Paedophile Jailed Longer Because Victims Were Asian

Very Bored · 18-09-2015 10:32AM #1

Paedophile jailed for longer because victims were Asian and the judge felt that Asian communities are more judgemental of rape victims. This may be true but I find it abhorrent that a white (or any other ethnicity) child's suffering should be seen as less. Personally, I'd be of the lock him up then "ooops, we lost the key" persuasion regarding anyone like this, but I simply don't think its right to value one child's pain over another's. My concern is for other children, and for adults who had this happen to them in childhood, and the message this sends out.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paedophile-who-abused-two-young-6463908

Brian from Bray · 18-09-2015 10:38AM

What a load of bull... Abuse is abuse doesn't matter what colour skin or nationality they are.

cowboyBuilder · 18-09-2015 10:49AM

More PCness gone mental... not surprised at all this is in the UK.. disgusting society

biko · 18-09-2015 10:52AM

Different strokes for different folks it seems.

NachoBusiness · 18-09-2015 10:53AM

I once threw a pair of shoes at guy and because he was an Arab, I got 27 years.

True story.

Buona Fortuna · 18-09-2015 10:57AM

This is so fcuked up.

There were also cultural concerns that the girls' prospects of being considered for arranged marriages might be damaged.

So the judge is recognising a "loss" of something that most people in the country find abhorrent.

18-09-2015 10:58AM

We are upset because some paedophile was jailed for longer because of some aggravating factor?

My heart bleeds for him.

I think it perfectly legitimate. If for example virginity is particularly respected in a culture and so by being abused the victim also is stigmatised and shunned by their own community after the incident, I say fire another few years on for that, don't limit the considerations to the physical offence itself.

Buona Fortuna · 18-09-2015 11:02AM

Deleted User wrote: »

We are upset because some paedophile was jailed for longer because of some aggravating factor?

.

I think the "upset" is not that he got longer but the implication that had the victim been white, anglo saxon, christian the sentence would be less.

No one gives a flying fcuk about Ul Nasir - let him rot.

18-09-2015 11:05AM

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

I think the "upset" is not that he got longer but the implication that had the victim been white, anglo saxon, christian the sentence would be less.

No one gives a flying fcuk about Ul Nasir - let him rot.

But that didn't happen.

The Court doesn't deal in "what might this imply to the white Mirror reader". It deals in the particular facts and applies the law. And you take your victim as you find them. If someone goes around and breaks the legs of 2 men, one of them being a footballer, well then obviously that footballer will suffer an extra trauma and it might be an aggravating factor for the sentence in that case. The Court would not be implying that people who don't play football have less merit or suffer less physical pain.

Very Bored · 18-09-2015 11:09AM

In fairness cowboy, stupid things happen in Ireland too and there are plenty of stupid judges here too. I think its better to condemn the judge and his decision than the whole of British society. The sad thing is this b*****d will appeal the harshness of the sentence, get it reduced and have won a small victory. The best thing in situations like this is to play a straight bat. Personally, I'd throw him in a cell and never let him out but a judge has to go with what's written down in law and set down by precedent.

arayess · 18-09-2015 11:12AM

Deleted User wrote: »

But that didn't happen.

The Court doesn't deal in "what might this imply to the white Mirror reader". It deals in the particular facts and applies the law. And you take your victim as you find them. If someone goes around and breaks the legs of 2 men, one of them being a footballer, well then obviously that footballer will suffer an extra trauma and it might be an aggravating factor for the sentence in that case. The Court would not be implying that people who don't play football have less merit or suffer less physical pain.

I know what you are saying but justice is supposed to be blind.

What you are saying is that , that given the same circumstances it is reasonable for him to get less time because the cultural impact on a white victim is less.

I understand perfectly and it's messed up in the extreme

conorhal · 18-09-2015 11:13AM

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

I think the "upset" is not that he got longer but the implication that had the victim been white, anglo saxon, christian the sentence would be less.

No one gives a flying fcuk about Ul Nasir - let him rot.

I know it may at first seem counter-intuitive, but I'm in favour of this kind of sentencing for one reason only. Far too often the victim is ignored by the justice system and the impact of a crime against them is a secondary sentencing concern.
I would make it a legal requirement for a victim impact statement or assessment to be a factor in sentencing. When you consider all that is taken into consideration on behalf of the perpetrator, tough childhood yer honor, it waaas de druuuugs melud, there should be greater weight placed on the impact on the victim.
Consider two unprovoked assaults.
In one case the victim has gotten on with their life and refuses to allow what has happened to change their life one bit. In the other case the victim has been badly effected and developed an anxiety disorder which has made them fearful of leaving their house.
The same crime has had a very different impact on each victim, in one case it was an horrific incident, in the other a life altering event.
There needs to be an allowance for the degree of impact a crime has had on the victim and places them at the center, rather then at the periphery of the justice system. For example I think that if you break into an elderly persons home then there should be a stiffer sentence then a regular burglary.
I would restate however that it needs to be based on the victim impact statement and not a judges presumption.

