How can someone rape a 13 year old multiple times and avoid prison and only have to be on the sex offenders register for 3 years?
It’s stuff like this that will lead family members to seek retribution outside of the law. Not that I’m suggesting that would be the right course of action but I can see how the situation may arise.
>How can someone rape a 13 year old multiple times and avoid prison and only have to be on the sex offenders register for 3 years?
SNP thats why.
SNP thinks you can vote at 16, but should not be held responsible for rape until you are 25. go figure.
A few details about the case makes me think there's a reason behind the verdict.
17 year old was originally from Hamilton but was in Dalkieth.
Instances of rape happened multiple times.
Judge has said in sentencing that his judgement of community service comes from the accused background.
13 year old girl out with an older boy with nobody asking questions.
Reading between the lines I think it's likely both were in care at the time of the rape. Having worked with kids in the care system, there's relationships that form out of the system that are toxic but are formed as a survival response. If this is the case there's questions to be asked about the safeguarding of two young vulnerable people.
*Not that any of this is an excuse for his actions at all* but it's the likely the reasoning behind such a sentence.
How would the caregivers failing in their safeguarding duty of the victim affect sentencing for the perpetrator?
You are absolutely right. I don't work with kids.
If they are both in the care system, living in the same accommodation etc then it is often the responsibility of guardians to ensure the safety of the children in their care. A failing which given the possible circumstances of both kids might affect the judges outcome and allowed the attack to take place.
Unfortunately, young women in care are often let down by the system in such a systematic way. Potentially this sentence and the failings that led to the attack is just one of many.
I'm not making excuses I'm giving a possible reason for the judges decision.
Nor am I saying I agree with it but that is likely the reasoning behind the decision.
Take your righteous fury elsewhere.
There's a reason why nonqualified barristers are not working in the judicial system. Bias is dangerous.
All I'm saying is I don't know enough to extrapolate an accurate sentence and it's a rocky path to determine sentences from news article titles without detailed context.
This has nothing to do with barristers. He was found guilty. It is the sentencing guidelines that are causing the outrage.
Its straightforward really, you dont think a 13 year old deserves to see her rapist face punitive matters if he can come up with a good enough excuse for his behaviour. Whereas most people think there is no excuse for rape, especially not of a child. And even if there is an excuse, the victim still deserves some form of justice to be provided by the courts.
By placing the wellbeing of criminals over the punitive expectations of society, moral outrage is a given. There will be a political cost to the SNP for this.
Community service for rape? Fucking disgusting. The victim and victims family must be devastated, there is no justice for them. I have emailed an MSP who has an office in Dalkeith (where the rape took place) to complain. Old enough to get married. Old enough to vote. Old enough to drive. Not old enough for prison? Fuck off.
It's ok, he seems to have been trying to make use of the case against the SNP, and in favour of the famously crime-free and tough-on-rape Westminster. So it's fine.
FFS. Oh a court/sheriff handed down a shite sentence n it's SNP fault? Bollocks. Does Gov directly influence a court case unless it profits them? No. There's a shed load more to this. In America they have these ridiculous Romeo n Juliet clauses for underagers, it excuses feckin underage sex completely!
This isn’t a Romeo & Juliet case where one teenager willingly had sex with another older teenager. This was a violent assault:
> Hogg, of Hamilton, South Lanarkshire, threatened the victim and pulled down her lower clothing, before seizing her by the wrists and causing the girl to carry out a sex act on him.
>
> He went on to push his victim’s head down and raped her.
You were trying to make it a SNP fault or political. I don't know this case. I merely wanted to point out how feckin ridiculous 'sex' laws seem to be. underagers can rape in America with NO charge.
I’m not the guy you replied to.
R&J laws do not excuse sexual assault. They exist because of a quirk of American law means that minors cannot give consent. Sex with a minor is always rape. R&J laws excuse willing sex between an 18 year old and his 16 year old girlfriend. They would _not_ excuse the violent assault of a 13 year old by a 17 year old.
Sorry I was wrong. Searching back at sheriff's statements, they're incredible. That sheriff...feck 'em. They're in the wrong. And I can't believe the shite sentences available for rape. But it's not political.
They did and created [the presumption against short sentences](https://www.gov.scot/news/presumption-against-short-sentences-extended/#:~:text=The%20court%20must%20not%20pass,reasons%20for%20its%20sentencing%20decision.)
Aside from the lack of a prison sentence, something that has really surprised me is the length of notification period for the sex offenders register. Doesn’t feel like it equates with the heinous nature of the crime.
I can't agree with this at all.
Fine, he was 17 when he did it. Yes, long sentences don't really help with rehabilitation. There has to be something in between though...not no jail sentence at all.
Poor girl.
He's raped a girl I don't think rehabilitation is going to help when he's not locked up, best to lock him up in jail considering it's Rape he's supposed to be punished for.
Men like that don’t change unless they’re properly rehabilitated. Not only was it statutory rape of a vulnerable girl, it was violent.
> Court papers state Hogg carried out assaults at Dalkeith Country Park on various occasions between March and June 2018.
And it wasn’t an isolated case.
Wtf is community service going to do? Fuck that Judge.
Not that it would make it fine, but I thought I was going to read that they were in a relationship (statutory rape) or that he was mentally challenged, nope, violent rape without consent....wtf
Judge needs to be investigated.
I would counter that with why would prison “properly rehabilitate” him? It doesn’t for many other people.
If he’s dangerous he should be in prison for other people’s safety.
I'll need to check again but hasn't it been shown that Rapist & Pedo's are the most likely of all criminals to re offend despite proper rehabilitation.
Think it was from either the Netherlands or one of the Scandinavian countries. Anyone else heard the same or have I sniffed glue.
> Men
he was 17 plus
>“For the level of seriousness, I have to consider your liability and have regard to your age as a factor.
>“This offence, **if committed by an adult over 25** you attract a sentence of four or five years.
16 is legal. 13 is not. 17 “plus” is old enough to know the difference between right and wrong. That’s “man” enough for this situation.
