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

Morag · 20-03-2014 12:40AM

She was 16 she was not an adult, she was a messed up teen.
I'd say the same thing of a boy.

I would be more interested in making sure she got the therapy she needs.
If it turns out she is a pedophile then she needs watching, put on the offenders list
and never let work with kids.

1 year is too short a sentence but, like I said she was 16.
And yeah her gender means fúck all to me in my considerations.

I really hope the kid she abused gets all the help and support he is going to need for the rest of his life.

Artful_Badger · 20-03-2014 12:46AM

tritium wrote: »

Again, you did downplay it - you don't seem to have a basic understanding of what that word means. I've pointed out the exact part of your post where you did so! If you didn't intend that meaning then I suggest you retract that part of the statement and choose your words more carefully in the future.

Lets look a bit further at my responses since you bring them up!

this was in response to

So, since you feel you can put a quantum on these things, and in the interest of understanding the point you were trying to make -educate me why a man sexually assaulting a child would be more traumatic than a woman doing so? You might also give me some stats as to the incidence of threats and violence as coercive factors in child abuse.

I think its pretty obvious the part of your post I was responding to here. The question still stands. You said you didn't want to downplay the offence and then give 4 statements that can be fairly construed as arguments for mitigation. So either respond to the question - so what? - or retract

How about I just ignore whatever your going on about there ? I like that option. I listed the details of the case (not statements as you claim they were. Details of the case.) in relation to the risk of re-offence not the severity of the crime the entire point was about the sentence taking into account the risk of re-offence.

You jumped the gun when you seen the word "downplay" and went on to post quite a ridiculous amount of rubbish misrepresenting what I said, accusing me of saying stuff I never said and now you're jumping through hoops to justify saying it and you expect me to entertain you while you do it ?

Given you probably wont let up and I cant help but respond when quoted I'm just gonna un follow this this thread and go to bed. Hopefully the next time I have the misfortune to run into you you wont be so ignorant as to accuse me of something as despicable as defending child abuse or inferring a child was "asking for it" because you couldnt understanding a simple point or have the cop on to admit to it.

Rhotheta · 20-03-2014 12:48AM

Artful_Badger wrote: »

My thinking on the why of the difference in how they are viewed is as I said previously. The majority of sexual crimes involving male offenders and under aged kids maybe involve force, violence, threats, more traumatic experience and re-offence or multiple offences. Which may lead people to think with women offenders having less of those things they are not as likely to be acting on paedophilic tendencies or likely to re-offend. The actual offence may be categorised as "rape" but the sentencing taking all into account including the risk posed may be more lenient in general for those facts.

Its not irrelevant to refer to it but at some stage it has to be discussed. I tried to discuss it and it ididnt go down too well. I have no idea what the Ivana Bacik stuff was about.

This woman sexually assaulted/raped a young boy. But looking at it I'm inclined to think given it started when she was 16, she stopped it, has no record of doing it on any other occasion, she's not likely to be an actual paedophile. Which is a person primarily sexually attracted to children. Not just anyone attracted to or guilty of sexually assaulting children.

She had sex with an 8 year old boy, she's a paedofile. The actual attraction to children is the least immoral part as no one has control over who they are attracted to, it's the act that is evil imo.

Galwayguy35 · 20-03-2014 02:28AM

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Sure I'd have concerns as did the judge. She's banned from contact with children under 16 unless supervised and on the sex offenders register.

But I don't think it's clear she's a paedophile and that there is much risk she'll abuse another child in the near future.

She abused an 8 year old kid 50 times, seems clear to me exactly what she is.

old_aussie · 20-03-2014 03:09AM

Some males also in a position of trust (like a teacher)

Koran teacher who abused girl is spared jail to help his family

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10707279/Koran-teacher-who-abused-girl-is-spared-jail-to-help-his-family.html

seem to get off without custodial sentences just because they have an excuse like,

"his family was dependent on him because his wife speaks “very little English"

and

"He is married with six children, that family unit depends on him. His wife doesn’t work and speaks very little English, they are dependent on him to lead their lives and with the running of the household."

FFS, jail the abuser, to make it clear to the criminal(male or female) that they will be punished and that the public are being protected by the law!

py2006 · 20-03-2014 08:43AM

Morag wrote: »

She was 16 she was not an adult, she was a messed up teen.
I'd say the same thing of a boy.

She was also 17 and 18

Sunglasses Ron · 20-03-2014 08:57AM

Sure look at the comments on a news story any time some bint kills her kids and then herself, then compare it to a man who does the same, or kidnaps his children and brings them abroad. Men who do it are evil, women who do it were "in a dark place" and other such bollocks.

jank · 20-03-2014 09:07AM

If the kid was a girl and the older person a man, then you can be sure that it would be a hell of a lot longer than 1 year…but sure lets not tell the femnazi's that.