Very Bored · 18-09-2015 11:18AM

I don't agree Conor. There's too many idiot judges and coppers like this in the UK. Put it this way, you go to the UK a black guy calls you a paddy b so you respond by calling him a f*****g n. Both of you are absolutely in the wrong, though you could argue that the first guy was more so because he aggravated the situation but you'd be the one who got into trouble. Its PCness gone mad.

Zillah · 18-09-2015 11:19AM

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

More PCness gone mental... not surprised at all this is in the UK.. disgusting society

Yeah this feckin PC claptrap has gone too far. Just the other day I had to wear a hard hat on a building site! My landlord wants to check the gas boiler. Jimmy down the road got pulled over for throwing chips at an immigrant's head. This feckin PCness is ruining this country.

18-09-2015 11:34AM

Very Bored wrote: »

Its PCness gone mad.

A paedophile gets an increased sentence because of the particular impact on a victim long after the physical offence is long over...and we think that giving an increased sentence to reflect an extra trauma is "PCness gone mad"?

:eek:

Cuban Pete · 18-09-2015 11:44AM

arayess wrote: »

I know what you are saying but justice is supposed to be blind.

Is it really any different from people delivering victim impact statements here? After all, if justice is supposed to be blind then the consequences for the injured party shouldn't be factored in.

I'm sorry, but isn't this precisely what AH wants? That the impact of the crime on the victim should play a role in sentencing? Isn't this what people have been crowing about for years?

Deleted User wrote: »

A paedophile gets an increased sentence because of the particular impact on a victim long after the physical offence is long over...and we think that giving an increased sentence to reflect an extra trauma is "PCness gone mad"?

:eek:

And that is a perfect example of why the term "political correctness" now has no meaning.

18-09-2015 11:49AM

conorhal wrote: »

I would restate however that it needs to be based on the victim impact statement and not a judges presumption.

Oh true, but clearly there was no issue with how the matter was introduced so one must presume it was in an impact statement or evidence was given to that effect.

The paedophile received an increased penalty because of the particular trauma suffered by his victim that may not be suffered by everyone. It is well established that the impact on the victim may be an aggravating factor. It was in this instance, so the paedophile got a tougher sentence. I would have though a "well done, Judge, well done" appropriate. The Appeal Court seemed to think so anyway.

suicide_circus · 18-09-2015 11:50AM

I think this sends a dangerous message as it legitimises the backward victim blaming prevalent in many communities. Judge is saying "yep, these girls are now damaged goods. Gonna be much tougher for their owner (father) to peddle them off to someone else now"

18-09-2015 11:53AM

suicide_circus wrote: »

I think this sends a dangerous message as it legitimises the backward victim blaming prevalent in many communities. Judge is saying "yep, these girls are now damaged goods. Gonna be much tougher for their owner (father) to peddle them off to someone else now"

The Judge wasn't saying that at all.

As for the message, it's not for the Courts to focus on the message, that's a matter for sociologists and so on. The Judge is concerned about this offender and this crime, and the impact on this victim.

lawred2 · 18-09-2015 11:53AM

Very Bored wrote: »

Paedophile jailed for longer because victims were Asian and the judge felt that Asian communities are more judgemental of rape victims. This may be true but I find it abhorrent that a white (or any other ethnicity) child's suffering should be seen as less. Personally, I'd be of the lock him up then "ooops, we lost the key" persuasion regarding anyone like this, but I simply don't think its right to value one child's pain over another's. My concern is for other children, and for adults who had this happen to them in childhood, and the message this sends out.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paedophile-who-abused-two-young-6463908

I'd lock the judge up

weirdo

rubadub · 18-09-2015 11:53AM

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

More PCness gone mental.

I would not consider it being PC at all. It's openly discriminating, I would think being PC would be going out of their way to not be discriminating.

Like if some MMA fighter punched another fighter during a row at a weighin and got a small fine. Then if the MMA fighter punched an old granny and a judge insisted on the same punishment I would think that is "PC gone mad"

18-09-2015 11:56AM

rubadub wrote: »

I would not consider it being PC at all. It's openly discriminating, I would think being PC would be going out of their way to not be discriminating.

It's not discriminating, it's distinguishing. In this instance on the basis of the reaction that different communities have towards the victims of abuse. To give a paedophile an increased sentence. Which seems to really have upset people here. That poor peado never had a chance, sure how was he to know about the particular trauma to his victims, apparently it should be excluded as an aggravating factor.