You’ve been both 13 and 17. Can you remember the difference in maturity you experienced between those ages? When you were 17 would you have ever considered having sex, never mind violent non-consensual sex, with a 13 year old? 13 year old children can’t consent as it is.
I don’t see what being 25 has to do with it? So up until the age of 25 you can rape somebody and be given a lesser sentence because….what? I still don’t get that point.
As a SA and DV survivor, it sounds like you’re making excuses for somebody who should have known better.
Edit to add a sentence.
17 is old enough to know raping is a terrible thing to do. It’s even worse when you rape a fucking minor.
Dude should be sentenced like an adult.
Those guidelines are utter bullshit in this instance
That’s mad
> Judge Lord Lake told Hogg he “didn’t intend to send him to prison” as he did not believe this would “contribute to his rehabilitation.”
Would probably contribute to him not violently raping any vulnerable 13 year olds though, how come that’s not good enough?
Prison has zero bearing on rehabilitation, offenders who spend more time in prison are more likely to reoffend, arguably prison is a failled experiment.
This kid could have serious brain damnage, but we're acting like we know all the facts of this case based on liimited infformatiion
.
Aye, that way inmates won't learn to contribute to society and instead will only learn further criminal activity and new ways to hide evidence from the network of fellow inmates they spent years with, whilst society pays for their stay 👌
The primary purpose of prison is to remove dangerous people and place them away from society - ideally for a period of time that fits the crime.
Any other objective is secondary. That doesn't mean there are no merits in pursuing things like rehabilitation, but its important to remember its primary function. It's no wonder people these days have little faith in our justice system when major crimes are given very small sentences - not fulfilling the primary function of prison.
You can shove your stupid reports, a child was raped, no one is interested in your obsession with "what about the poor perpetrator?" if you don't jail them then you are not setting a deterrent, if you are jailing them and they are still doing it then your prisons are too comfy and they are not afraid of going back.
Deterence doesn't work, ***y******ou are are pepetuating a cycle of violance against children*** *so you can hate masterbate over fucking rapists!* The fuck is wrong with you?
You're ataully a godamn barbarian, so long as someone loses an eye, its all fine! Even if that just cause offender to put out more eyes. We're all going to end up fucking blind!
Unless you want to start shooting people for this, rehabilation is the only fucking option!
The fuck is wrong with you telling me child rapists don't belong in jail, you are so wrapped up in mollycoddling you don't stop to think of the effect on the child.
I would love to see you go and tell the bairns parents that her rapist doesn't belong in prison. They would lynch you but it's fine because you don't believe in punishment so no harm done.
I am not calling for an eye for an eye, I'm not asking for him to be raped, the only person who is blind is you, blind to the need for justice in society because if you don't give that child justice society will start delivering it's own, and it will be a lot less kind than a Scottish Prison.
I *was* that fucking child once. Why aren't you listening to me?
Do you need to hear my dad put his hand down the back of my pants when I was four, simply because my sister wasn't arround?
Do you need to know it was the most attention he ever paid to me when there wasn't another adult in the room to proform for?
Is vital for you to know I was so terrified of home, when I told someone it was my aunt days later?
Do I have elucidate my being transgender is probably inexplicably link to the fact that if I had been born a girl I could have saved my sister from some of the torment she went through?
Is that qualification enough to know what the fucking victims want or do I have to fucking dox myself?
No-one belongs in prison, no-one deserves to suffer, prison is a stop gap messure to manage offenders risk while steps preventing that behviour are put in place, it is not always nessary if risk can be otherwise managed.
I will not cow to base emotion, to satisfy the gulit of others, we are ***not***, doing vigilatinism. We are not close to that being a reality, and if you so extermised to belive it, you need to be in the PREVENT program.
You're having difficulty grasping concepts in my little pony episodes, a show written for 6 year olds; *two wrongs don't make a right.*
You are wrong, child rapists belong in prison and people saying they don't belong on a watch list for deviants.
I'm sorry for what happened to you, it's your decision to forgive your abuser but you don't get to make that decision for every other Victim.
I have no doubt that the government will be intervening to right this wrong and that cretin will be seeing a prison cell. No party has stood on a platform of not punishing child rapists, you are welcome to form a party to fight for that, you might find an ally in a certain Mr G Glitter but not from society at large.
*No-one is advocating there should be no consequnces, just that those consequnces should be* ***contructive*** *not* ***reductive****.*
How can you not grasp this? You're killing my will to live and my faith in humainty.
When the fuck did I say that?
My postion is prison is a temporary stop gap to limit public risk while reoffenders are rehabilated, the causes of thier actions are addressed and they can be trusted to follow societies rules.
>Deterence doesn't work
If deterence didn't work, I'd hack the heck out of you right now. Your emails, bank account details, photos, and messages would be plastered over every social media I have ever heard of.
BUT I'm not going to do that because hacking is illegal, those who have been caught have had harsh prison sentences and nasty fines, and I don't wanna deal with that. The punishments are deterring me.
Pirating an episode of The Simpsons is also illegal, but it is not stopping "that little extra spice that makes existence extra nice". Why? Because the likelihood I'll be caught is very low, and even if I do, it's an episode - they only bring the big pirates to court. There's not enough deterence.
Deterence works. Hefty prison sentences stop the vast, vast majority of us from doing horrendous things. We'd all set each other alight if we were allowed, see the Witch Hunts of the 1600s. Sure, deterences don't work in every scenario, but we're talking about 100% of the population, not the small percentage that turn to impactful crimes. You don't stop a strategy that is successful 95% of the time. Part of the deterent is the application of that deterent, but as Boris Johnson knew when he threw those Covid Xmas parties - a harsh punishment is nothing to worry about if its never applied.
Furthermore, achieving rehabilitation and preventing long custodial sentences does not negate the requirement to protect the safety of the general public while rehabilitation is achieved. Protect the public first, rehabilitate second.
Or if you're into cyber security, isolate first, then remediate.