Muise... · 20-03-2014 09:14AM

jank wrote: »

If the kid was a girl and the older person a man, then you can be sure that it would be a hell of a lot longer than 1 year…but sure lets not tell the femnazi's that.

Ah go on, let's tell them. No? Why - because they're not actually out celebrating the leniency of this sentence, because they only exist in your head?

jank · 20-03-2014 09:18AM

Muise... wrote: »

Ah go on, let's tell them. No? Why - because they're not actually out celebrating the leniency of this sentence, because they only exist in your head?

Some are probably celebrating it as a win against the 'man'.

strobe · 20-03-2014 09:18AM

The thing I'd be worried about here is not that she stopped because she 'realised it was wrong' but because she moved onto someone else when the kid got older and it became more likely she'd be caught , not an unheard of MO of child abusers.

Muise... · 20-03-2014 09:21AM

jank wrote: »

Some are probably celebrating it as a win against the 'man'.

'probably' eh? Oh you got me there! I'd say some of them are drinking the blood of teh menz out of champagne flutes.

OldNotWIse · 20-03-2014 10:19AM

tritium wrote: »

An 8 year old child was raped repeatedly here

Grow up FFS

No he wasn't.

Get the law right FFS.

Gatling · 20-03-2014 10:23AM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

No he wasn't.

Get the law right FFS.

That's just splitting hairs ,

Yes she raped a young child repeatedly regardless of who's definition of the legal term you decide to use ,

OldNotWIse · 20-03-2014 10:31AM

Gatling wrote: »

That's just splitting hairs ,

Yes she raped a young child repeatedly regardless of who's definition of the legal term you decide to use ,

What are you talking about? The law is the law. Quoting the law is not "splitting hairs". You dont get to pick and choose what parts of statutory legislation you apply, or how you want to interpret them. Rape is a gender specific offence. You may not like it, and neither do I, but that doesn't mean we can disregard it.

Gatling · 20-03-2014 10:37AM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

What are you talking about? The law is the law. Quoting the law is not "splitting hairs". You dont get to pick and choose what parts of statutory legislation you apply, or how you want to interpret them. Rape is a gender specific offence. You may not like it, and neither do I, but that doesn't mean we can disregard it.

Bull**** rape certainly isn't gender specific ,

A young child cannot give consent to sex

What's non consensual sex ?

Rape

This sick individual is a child raping Scumbag who's deserves s whole lot worse than 1 year

py2006 · 20-03-2014 10:39AM

Surely statutory rape isn't gender specific?

OldNotWIse · 20-03-2014 10:42AM

Gatling wrote: »

Bull**** rape certainly isn't gender specific ,

A young child cannot give consent to sex

What's non consensual sex ?

Rape

This sick individual is a child raping Scumbag who's deserves s whole lot worse than 1 year

Why dont you check the law before accusing others of posting bullsh1t or are you being wilfully blind to suit yourself?

Gatling · 20-03-2014 10:49AM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Why dont you check the law before accusing others of posting bullsh1t or are you being wilfully blind to suit yourself?

Your honor I never accused anybody

The fact speaks for its self

OldNotWIse · 20-03-2014 10:51AM

py2006 wrote: »

Surely statutory rape isn't gender specific?

Statutory rape is not actually provide for in the legislation, although it is a term commonly used. Perhaps you are thinking of the offence of defilement of a child under 15 years, which is governed by the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences)Act 2006. She would likely be brought in under this in this jurisdiction. As it happened in the UK, I am not sure of the appropriate law. Typically, the article doesnt tend to go beyond sensationalism and the public's appetite for gory details, merely stating that she was convicted of counts of sexual intercourse with a child. I'm not sure of their law tbh, but I dont mind admitting that.

OldNotWIse · 20-03-2014 10:51AM

Gatling wrote: »

Your honor I never accused anybody

The fact speaks for its self

Lol did you fall and hit your head?

Also, nobody says "your honour" anymore

py2006 · 20-03-2014 10:53AM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Statutory rape is not actually provide for in the legislation, although it is a term commonly used. Perhaps you are thinking of the offence of defilement of a child under 15 years, which is governed by the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences)Act 2006. She would likely be brought in under this in this jurisdiction. As it happened in the UK, I am not sure of the appropriate law. Typically, the article doesnt tend to go beyond sensationalism and the public's appetite for gory details, merely stating that she was convicted of counts of sexual intercourse with a child. I'm not sure of their law tbh, but I dont mind admitting that.

