Footballer Adam Johnson jailed for 6 years

rob316

Just sentenced, 6 years. He's an absolute moron but that seems very harsh. You'd get less for GBH.

For those not familiar with the story

Footballer Adam Johnson has been sentenced to six years for grooming and sexual activity with a girl aged 15.

Sentencing the ex-Sunderland player, Judge Jonathan Rose told him he had abused a position of trust and caused his victim "severe psychological harm".

The judge told Johnson, 28, he had engaged in sexual activity with her knowing she was under 16.

Bradford Crown Court heard the sexual abuse happened in the footballer's Range Rover last January.

Judge Rose told the footballer, who played 12 times for England, that the girl had "suffered threats and thousands of abusive remarks" on social media.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-35891143

Six years (probably serve less than 4) for sexual activity with a kid is not harsh.

DareGod

Candie wrote: »

Six years (probably serve less than 4) for raping a kid is not harsh.

He raped a child?

rob316

Candie wrote: »

Six years (probably serve less than 4) for raping a kid is not harsh.

Raping? I suggest you have a read about the case.

My name is URL

I don't think it's a harsh sentence but I also kinda doubt that the victim suffered 'severe psychological harm' from the incident

She was abused online after the story became public, but that shouldn't really be blamed on the guy.

That's just my opinion though

akelly02

Candie wrote: »

Six years (probably serve less than 4) for raping a kid is not harsh.

He didnt rape her, where does it say that?

Beefy78

Scummy behaviour from Johnson but he hardly "raped a kid".

osarusan

OP, you have changed your tune a bit for some reason:

rob316 wrote: »

I hope the book is thrown at him, this wasn't a drunken mistake where he bedded some barely 16 year old who said she was 18 and looked it, he knew what he was doing, its disgusting. Abused a position of power as a professional footballer and seduced this young girl with his fame.
.

6 years is harsher than other sentences, but there was grooming in this case that is sometimes absent.

Penny Tration

He sexually groomed and penetrated a child. how is six years harsh?

akelly02

akelly02 wrote: »

He didnt rape her, where does it say that?

You're right, he didn't rape her. He did engage in sexual activity with her after grooming her.

She's under 16, which he knew.

Grayditch

Penny Tration wrote: »

He sexually groomed and penetrated a child

He did? I think he's a scumbag, but I'm not sure why people are changing the facts. I actually don't care how long he goes to jail for, though.

Alf Stewart.

He knew what he was doin was wrong. He will still be a millionaire when he gets out.

No sympathy from Alf.

mikeym

Foolish man.

Hes flushed his career down the toilet.

My name is URL

My name is URL wrote: »

I don't think it's a harsh sentence but I also kinda doubt that the victim suffered 'severe psychological harm' from the incident

She was abused online after the story became public, but that shouldn't really be blamed on the guy.

That's just my opinion though

It can be blamed on the guy. If he hadn't groomed an underage kid and did things he shouldn't have done with her, it absolutely wouldn't have happened.

If a doc says she's suffered severe harm, they'd know better than strangers on the internet.

saintsaltynuts

The man had everything.I mean everything.Then he goes and throws his life away by doing something like this.Complete and utter moron.

bladespin

Candie wrote: »

You're right, he didn't rape her. He did engage in sexual activity with her after grooming her.

She's under 16, which he knew.

So you're saying he raped her.

rob316

osarusan wrote: »

OP, you have changed your tune a bit for some reason:

Good spot Sir, Yes I do think the book should have been thrown at him but I still think 6 years is a bit much, maybe I'm contradicting myself though. Plus that was early in the case I made that post in the soccer forum.

ahnowbrowncow

Woman has sex with 11 year old and gets no jail time.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3295537/Attorney-General-review-sentence-babysitter-Jade-Hatt-21-sex-11-year-old-boy-spared-jail.html

Johnson gets six years, didn't have sex with the 15 year old.

Where's the consistency?

Alf Stewart.

saintsaltynuts wrote: »

The man had everything.I mean everything.Then he goes and throws his life away by doing something like this.Complete and utter moron.

Like I said, the mans already a millionaire. He will still have a lavish lifestyle when he gets out

The Moldy Gowl

Grayditch wrote: »

He did? I think he's a scumbag, but I'm not sure why people are changing the facts. I actually don't care how long he goes to jail for, though.

He shifted her in his car and allegedly fingered her and placed her hand on his silly boy and he contested the fingering and **** bit but admitted the shifting.

Thats what they found him guilty of

My name is URL

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Woman has sex with 11 year old and gets no jail time.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3295537/Attorney-General-review-sentence-babysitter-Jade-Hatt-21-sex-11-year-old-boy-spared-jail.html

Johnson gets six years, didn't have sex with the 15 year old.

Where's the consistency?

Never mind consistency... they're different continents

ahnowbrowncow

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Woman has sex with 11 year old and gets no jail time.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3295537/Attorney-General-review-sentence-babysitter-Jade-Hatt-21-sex-11-year-old-boy-spared-jail.html

Johnson gets six years, didn't have sex with the 15 year old.