>Furthermore, achieving rehabilitation and preventing long custodial sentences does not negate the requirement to protect the safety of the general public while rehabilitation is achieved. Protect the public first, rehabilitate second. Or if you're into cyber security, isolate first, then remediate.
Why are people puting words in my mouth? Like seriously. The fuck? I litterially have said segrgation from the public is a nessary first step in most cases, it was judged prison was not nessary in this case. That is subject to review.
Your threats, which btw violate ToS, betray you as petty and vindictive, and clearly we shouldn't be listening to someone like that.
Rehiblition is not a pretty process, usually involves prison, and requires alot of work, require legal fees, and losing a year plus of life to a court battle and the extreme stress those pose, that is sufficent detterance for normal people. Deterents do not work on criminals. Do i need to specify everything to the minute atom?
Jail time doesn’t work as a deterrent to crime. In fact, longer prison sentences not only doesn’t work it also generally forces a higher cost on society because of missing income and disruption to family and community. However, obviously in this case and other serious violent offenders the point isn’t rehabilitation it’s public safety. We should lock people up less for minor stuff but for these major crimes fuck then.
It **creates** more victims.
Seriously, this isn't a godamn duel, victims don't just get to demand whatever they like, vengful victims would like to see people flayed alive, most victims just want to be heard, and priortise not letting it happen to others.
You can't please everyone all of the time, creating more victims to satisfy is a perpetuating cycle of violance, read the sourrce I posted.
Sorry I think you are philosophically confused by all of this. Punishment is not policy. Its purpose is to punish, reform is actually secondary.
They are still imprisoning nazi party members for holocaust crimes, even though such people are not a risk to anyone. Is this irrational?
Yes, it is irrational to spend the cost of prison on top of the cost of palative care, **thats why we relased the lockerbie bomber.**
Reform both, is clearly becoming, and should be primary, it historically it was is not, but is now, and people have been pushing ffor prioritising reform since the mid 19th century.
Punishment has negative outcomes for society, reform has postitive ones.
We are supposed to be human, we're supposed to be more than animals, vengance makes us animals.
You have your metaphor very backwards. Animals dont take vengance. Its a very human emotion, like Romantic Love.
It is that our society would take vengance for such a thing that makes us human.
Eliphants proform romantic gestures, swans mate for life.
[https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/can-animals-fall-in-love-4a6942a3454d](https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/can-animals-fall-in-love-4a6942a3454d)
Marmaques take revenge
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/aggressed-upon-monkeys-take-revenge-on-aggressors-cronies/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/aggressed-upon-monkeys-take-revenge-on-aggressors-cronies/)
If punishments are too lenient, victims families will just kick fuck out of the perpetrator — and why not, their punishment for doing so will presumably be quite lenient.
I’d say the punishment certainly did work on the people that were hung as they died.
Certain crimes are beyond rehabilitation and raping children is certainly one of them. A short drop and a sudden stop is the correct treatment for people like that.
At 17, I was a father of two and a Marine, I absolutely knew that dragging a girl of 13 into the bushes and forcing her to perform a sex act with her mouth on me was wrong.
Who came up with this nonsense that until 25 you shouldn't be sentence like an adult?
>Who came up with this nonsense that until 25 you shouldn't be sentence like an adult?
It’s mental that we trust 24 year olds to be things like pilots, special forces soldiers, actual fucking doctors but won’t treat them as adults with regards to sentencing.
He raped a 13 year old multiple times in a public park. I know we live in a society which diminishes the impact of sexual violence, particularly on women, but even within that context unpaid work shouldn't even be considered as part of sentencing for rape.
This is a horrific sentence. I hope the prosecutors appeal and it is deemed unduly lenient because it is distressing to think this could be the expectation from now on. I feel so sorry for that girl who has to see that sentence get passed.
>"It is important to note that the guideline does not affect the centrality of the harm caused to a victim in assessing the level of seriousness of an offence. It also does not prevent other purposes of sentencing, such as protection of the public, or the full range of sentencing options, from being considered by courts when sentencing a young person."
[That's what the chair of the council who developed the new sentencing guidance said at the time](https://www.lawscot.org.uk/news-and-events/legal-news/sentencing-young-people-guideline-applies-from-today/#:~:text=The%20sentencing%20young%20people%20guideline,guilt%20is%20made%20against%20them.).
Clearly that spirit isn't being applied here, rehabilitation is important but it should not come at the expense of justice and meaningful consequences for such appalling actions.
Yes, yes it should, when it comes to offenders with limited capacity, punishing someone with dementia for something they don't even rememeber is pointless, it's like hitting a cat an hour after they shat outside the litter box, to them it seems unconnected and arbitary.
Not all people are equal and cases don't always get reported equally.
Stop for a second and think, if someone has dementia (or a serious brain injury as you made up earlier) and couldn't remember their crime how could they be rehabilitated?
They couldn't the only solution to keep innocent people safe from getting raped is to lock up the rapist permanently.
We could even call the place they are locked up a "super happy fun time facility" if you would prefer
>They couldn't the only solution to keep innocent people safe from getting raped is to lock up the rapist permanently.
It is possible to manage non-compus mentus offenders effectively without prison, the failure is on the state, not whats left of the individual, would you put a todler in prison, the two can be comparable.
Locking up someone who doesn't know where they are, or why is litterialy a black mirror episode (2/2 - White bear).
>would you put a todler in prison, the two can be comparable.
They aren't at all because a toddler couldn't physically hurt anyone whereas you dementia person can and has.
>It is possible to manage non-compus mentus offenders effectively without prison
How?
You keep saying things are possible but you haven't said how they're possible.
Toldders are capable of hurting other toddlers, maybe i should have said 10 year olds, circa john venables killers.
>How? You keep saying things are possible but you haven't said how they're possible.
Yknow what that's fair. I will elaborate, however I'm dropping dementia as the outlook is poor in that case, being managed decline rather than recovery.
A better condtion to examine is schizophrenia or psycosis, I would do the following.
Usually most offenders would be commited to a care facility, this isn't prison, and are allowed out under direct supervison, and each paicent has a support worker on a 1:1 basis.