Custardpi · 18-09-2015 11:57AM

While "PCness" is certainly an overused term it does appear strange that it is taken as given that the victim will suffer shaming & possible ostracisation within her community for having the cheek to be abused. Is it acceptable that this further attack on the victim is not criticised or that the practice of arranged marriages (how much choice do the females have in the "arrangement"?) is not scrutinised. Now you can argue that legally reform of such practices is not of course within the remit of a judge, but couldn't he at least find some way to condemn it?

The message being sent out here is one which (regardless of the judge's intentions) effectively validates any shaming which the victims receive at the hands of their community. Whatever the strict legal standpoint I personally find it morally abhorrent that any victim of sexual abuse/rape should be treated in this way. Communities which do so should be regarded as backward & in need of intervention & education to come into the 21st century. Whatever one's cultural/ethnic background if someone has suffered the kind of appalling abuse which these victims did & you shun them or try to make their lives difficult then you are a pr1ck & are effectivly an accomplice to the rapist. Shaming culture should not be accepted in a civilised country in 2015.

arayess · 18-09-2015 12:05PM

Cuban Pete wrote: »

Is it really any different from people delivering victim impact statements here? After all, if justice is supposed to be blind then the consequences for the injured party shouldn't be factored in.

I'm sorry, but isn't this precisely what AH wants? That the impact of the crime on the victim should play a role in sentencing? Isn't this what people have been crowing about for years?

And that is a perfect example of why the term "political correctness" now has no meaning.

I want harsh sentences for child abusers. I want the pain of the victim acknowledged by all means .

But to state that culturally it is harsher on an Asian than a Caucasian is wrong. You can't generalise on something like that.

Victim impact statements are an interesting concept , I don't know if they should assist in the severity of a sex crime.
Because somebody copes well with a rape compared to another who claims their life is destroyed doesn't mean person 1 should be denied the satisfaction of seeing their attacker punished to the full extent of the law.
As a society we'd want both rapist locked up for a lengthy period and not have one get off easier true the sheer luck that his victim "coped better".

18-09-2015 12:06PM

Custardpi wrote: »

While "PCness" is certainly an overused term it does appear strange that it is taken as given that the victim will suffer shaming & possible ostracisation within her community for having the cheek to be abused. Is it acceptable that this further attack on the victim is not criticised or that the practice of arranged marriages (how much choice do the females have in the "arrangement"?) is not scrutinised. Now you can argue that legally reform of such practices is not of course within the remit of a judge, but couldn't he at least find some way to condemn it?

We have the Mirror's take of the Court of Appeal's take on the issue?

Maybe it was argued for days during the trial? How do you know it was all "taken as a given"?

And it would most certainly not be within the Judge's remit to criticise the Asian community. Now that would be wrong.

The_Valeyard · 18-09-2015 12:08PM

white privilege or some sort of BS?

Custardpi · 18-09-2015 12:10PM

Deleted User wrote: »

And it would most certainly not be within the Judge's remit to criticise the Asian community. Now that would be wrong.

Only if you automatically assume that "Asian community" can be used as a synonym for "backward knobs who make rape victims suffer more". That's setting pretty low expectations for that section of society isn't it? Anyone who engages in such shaming regardless of their ethnicity, religion etc needs to be strongly criticised.

asherbassad · 18-09-2015 12:17PM

Deleted User wrote: »

We are upset because some paedophile was jailed for longer because of some aggravating factor?

My heart bleeds for him.

I think it perfectly legitimate. If for example virginity is particularly respected in a culture and so by being abused the victim also is stigmatised and shunned by their own community after the incident, I say fire another few years on for that, don't limit the considerations to the physical offence itself.

And once again you completely miss the point.

18-09-2015 12:18PM

Custardpi wrote: »

Only if you automatically assume that "Asian community" can be used as a synonym for "backward knobs who make rape victims suffer more". That's setting pretty low expectations for that section of society isn't it? Anyone who engages in such shaming regardless of their ethnicity, religion etc needs to be strongly criticised.

I think again we are taking something that you are implying from the Judge's stance.

The entire thread is predicated on the implication that European or Caucasian victims are treated less favourably, which is of course not the issue at all. The Judge has taken the impact on this particular victim into account in this case, which is totally legitimate. I am also not sure there is any evidence to say the Judge was implying some criticism of the Asian community, when again the Judge may only have taken the evidence that was furnished and dealt with it in the context of this victim. I appreciate that of course such shaming is abhorrent, but the Judge was not asked to try the Asian community for their beliefs or even analyse them.

18-09-2015 12:19PM

asherbassad wrote: »

And once again you completely miss the point.

Sure why don't you try making one yourself.

Ah go on, give it a go.

jungleman · 18-09-2015 12:23PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

white privilege or some sort of BS?

White privilege belongs on Tumblr with the nutjobs who spout that crap.

Paedophile Jailed Longer Because Victims Were Asian

Comments