Where's the consistency?

It's wrong in every case. Her being let off jail time won't be made right by letting him off jail time.

rob316

Put it this way, that sicko Rolf Harris got 5 years and 9 months for more victims are far more serious sexual assaults on females between the age of 9 and 18.

I would argue though he should of got far longer.

My name is URL

Candie wrote: »

It can be blamed on the guy. If he hadn't groomed an underage kid and did things he shouldn't have done with her, it absolutely wouldn't have happened.

If a doc says she's suffered severe harm, they'd know better than strangers on the internet.

He's not responsible for the actions of others. That's a really dangerous precedent to be setting.

He's responsible for his own actions, and 6 years in jail is a fair enough sentence for what he done. What others did in response shouldn't even come into it.

ahnowbrowncow

My name is URL wrote: »

Never mind consistency... they're different continents

Is Swindon not part of the continent of Europe?

armaghlad

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-35595335

This guy could potentially serve less time. 6 years is harsh.

Penny Tration

Grayditch wrote: »

He did? I think he's a scumbag, but I'm not sure why people are changing the facts. I actually don't care how long he goes to jail for, though.

Er, I didn't change anything. He was found guilty of digitally penetrating her. which is why I said he groomed and penetrated her, rather than groom and have sex.

My name is URL

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Is Swindon not part of the continent of Europe?

lol, my bad

Seen 'attorney general' in the link and thought it was about a similar story in the US

Swindon may as well be in a different continent though

Birneybau

My name is URL wrote: »

Never mind consistency... they're different continents

You what?

Sunderland and Swindon?

whatismyname

Let's be careful not to focus primarily on the sexual activity part, including what it entailed.

He was also sentenced for grooming, and the act of child grooming in itself is very serious.

RayM

I do wonder about the mindset of those whose first instinct upon hearing about a man being jailed for sex with a child is to search for cases where the gender roles are reversed. It's almost as though they find inconsistency more offensive than child abuse.

icecream99

I don't for one minute support Johnson or condone what he did.

He sounds like an utter scumbag, repeatedly cheating on a girl who bore him their child and wanted to create a secure family unit.

However, based on the evidence, and based on other sentences that other UK cases have given out, I think 6 years is disproportionate.

It's quite different to kidnapping a pre-pubecesent child of the street.

If it was my daughter, yes, I would want to strangle him.

The girl was immature, and was the victim of manipulation by a mature adult.

However, she is over the age of criminal responsibility. If she was in court as a defendant, she would have been expected to take responsibility for her actions. Yet in this case, where she is the victim, she is expected to take no responsibility for her actions, which include, partaking in 100s if not 1000s of messages, some of which were clearly suggestive ? I'm not blaming her whatsoever, but I think as a parent, you would be asking questions of your child.

armaghlad

RayM wrote: »

I do wonder about the mindset of those whose first instinct upon hearing about a man being jailed for sex with a child is to search for cases where the gender roles are reversed. It's almost as though they find inconsistency more offensive than child abuse.

What's wrong with finding precedent?

Gatling

It kinda sounds harse but I've seen lighter sentences for actual child rape in the uk it's likely more to do with his footballer status that helped the case .

Seems their was reports going back several weeks of a massive compensation claim due to be lodged which should never have been made public knowledge either .

After the huge witch hunt over the last few years it was expected he would do 10 years

DareGod

There is rarely any consistency in criminal punishments and jail sentences, and more often than not the punishment is unfair, be it too lenient or too harsh. That's an unfortunate fact of modern society.

Grayditch

Penny Tration wrote: »

Er, I didn't change anything. He was found guilty of digitally penetrating her. which is why I said he groomed and penetrated her, rather than groom and have sex.

Wow, didn't heard that part at all. My bad.

DareGod

RayM wrote: »

I do wonder about the mindset of those whose first instinct upon hearing about a man being jailed for sex with a child is to search for cases where the gender roles are reversed. It's almost as though they find inconsistency more offensive than child abuse.

Your final sentence there is no more than your own interpretation of it. I highly doubt that what you've said is ever actually the case.

Back on topic, to respond to your initial point, it's actually quite an extremely important inconsistency that absolutely needs to be addressed, so that's probably why so many people address it straight away. Are you suggesting that such inconsistencies should be ignored? Why? What do you want these people to say about the child abuse, exactly? That part has already been dealt with in court.

osarusan

DareGod wrote: »

Are you suggesting that such inconsistencies should be ignored? Why?

Your final sentence there is no more than your own interpretation of it. I highly doubt that what you've said is ever actually the case.

DareGod

osarusan wrote: »

Your final sentence there is no more than your own interpretation of it. I highly doubt that what you've said is ever actually the case.

No, it was not an interpretation. At all.

osarusan

Sorry, I didn't mean interpretation, I meant strawman.

sabat

RayM wrote: »

I do wonder about the mindset of those whose first instinct upon hearing about a man being jailed for sex with a child is to search for cases where the gender roles are reversed. It's almost as though they find inconsistency more offensive than child abuse.