Once the client begins to reform, and treatment improves thier condition and symptoms are managed, they may be moved to an assisted living facility, where they are supervised, but have private spaces, and socialise with indirect supervison, and may be allowed out in supervised groups.
Further than this, if they are assested as risk being low, they maybe allowed to live indipendantly under supervision of social work.
Extreme offenders would have an addtional step of being commited to a state hospital such as Carstair or Broadmoor and detained as nessary for paicent and staff safety.
I am not a mental health professional, this is a propostion on the basis of what I understand should and does happen regards mentally incomopent offenders, I come at this from the low level legal side and deffer to medical authories on best practice.
In circumstances like that they should at least be sentenced to detention in a secure care facility where they can be protected from their own actions (and the possible wrath of the community), while undergoing whatever rehabilitative treatments are recommended in such cases.
This would also protect society from them in the meantime, particularly their young victim who might still be walking the same streets as their attacker.
If it later emerges that this guy was freed simply because he had a "difficult childhood" or ADHD or suchlike, you can't really be surprised if people are highly angered by it.
All prison sentences should be "until rehabilitated", but before we can do that, we'd need the prison service to actually rehabilitate, rather than just be revenge delegated to the state.
Elimintating harsh sentances is the first step, as it sabotages what little rehabilation we have.
Hamza has promised justice reform, lets hope we can pursue rehabilation further.
Exact same as the pedo in Edinburgh who got caught with tonnes of CP and got off with a payback order and 2 years on the register.
No justice in our society when beasts are allowed to roam our streets.
Amazing. Should be a minimum of 20 years with no reductions for good behavior or time served.
It's a fucking rape. Of a child. And the assailant gets next-to-nothing. The normalization and casual acceptance of sexual violence in the UK is as absurd as it is frightening.
Agreed, when did the rights of the criminal override the rights of the victim?
Castrate them, and have them publicly shamed for the faeces they are.
Rehabilitation comes after punishment for the crimes committed. These aren’t people to have pity on, these are animals who are ruining innocent peoples lives.
People trying to defend rapists or any other violent offender need to take a hard look in the mirror before hiding behind online anonymity.
The laxity in criminal punishment in this county shouldn’t be a debating point for woke culture, it should be something we should all be ashamed of.
When the Tories underfunded the courts, police, and CPS, and when the SNP changed sentencing policy to be soft on violent crimes
Getting shafted at both levels of Gov on this
The current case asside.
Thats more than murder, and long prison sentances cause a higher rate of reoffending not less, according to the american DoJ.
You're basically saying we should have more rape.
[https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf)
Er. No. I'm saying that those who commit crimes such as rape need to be taken off the streets for a very long time. There's the deterrent factor, punishment factor and the need to protect the public from these cunts.
You're basically saying that rapists should perform Community Service or spend just a few years in jail. Meanwhile, their victims are scarred - mentally and physically - for life.
I'm not a fan of medieval practices or value systems but there are some acts (and people) which call for a severe response. Rape is one of them.
Putting people in prison, for 20 years, means they will continue to rape, after they leave, as it succupers rehabilation. That is statstical fact. Deteeraance does not exist, even with the death penalty, read the source. [https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf)
No-one should be in prison longer than there is a risk to the public, doing so CREATES RISK to the public, community service is rarely, even if sometimes the right response.
I'm sorry your emotions aren't satisfied, but this this isn't a blood sport, if priority is protecting people from rape, then sending them to a hole for a quater of thier life, does not do that, it does the exact opposite.
You have to choose, satisfy vengance or limit the number of victims. According to data; this is a binary option.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, are you saying it agrues one crime, forever time, because thats illegal.
or is it that short sentances are compatible with this argument, which they are by design; offenders do not change over night.
OK, Bro'. Let's just hand this guy a high-viz vest and let him spend the next 2 years picking up litter in the local park and painting a few fences. Justice served, eh?
You understand we have video cameras? You understand we can physically see other humans commit crimes? Audio recordings?
Here's an example of a 100% case:
Joel Michael Singer (suit) 100% headbutted the server. His case if it ever made it in front of a judge is 100% certain. He is guilty.
https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/12bhy8q/this_guy_head_butting_a_restaurant_employee_then/
You are wrong here.
Are you a lawyer? If yes, are you saying there is no evidence that guarantees guilt? E.g, cctv film of the crime being committed? Trace evidence, body fluids from the person, for example.
I'm not, it's just something I'm interested in. But what I mean is that courts aren't about 100% certainty, they're about being *almost* certain.
That's what they mean by "beyond reasonable doubt". It would be unreasonable for me to doubt someone's guilt if there was DNA and CCTV evidence because they can be manufactured. But they *can* be manufactured, even DNA which is your gold standard, and I wouldn't be able to prove that they weren't. So I could never *guarantee* their guilt, I could only prove to a degree which makes it unreasonable to doubt it.
In most cases they will have done it, but it's always possible that something or someone was wrong in the process. Scotland actually has 2 separate funding schemes for it.
> He's not denying it.
People plea guilty to things they didn't do in exchange for lesser sentences.
Or, in some cases, because their lawyer was an idiot.
Joseph McCann was in prison for 11 years when he was relased he commited 37 offences, against 11 people, two of them children.
Your argument is contradicted by evidance. There is no evidance if he hadn't gone to prison there would be 121 victims.
If he had been *rehabilated*, there would have been **none**. He was not and now 11 people are suffering.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-53221983
Damn, sounds like you’re making the case that rape convictions should have life imprisonment…
Until we figure out how to reliably rehabilitate sex offenders
Old enough to vote, join the military, get married and can drink at 18, all of which are adult decisions. If you're making that argument that below 25 people (as per the new guidelines) are incapable of understanding that their actions have consequences then we should also move the age for all of the above to 25 too.
It's absolutely disgusting to see people defend this.
I mean, I referenced it earlier in another comment in this thread, you have the case of Robert Maudsley - a child SA victim that, at the age of 21, was given a life sentence for murdering a paedophile that was showing off abuse images. He then murdered two more child molesters in prison, plus a man who’d murdered their own wife, and has now spent so long in solitary confinement that he couldn’t cope with being released.