I believe our laws are fairly similar and perhaps ours may be based on theirs originally. But thats just an assumption.

OldNotWIse · 20-03-2014 10:53AM

py2006 wrote: »

I believe our laws are fairly similar and perhaps ours may be based on theirs originally. But thats just an assumption.

No I think you are right actually.

Gatling · 20-03-2014 10:58AM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Lol did you fall and hit your head?

Also, nobody says "your honour" anymore

As i said the fact spoke for itself

tritium · 20-03-2014 10:59AM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

No he wasn't.

Get the law right FFS.

Get to a point in the thread and couldn't bear to not hit reply/ didn't bother reading on did we? I think you'll find I've already addressed this one in a later post.

As most people commenting on this will be aware there are a number of legal definitions of rape across the globe. Ireland for example requires penetration. The ICC on the other hand does not. Equally rape and sexual assault are almost interchangeable in some jurisdictions, and rape is very often a far from legal term in its usage. By many of these definitions what this woman did was rape a young boy. If it makes you feel better to call it sexual assault on the basis of the locally prevailing legal articles then great, but let's not equate this as some sort of lower end if the scale offence as is often done when the term sexual assault is used. Her legal counsel wanted a suspended sentence for Christs sake, how ****ed up would that have been!

OldNotWIse · 20-03-2014 11:10AM

Gatling wrote: »

As i said the fact spoke for itself

What fact? What are you talking about? You seem very confused. Despite the fact that the law has repeatedly been pointed out to you, you insist on inventing your own, calling other people's posts bullsh1t and generally burying your head in the sand.

She did not rape the boy. Rape is a gender specific offence. It requires the penetration of a vagina by a penis. She does not have a penis. He does not have a vagina. It is physically and legally impossible for her to rape him. I can't make it any clearer than that for you. If you dont (or wont) see that, then nobody can help you.

OldNotWIse · 20-03-2014 11:15AM

tritium wrote: »

Get to a point in the thread and couldn't bear to not hit reply/ didn't bother reading on did we? I think you'll find I've already addressed this one in a later post.

As most people commenting on this will be aware there are a number of legal definitions of rape across the globe. Ireland for example requires penetration. The ICC on the other hand does not. Equally rape and sexual assault are almost interchangeable in some jurisdictions, and rape is very often a far from legal term in its usage. By many of these definitions what this woman did was rape a young boy. If it makes you feel better to call it sexual assault on the basis of the locally prevailing legal articles then great, but let's not equate this as some sort of lower end if the scale offence as is often done when the term sexual assault is used. Her legal counsel wanted a suspended sentence for Christs sake, how ****ed up would that have been!

I think you will find that conviction and sentencing tends to be based on the law in the jurisdiction in question??

Also, by "locally prevailing legal articles" are you referring to statutory legislation?

maguic24 · 20-03-2014 11:23AM

Read through the first few pages, however, haven't read the full thread.

Why should this woman get such a lenient sentence? She has effectively ruined a life!! To say that the lenient sentence was warranted because she is unlikely to re-offend is utter crapology! What about the victim in this case and the victims family?!! Imagine you were the parents of that child and you were told she was only getting 12 months for what she did.....how would you feel?

You shouldn't be able to defile an innocent child and not be appropriately punished for your actions. Disgusting case!! As other posters have already mentioned, if the roles were reversed there would be uproar at such a lenient sentence!!

kiffer · 20-03-2014 11:24AM

Regarding the difference between what is legally considered rape and what is morally speaking rape...
It may be worth remembering that a few short years ago it was legally technically not possible for a husband to rape his wife.
Now, that was clearly bull plop.

Sex you don't or can't consent to is rape.
That's the common usage.

Is this woman a paedophile?
I'm going to say she probably is.
50 times over a two year period she was attracted enough to a prepubescent child to engage in sex acts with him...
I doubt he'll be the only child she finds interesting, even of she never acts on it again.

tritium · 20-03-2014 11:30AM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I think you will find that conviction and sentencing tends to be based on the law in the jurisdiction in question??

Also, by "locally prevailing legal articles" are you referring to statutory legislation?

I think you'll find that was never in dispute. The internet however is not subject to a single jurisdiction, and if folks use a term that is valid in a broader sense then being pedantic about it doesn't serve much purpose. If anything all it illustrates is the differences in how legal systems consider what is essentially the same crime. If it makes you happier we can agree for the avoidance of doubt that the crux of the crime was one of coercive sexual intercourse (with a child in this case) or something akin to that.

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

Comments