it looks from this as if the sentencing was fair.

Much morfo in this than the newspapers:ok.com/policealertsUKnewsreportsUk/posts/85069114829695l]

An adult is responsible for their actions. She wasn't 18 when she committed the crime.

Being "influenced" is no excuse.

Areyouwell

Grayson wrote: »

Statistically women get lighter sentences than men. They are also convicted less than men. In every crime except murder.

Straw poll of mates, lad has sex with his female teacher. General reaction was lucky little sod, I wish that had of happened to me ect. Schoolgirl has sex with teacher, reaction was the complete opposite - creep, pedo, pervert, ect. So it makes you wonder do some judges subconsciously hold these views when it comes to sentencing. And hence the reason women get lighter sentences.

Shrap

DiegoCosta wrote: »

An adult is responsible for their actions. She wasn't 18 when she committed the crime.

Being "influenced" is no excuse.

Agreed. However, he didn't excuse her, did he? She got 3 years and rightly so.

Judge: "He told the couple: "The law is there to protect the young and the court is there to uphold the law." While he did not know the exact nature of their relationship, he said: "I have no doubt at all that you Nicola Mason would have been, and still are, under the influence of you John Ford.
"Albeit that you Ford is a controlling individual getting some sort of perverted pleasure from offering your partner to others and belittling her in front of others, the sad fact is that you Mason were quite prepared to go along with his depravity."
The offences involved oral sex and full intercourse which would be regarded as "totally and utterly repulsive by all right thinking individuals." He said he wished to make it clear that because of the gravity of such offending, they should both expect immediate custodial sentences."

I don't see the problem with the domineering one in the relationship getting the longer sentence (who "wouldn't take no for an answer" and forced the lad to do this).

The Corinthian

Shrap wrote: »

It's more relevant that they got together when he was 40 and she was 18 - little more than a child. It's very easy for someone of that age to fall under the influence of a much older and much more dominant person (whatever gender).

It might not be considered grooming, as 18 is considered to be adult, but from the information given on the face book police alerts page there was a clear power imbalance in their relationship and the judge took that into account. He didn't excuse the woman, but it looks from this as if the sentencing was fair.

When they create a new category of 'diminished responsibility adult', then I'll take that seriously.

Indeed, that was the traditional basis of sexism against women - they were hysterical, emotional and not in full control of their actions - which appears to still be a popular defense today. Indeed, how many cases of men who were groomed or 'influenced' by their female partners do you get in comparison?

Now ask if your tendency to believe that she was influenced is based on fact or your own residual chauvinism.

Shakespeare's Sister

Areyouwell wrote: »

Straw poll of mates, lad has sex with his female teacher. General reaction was lucky little sod, I wish that had of happened to me ect. Schoolgirl has sex with teacher, reaction was the complete opposite - creep, pedo, pervert, ect. So it makes you wonder do some judges subconsciously hold these views when it comes to sentencing. And hence the reason women get lighter sentences.

I would think so definitely.

Shrap

The Corinthian wrote: »

Now ask if your tendency to believe that she was influenced is based on fact or your own residual chauvinism.

Actually, my tendency to believe she was influenced is more based on having met some very sick people in my time, in some right dodgy socially deprived areas and situations, and recognising how much influence certain kind of folk have over impressionable young ones (15 - 20 yr olds, usually with massive social problems of their own) who were encouraged to be bombed off their tits/nuts so as to be manipulated into something. Not like that doesn't happen every place. Gender has fcuk all to do with it in my opinion, but whatever. Not going to argue with someone who only wants to hear the one opinion....

Shrap

The Corinthian wrote: »

Indeed, how many cases of men who were groomed or 'influenced' by their female partners do you get in comparison?
.

Oh, and btw, I've met a fair few of those. Of the ones I met, the much older woman has invariably been into swinging/hard drugs/alcohol and be seen as "showing the young fellas the ropes" (instead of "taking advantage" - I happen to agree with you about how twisted gender bias can be). Just as manipulative and damaging as the gender reverse of that kind of relationship, and if it had of been that particular gender/age balance in this case ie. the older, manipulative and controlling woman getting 4 1/2 years, I'd be saying that was fair too.

Guess you just haven't met that kind of people Corinthian.

The Corinthian

Shrap wrote: »

Not going to argue with someone who only wants to hear the one opinion....

Unless it's your opinion, it seems.

Shrap wrote: »

Guess you just haven't met that kind of people Corinthian.

I've met much, much worse.

Shrap

The Corinthian wrote: »

Unless it's your opinion, it seems.

Dude, I happen to agree with some of your opinions. Still don't see the gender bias in the sentences here though. Like I said above, I'd agree with the sentence if the gender/age balance was reversed and the woman got the bigger sentence.

PucaMama

Love how these threads bring out the part time detectives and so much victim hood.

The Corinthian

Shrap wrote: »

Dude, I happen to agree with some of your opinions. Still don't see the gender bias in the sentences here though. Like I said above, I'd agree with the sentence if the gender/age balance was reversed and the woman got the bigger sentence.

Look, my point is that I've seen the 'diminished responsibility' argument being abused too many times to not approach it with extreme cynicism at this stage. Even is someone is under the 'influence' of another, the dynamics vary and the 'sub' can often be far more in control than they let on in reality.

As to the question of gender with regards to this; more correctly I should have said how many cases of such legal defenses by men who were groomed or 'influenced' by their female partners do you get in comparison?

All of this leads me to question such judgments and such claims of manipulation.

PucaMama wrote: »

Love how these threads bring out the part time detectives and so much victim hood.

Well indeed. Probably not a good way to start the weekend. And on that note...

Lalealea

BrokenHero wrote: »

While a leering husband watched on? I highly doubt it.

At 15, I would have ran a mile myself.

This.

And exactly

Peregrinus

wrote:

In cases where the relationship was voluntary, and the parties were unrelated, a majority of the men concerned, interviewed in adulthood, viewed these relationships as positive or neutral; only a small minority viewed them as negative. Nevertheless, despite their own perceptions, the population of men concerned had exhibited higher levels of psychological distress that those who had not had such relationships, and more psychological, alcohol, and deliberate self-harming behavior problems. But they were not as distressed as men who, as boys, had experienced forced sexual encounters. It's possible, then, that the some of the relationships were more damaging to the boys than they later acknowledged, or than they recognised themselves. And this may be because societal models of masculinity shame men who have been sexually exploited, which makes it difficult to acknowledge sexual exploitation, either to oneself or to others.

Very true.
Sorry but there is a culture that is pervasive out there that tells young men they cannot be raped.

I often here men in the media boasting of how the lost their virginity to an older woman. They didn't it was statutory rape. And it DOES damage.

They both should have got done for it.

The father obviously also has a predatory nature and perhaps has fantasies about young men. I would say the age difference is important he is 47 she is 25.

Also he got 4 1/2 years she got 3 it's not a huge difference.

But still she should have gotten an equal sentence. Also it should be much longer for both of them. 4 1/2 years is a joke TBH.

They both participated I say they both should get 8 yrs minimum. Also women who aid men in child abuse should get equal sentences. Absolute ghouls.

They are both a danger to children.