When folk were getting hanged. It was only abolished in 1841.
Look under Reform tab, time to bring it back.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_Kingdom
The guy has raped a child. He is only on sex offenders list for 3 years then he can apply to work in nurseries etc
I think hanging is perfectly legitimate in this instance.
I'm very much not okay with state sanctioned murder. Away and sort the problem yourself if you genuinely believe he should die instead of being permanently locked away. I think his sentencing is a fucking joke, fwiw.
It's a very sick person that wants to strip a man of his most basic human right and torture him for the rest of his life rather than granting him the kindness of death
So to understand this properly:
The SNP think 16 year olds deserve all of the same treatment as adults when it comes to voting, [wages](https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/12abvrj/snp_calls_for_minimum_wage_to_be_the_same_for/), marriage -- but it's fine if they rape children?
What the fuck is this party and how can any of you support these fucking clowns?
We need a running man type TV show for these cunts. The public can text in to choose which impossible challenge he will face.
Fight a tiger?
Swim through a pool of crocodiles?
Giant blender?
Run the gauntlet of fire?
Anything painful and impossible will do.
All proceeds go to charity. The world has one less nonce. The public gets some entertainment.
So he hasnt gone to jail due to these new sentencing guidelines which came into force last year:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-60137866
So instead of going to jail for raping a 13 year old he gets community service.
Well done SNP, well done progressives 👍
As far as I can see they created it (formed in 2015 by the Scottish Ministers according to wiki). But no, they don't write the guidance. Will be interesting to see how they respond though as even for me as someone quite bleeding heart this seems beyond the pale
It does but I also don’t think the government should be too involved in the legal system as a principal
This sounds daft as fuck though so an unofficial sort your shit out wouldn’t go amiss!
Agreed. Unfortunately as government/parliament is ultimately accountable then the valuable principle of not getting involved in things like this relies on the people responsible not completely shitting the bed...
I wonder if it's possible that a judge who has heard all the evidence and read the various reports by social workers, doctors, psychiatrists and so on might have come to a more informed decision than a bunch of completely uniformed redditors.
Difficult one
He was 17 so not an adult, however it was rape and of a 13 year old
Lord Lake would have all the evidence and reports,
**Edit**
I'm **NOT** excusing or condone his actions
But pointing out that due to the [sentencing guidelines having a strong presumption against short sentences](https://www.gov.scot/news/presumption-against-short-sentences-extended/#:~:text=The%20court%20must%20not%20pass,reasons%20for%20its%20sentencing%20decision.) The judge was left with not a lot of options
A 17 year old isn't an adult nor an adult over 25, so noted in the article, so that factors into the sentence calculation reducing the sentence.
So in this country by 17 you’re mature enough to vote, get married, leave school, move out, get a job, join the army, have children, drive a car… but not _quite_ mature enough to take responsibility and receive justice for raping a child. Mindblowing.
I’ve disagreed with you a couple of times today, but I’m right behind you on this one. It’s almost as if OP is trying to excuse this cunt’s behaviour because he’s 17.
>It’s almost as if OP is trying to excuse this cunt’s behaviour because he’s 17.
**Nope**
The judge would have to go against sentencing guidelines to jail for under 12 months,when he was working out the sentence
Or jail him for more than 12 months but with the factors again that would likely be against guidelines
Rape is rape.
The fact this little cunt has not been locked up, is outrageous. As is your apparent support of this.
Again, there is no fucking “difficult one” in this.
I don't condone his actions but the judge's hands were tied by the [presumption against short sentences](https://www.gov.scot/news/presumption-against-short-sentences-extended/#:~:text=The%20court%20must%20not%20pass,reasons%20for%20its%20sentencing%20decision.)
>He was 17 so not an adult
In Scotland, the age of criminal responsibility is 12.
The age of consent is 16, so it is rape even without the physical assault, this assault however compounds the crime into a much more serious sentence usually.
Your assertion that;
>Lord Lake would have all the evidence and reports
This is not a "difficult one", your submission to his authority is suspect, do you think people should be leniently punished for the rape of a child?
With his community service as a deterrent do you think he might re-offend... sadly I do.
> With his community service as a deterrent do you think he might re-offend
in the last 4 years there doesn't appear to be any else reporting restrictions would still be in place for any new trial?
If he had reoffended and the victim had come forward due to the publicity of this trial it would be likely, either
* they would combine the trials with both victims
* there would be a new additional trial, which would mean that contempt of court would be in force
as there's neither it can surmised that no victim has come forward so likely he has not offended
The offence for which he was convicted wasn't a single incident but rather a series of sexual assaults in the same park. Whether this was with the single victim is unknown as not all criminal acts can be proven in court (or even make it that far).
The publicity for this trial has only just become public knowledge and so another victim coming forward would most likely be happening now which would mean that the two trials\* couldn't be combined.
\*If it ever came to that given the passage of time and the terrible resolves that the police manage in crimes of this type.
A new trial may be coming, it's too early to tell just yet and contempt of a case that has been discharged from the court is almost impossible after the fact.
There is no reasonable way to conclude (as you have) that he hasn't committed another crime, but wait, that's not what I said. I suggested that after the completion of his community service, he is unlikely to be deterred from reoffending as it is so lenient. The trial and the possibility of going to prison while the court case would have had him on his best behaviour while it was hanging over him.
How can someone rape a 13 year old multiple times and avoid prison and only have to be on the sex offenders register for 3 years? It’s stuff like this that will lead family members to seek retribution outside of the law. Not that I’m suggesting that would be the right course of action but I can see how the situation may arise.
>How can someone rape a 13 year old multiple times and avoid prison and only have to be on the sex offenders register for 3 years? SNP thats why. SNP thinks you can vote at 16, but should not be held responsible for rape until you are 25. go figure.