But he didn't have sex with her and she wasn't really a child though-in much of Europe this wouldn't even be illegal. He's still a sleazy rat who deserved some type of sentence (maybe 2 years suspended or similar) but throwing him into the same category as actual paedophiles is unfair.

icecream99

icecream99 wrote: »

I don't for one minute support Johnson or condone what he did.

He sounds like an utter scumbag, repeatedly cheating on a girl who bore him their child and wanted to create a secure family unit.

However, based on the evidence, and based on other sentences that other UK cases have given out, I think 6 years is disproportionate.

It's quite different to kidnapping a pre-pubecesent child of the street.

If it was my daughter, yes, I would want to strangle him.

The girl was immature, and was the victim of manipulation by a mature adult.

However, she is over the age of criminal responsibility. If she was in court as a defendant, she would have been expected to take responsibility for her actions. Yet in this case, where she is the victim, she is expected to take no responsibility for her actions, which include, partaking in 100s if not 1000s of messages, some of which were clearly suggestive ? I'm not blaming her whatsoever, but I think as a parent, you would be asking questions of your child.

I'm glad you're not blaming her, because she was 15 and he was the adult.

That's why there's an age of consent, because people who are below it are sometimes prone to making stupid decisions they think they can handle, and the law recognises that and that's why it holds the adults accountable for grooming them - manipulating them into taking part in this kind of thing over time - and that's why even if she's over the age of criminal responsibility, she'd be tried as a juvenile if she comitted a crime.

I'm sure you don't think she was responsible for him probably singling her out as probably being open to that manipulation and exploitation, and I'm sure in that light, you see her 'suggestive' messages as the actions of a manipulated minor.

She doesn't need questions asked of her, she needs the adults around her to help her explore why she responded to predator.

Penny Tration

sabat wrote: »

But he didn't have sex with her and she wasn't really a child though-in much of Europe this wouldn't even be illegal. He's still a sleazy rat who deserved some type of sentence (maybe 2 years suspended or similar) but throwing him into the same category as actual paedophiles is unfair.

She was 15. How is that "not really a child?"

Irishcrx

At the end of the day he put himself in this situation and deserves the sentence , no doubt the courts are setting a precedent with the ruling as well as this has been a high profile case.

What he did was groom an under age child , which he knew about and engage in sexual activity with her, in what manner I believe guilty or not nobody really knows but them. But the intent was there and he certainly would have had sex with the girl given the opportunity, he said as much in his messages.

Boo Hoo for Johnson , he threw his family and career into the gutter by being a pervert.

I wonder will he go to 'actual' jail though with common inmates or because of who he is will he be in a protected unit?

Little CuChulainn

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Woman has sex with 11 year old and gets no jail time.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3295537/Attorney-General-review-sentence-babysitter-Jade-Hatt-21-sex-11-year-old-boy-spared-jail.html

Johnson gets six years, didn't have sex with the 15 year old.

Where's the consistency?

From a follow up article

her low IQ and very poor reasoning skills amounted to 'substantial mitigation', as did her remorse and admission of guilt.

So the cases weren't similar really. There was also no grooming or pre meditation in the case you linked.

DareGod

osarusan wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't mean interpretation, I meant strawman.

His was an opinion masquerading as a conclusion - a nonsense conclusion based on nothing, and it was important that that was pointed out.

Mine was very obviously a question - a question which was based on his very own words.

And he is also completely free to clarify.

sabat

Penny Tration wrote: »

She was 15. How is that "not really a child?"

A child is someone who hasn't reached puberty; 15 is an adolescent.

osarusan

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

From a follow up article



So the cases weren't similar really. There was also no grooming or pre meditation in the case you linked.

Regarding the low IQ bit, Johnson also had a doctor testify: "This is a man who, at the age of 28, is socially and psychologically immature."

I'd imagine most people/their solicitors will play this card prior to sentencing.

ahnowbrowncow

RayM wrote: »

I do wonder about the mindset of those whose first instinct upon hearing about a man being jailed for sex with a child is to search for cases where the gender roles are reversed. It's almost as though they find inconsistency more offensive than child abuse.

So you agree that having sex with an 11 year old should be a non custodial sentence?

I haven't been discussing any case where a man was jailed for having sex with a child.

RayM

DareGod wrote: »

Are you suggesting that such inconsistencies should be ignored?

I'm suggesting that on the topic of sexual assault, some men's priorities are fucked up... From the gender-role-reversal whataboutery, to the "actually, it wasn't rape" comments, to the suggestion that she wasn't "really" a child.

sabat wrote:

But he didn't have sex with her and she wasn't really a child though-in much of Europe this wouldn't even be illegal.

He was found guilty of sexual activity with a child. Jesus wept.

Cathy.C

My thought would be in line with (the mostly wrong and seldom right) Katie Hopkins recently had to say on matter. Had the girl involved been a few years younger then that would be quite different but six years, for what amounted to brief sexual contact and which no force was used or implied, seems quite harsh to me. I wonder if he wasn't so successful would such a sentence have been felt suitable. I'm not so sure.