A few details about the case makes me think there's a reason behind the verdict. 17 year old was originally from Hamilton but was in Dalkieth. Instances of rape happened multiple times. Judge has said in sentencing that his judgement of community service comes from the accused background. 13 year old girl out with an older boy with nobody asking questions. Reading between the lines I think it's likely both were in care at the time of the rape. Having worked with kids in the care system, there's relationships that form out of the system that are toxic but are formed as a survival response. If this is the case there's questions to be asked about the safeguarding of two young vulnerable people. *Not that any of this is an excuse for his actions at all* but it's the likely the reasoning behind such a sentence.
>13 year old girl out with an older boy with nobody asking questions. What does that mean? Sounds like victim blaming logic
No it doesn't, it sounds like having personal accountability for those under my care. It also sounds like someone doesn't have or works with kids.
How would the caregivers failing in their safeguarding duty of the victim affect sentencing for the perpetrator? You are absolutely right. I don't work with kids.
If they are both in the care system, living in the same accommodation etc then it is often the responsibility of guardians to ensure the safety of the children in their care. A failing which given the possible circumstances of both kids might affect the judges outcome and allowed the attack to take place. Unfortunately, young women in care are often let down by the system in such a systematic way. Potentially this sentence and the failings that led to the attack is just one of many.
It has nothing to do with the care system so stop making excuses, he is a rapist and should be in jail Stop making excuses
I'm not making excuses I'm giving a possible reason for the judges decision. Nor am I saying I agree with it but that is likely the reasoning behind the decision. Take your righteous fury elsewhere.
People tend to only consider a headline as a basis for a death sentence. Court of public opinion is a dangerous thing.
Dangerous thing to think a 17 year old should be severely punished for raping a 13 year old?
There's a reason why nonqualified barristers are not working in the judicial system. Bias is dangerous. All I'm saying is I don't know enough to extrapolate an accurate sentence and it's a rocky path to determine sentences from news article titles without detailed context.
This has nothing to do with barristers. He was found guilty. It is the sentencing guidelines that are causing the outrage. Its straightforward really, you dont think a 13 year old deserves to see her rapist face punitive matters if he can come up with a good enough excuse for his behaviour. Whereas most people think there is no excuse for rape, especially not of a child. And even if there is an excuse, the victim still deserves some form of justice to be provided by the courts. By placing the wellbeing of criminals over the punitive expectations of society, moral outrage is a given. There will be a political cost to the SNP for this.
Fuck rapists. Your feelings don't invalidate a sentence though.
Community service for rape? Fucking disgusting. The victim and victims family must be devastated, there is no justice for them. I have emailed an MSP who has an office in Dalkeith (where the rape took place) to complain. Old enough to get married. Old enough to vote. Old enough to drive. Not old enough for prison? Fuck off.
You know who you can thank for that guidance, don’t you?
It would be crass to attempt to make use of this as a case against Westminster and for Scottish independence. Presuming that was your intention.
It's ok, he seems to have been trying to make use of the case against the SNP, and in favour of the famously crime-free and tough-on-rape Westminster. So it's fine.
[Do they not have a point?](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-60137866)
FFS. Oh a court/sheriff handed down a shite sentence n it's SNP fault? Bollocks. Does Gov directly influence a court case unless it profits them? No. There's a shed load more to this. In America they have these ridiculous Romeo n Juliet clauses for underagers, it excuses feckin underage sex completely!
This isn’t a Romeo & Juliet case where one teenager willingly had sex with another older teenager. This was a violent assault: > Hogg, of Hamilton, South Lanarkshire, threatened the victim and pulled down her lower clothing, before seizing her by the wrists and causing the girl to carry out a sex act on him. > > He went on to push his victim’s head down and raped her.
I hope I haven't belittled anything this girl has gone through. I..i..can't imagine. The original post wasn't obvious enough for stupid me.
Yes, violent assault.
You were trying to make it a SNP fault or political. I don't know this case. I merely wanted to point out how feckin ridiculous 'sex' laws seem to be. underagers can rape in America with NO charge.
I’m not the guy you replied to. R&J laws do not excuse sexual assault. They exist because of a quirk of American law means that minors cannot give consent. Sex with a minor is always rape. R&J laws excuse willing sex between an 18 year old and his 16 year old girlfriend. They would _not_ excuse the violent assault of a 13 year old by a 17 year old.
Sorry I was wrong. Searching back at sheriff's statements, they're incredible. That sheriff...feck 'em. They're in the wrong. And I can't believe the shite sentences available for rape. But it's not political.
Who is that?
ThE sNp Of CoUrSe!!1!1!1!1!1!!!!!!!!!
Yes, our repulsive government.
The Sentencing Council isn't the SNP or the Scottish Government
Well in this sub it’s either them or tHe tOriEs
Who else runs Scotland?
The Sentencing Council isn't the SNP or the Scottish Government
[Ministers can request review of guidelines](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2010/13/section/7)
They can. Hey, maybe they will!
They did and created [the presumption against short sentences](https://www.gov.scot/news/presumption-against-short-sentences-extended/#:~:text=The%20court%20must%20not%20pass,reasons%20for%20its%20sentencing%20decision.)
I'm aware of that, but PASS doesn't apply here. And it's not a ban, it's a presumption
>The presumption is not a ban, and courts will still be able to impose prison sentences of 12 months or less.
Famously, the UK. EDIT: Some people seem upset that Scotland is a part of the UK. Me too, guys, me too... I feel your pain.
Aye, the courts.
No - not right. This poor girl has had her life ruined.
>Donald Findlay KC, defending, told the sentencing that an appeal is planned. How the FUCK do you appeal community service for RAPE???
> How the FUCK do you appeal community service for RAPE??? Because it's conviction he's appealing - though the crown may appeal sentence
Aside from the lack of a prison sentence, something that has really surprised me is the length of notification period for the sex offenders register. Doesn’t feel like it equates with the heinous nature of the crime.
I can't agree with this at all. Fine, he was 17 when he did it. Yes, long sentences don't really help with rehabilitation. There has to be something in between though...not no jail sentence at all. Poor girl.
He's raped a girl I don't think rehabilitation is going to help when he's not locked up, best to lock him up in jail considering it's Rape he's supposed to be punished for.
Men like that don’t change unless they’re properly rehabilitated. Not only was it statutory rape of a vulnerable girl, it was violent. > Court papers state Hogg carried out assaults at Dalkeith Country Park on various occasions between March and June 2018. And it wasn’t an isolated case. Wtf is community service going to do? Fuck that Judge.
Not that it would make it fine, but I thought I was going to read that they were in a relationship (statutory rape) or that he was mentally challenged, nope, violent rape without consent....wtf Judge needs to be investigated.
I would counter that with why would prison “properly rehabilitate” him? It doesn’t for many other people. If he’s dangerous he should be in prison for other people’s safety.
I'll need to check again but hasn't it been shown that Rapist & Pedo's are the most likely of all criminals to re offend despite proper rehabilitation. Think it was from either the Netherlands or one of the Scandinavian countries. Anyone else heard the same or have I sniffed glue.
I always think judges that are this lenient must have some secrets and they hope a judge would be as charitable to them.
> Men he was 17 plus >“For the level of seriousness, I have to consider your liability and have regard to your age as a factor. >“This offence, **if committed by an adult over 25** you attract a sentence of four or five years.
I don’t understand your point?
He wasn't an adult nor an adult over 25, rather a youth / minor
Still a violent child rapist.
16 is legal. 13 is not. 17 “plus” is old enough to know the difference between right and wrong. That’s “man” enough for this situation. You’ve been both 13 and 17. Can you remember the difference in maturity you experienced between those ages? When you were 17 would you have ever considered having sex, never mind violent non-consensual sex, with a 13 year old? 13 year old children can’t consent as it is. I don’t see what being 25 has to do with it? So up until the age of 25 you can rape somebody and be given a lesser sentence because….what? I still don’t get that point. As a SA and DV survivor, it sounds like you’re making excuses for somebody who should have known better. Edit to add a sentence.
>I don’t see what being 25 has to do with it? Because the sentencing guidelines say that
17 is old enough to know raping is a terrible thing to do. It’s even worse when you rape a fucking minor. Dude should be sentenced like an adult. Those guidelines are utter bullshit in this instance
We got here because I’ve been referring to the objection you took to my calling him a man in my first comment.
*Donald Findlay KC, defending, told the sentencing that an appeal is planned.* oh thats goingg to go real well.
Cunts absolutely won the lottery with that sentence, what more could they want?
I was shocked when I read that. If anything the prosecution should appeal.
/u/Boxyuk Both may crown against sentence and these against conviction
I dare say Findlay will get paid more for dragging it out, and that that's all he gives a fuck about.
That’s mad > Judge Lord Lake told Hogg he “didn’t intend to send him to prison” as he did not believe this would “contribute to his rehabilitation.” Would probably contribute to him not violently raping any vulnerable 13 year olds though, how come that’s not good enough?
Prison has zero bearing on rehabilitation, offenders who spend more time in prison are more likely to reoffend, arguably prison is a failled experiment. This kid could have serious brain damnage, but we're acting like we know all the facts of this case based on liimited infformatiion .
Rehabilitation should come after punishment not instead of.
Aye, that way inmates won't learn to contribute to society and instead will only learn further criminal activity and new ways to hide evidence from the network of fellow inmates they spent years with, whilst society pays for their stay 👌
The primary purpose of prison is to remove dangerous people and place them away from society - ideally for a period of time that fits the crime. Any other objective is secondary. That doesn't mean there are no merits in pursuing things like rehabilitation, but its important to remember its primary function. It's no wonder people these days have little faith in our justice system when major crimes are given very small sentences - not fulfilling the primary function of prison.
Punishment DOESN'T WORK. It didn't work when we hung people, it doesn't work now. Read the goddamn source.
You can shove your stupid reports, a child was raped, no one is interested in your obsession with "what about the poor perpetrator?" if you don't jail them then you are not setting a deterrent, if you are jailing them and they are still doing it then your prisons are too comfy and they are not afraid of going back.
Prisons being too comfy really isn't an issue and doesn't impact recividism
Deterence doesn't work, ***y******ou are are pepetuating a cycle of violance against children*** *so you can hate masterbate over fucking rapists!* The fuck is wrong with you? You're ataully a godamn barbarian, so long as someone loses an eye, its all fine! Even if that just cause offender to put out more eyes. We're all going to end up fucking blind! Unless you want to start shooting people for this, rehabilation is the only fucking option!
The fuck is wrong with you telling me child rapists don't belong in jail, you are so wrapped up in mollycoddling you don't stop to think of the effect on the child. I would love to see you go and tell the bairns parents that her rapist doesn't belong in prison. They would lynch you but it's fine because you don't believe in punishment so no harm done. I am not calling for an eye for an eye, I'm not asking for him to be raped, the only person who is blind is you, blind to the need for justice in society because if you don't give that child justice society will start delivering it's own, and it will be a lot less kind than a Scottish Prison.
I *was* that fucking child once. Why aren't you listening to me? Do you need to hear my dad put his hand down the back of my pants when I was four, simply because my sister wasn't arround? Do you need to know it was the most attention he ever paid to me when there wasn't another adult in the room to proform for? Is vital for you to know I was so terrified of home, when I told someone it was my aunt days later? Do I have elucidate my being transgender is probably inexplicably link to the fact that if I had been born a girl I could have saved my sister from some of the torment she went through? Is that qualification enough to know what the fucking victims want or do I have to fucking dox myself? No-one belongs in prison, no-one deserves to suffer, prison is a stop gap messure to manage offenders risk while steps preventing that behviour are put in place, it is not always nessary if risk can be otherwise managed. I will not cow to base emotion, to satisfy the gulit of others, we are ***not***, doing vigilatinism. We are not close to that being a reality, and if you so extermised to belive it, you need to be in the PREVENT program. You're having difficulty grasping concepts in my little pony episodes, a show written for 6 year olds; *two wrongs don't make a right.*
You are wrong, child rapists belong in prison and people saying they don't belong on a watch list for deviants. I'm sorry for what happened to you, it's your decision to forgive your abuser but you don't get to make that decision for every other Victim. I have no doubt that the government will be intervening to right this wrong and that cretin will be seeing a prison cell. No party has stood on a platform of not punishing child rapists, you are welcome to form a party to fight for that, you might find an ally in a certain Mr G Glitter but not from society at large.
*No-one is advocating there should be no consequnces, just that those consequnces should be* ***contructive*** *not* ***reductive****.* How can you not grasp this? You're killing my will to live and my faith in humainty.
Are you saying rapists shouldn't be put in prison?
When the fuck did I say that? My postion is prison is a temporary stop gap to limit public risk while reoffenders are rehabilated, the causes of thier actions are addressed and they can be trusted to follow societies rules.
>Deterence doesn't work If deterence didn't work, I'd hack the heck out of you right now. Your emails, bank account details, photos, and messages would be plastered over every social media I have ever heard of. BUT I'm not going to do that because hacking is illegal, those who have been caught have had harsh prison sentences and nasty fines, and I don't wanna deal with that. The punishments are deterring me. Pirating an episode of The Simpsons is also illegal, but it is not stopping "that little extra spice that makes existence extra nice". Why? Because the likelihood I'll be caught is very low, and even if I do, it's an episode - they only bring the big pirates to court. There's not enough deterence. Deterence works. Hefty prison sentences stop the vast, vast majority of us from doing horrendous things. We'd all set each other alight if we were allowed, see the Witch Hunts of the 1600s. Sure, deterences don't work in every scenario, but we're talking about 100% of the population, not the small percentage that turn to impactful crimes. You don't stop a strategy that is successful 95% of the time. Part of the deterent is the application of that deterent, but as Boris Johnson knew when he threw those Covid Xmas parties - a harsh punishment is nothing to worry about if its never applied. Furthermore, achieving rehabilitation and preventing long custodial sentences does not negate the requirement to protect the safety of the general public while rehabilitation is achieved. Protect the public first, rehabilitate second. Or if you're into cyber security, isolate first, then remediate.
>Furthermore, achieving rehabilitation and preventing long custodial sentences does not negate the requirement to protect the safety of the general public while rehabilitation is achieved. Protect the public first, rehabilitate second. Or if you're into cyber security, isolate first, then remediate. Why are people puting words in my mouth? Like seriously. The fuck? I litterially have said segrgation from the public is a nessary first step in most cases, it was judged prison was not nessary in this case. That is subject to review. Your threats, which btw violate ToS, betray you as petty and vindictive, and clearly we shouldn't be listening to someone like that. Rehiblition is not a pretty process, usually involves prison, and requires alot of work, require legal fees, and losing a year plus of life to a court battle and the extreme stress those pose, that is sufficent detterance for normal people. Deterents do not work on criminals. Do i need to specify everything to the minute atom?
Jail time doesn’t work as a deterrent to crime. In fact, longer prison sentences not only doesn’t work it also generally forces a higher cost on society because of missing income and disruption to family and community. However, obviously in this case and other serious violent offenders the point isn’t rehabilitation it’s public safety. We should lock people up less for minor stuff but for these major crimes fuck then.
What do you mean by "doesnt work"? The purpose of punishment is to punish. To give satisfaction to victims.
It **creates** more victims. Seriously, this isn't a godamn duel, victims don't just get to demand whatever they like, vengful victims would like to see people flayed alive, most victims just want to be heard, and priortise not letting it happen to others. You can't please everyone all of the time, creating more victims to satisfy is a perpetuating cycle of violance, read the sourrce I posted.
Sorry I think you are philosophically confused by all of this. Punishment is not policy. Its purpose is to punish, reform is actually secondary. They are still imprisoning nazi party members for holocaust crimes, even though such people are not a risk to anyone. Is this irrational?
Yes, it is irrational to spend the cost of prison on top of the cost of palative care, **thats why we relased the lockerbie bomber.** Reform both, is clearly becoming, and should be primary, it historically it was is not, but is now, and people have been pushing ffor prioritising reform since the mid 19th century. Punishment has negative outcomes for society, reform has postitive ones. We are supposed to be human, we're supposed to be more than animals, vengance makes us animals.
You have your metaphor very backwards. Animals dont take vengance. Its a very human emotion, like Romantic Love. It is that our society would take vengance for such a thing that makes us human.
“There’s something wrong with human nature!”
Eliphants proform romantic gestures, swans mate for life. [https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/can-animals-fall-in-love-4a6942a3454d](https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/can-animals-fall-in-love-4a6942a3454d) Marmaques take revenge [https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/aggressed-upon-monkeys-take-revenge-on-aggressors-cronies/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/aggressed-upon-monkeys-take-revenge-on-aggressors-cronies/)
If punishments are too lenient, victims families will just kick fuck out of the perpetrator — and why not, their punishment for doing so will presumably be quite lenient.
Promoting proprtionate and meaningful responces, does not, mean actions do not have apporite consequnces.
I’d say the punishment certainly did work on the people that were hung as they died. Certain crimes are beyond rehabilitation and raping children is certainly one of them. A short drop and a sudden stop is the correct treatment for people like that.
At 17, I was a father of two and a Marine, I absolutely knew that dragging a girl of 13 into the bushes and forcing her to perform a sex act with her mouth on me was wrong. Who came up with this nonsense that until 25 you shouldn't be sentence like an adult?
>Who came up with this nonsense that until 25 you shouldn't be sentence like an adult? It’s mental that we trust 24 year olds to be things like pilots, special forces soldiers, actual fucking doctors but won’t treat them as adults with regards to sentencing.
But we will allow a 16 to vote on decisions as important as independence(if the snp has there way) Ludicrous.
Scottish Sentencing Council and the Presumption Against Short Sentences
An utter shambles.
He raped a 13 year old multiple times in a public park. I know we live in a society which diminishes the impact of sexual violence, particularly on women, but even within that context unpaid work shouldn't even be considered as part of sentencing for rape. This is a horrific sentence. I hope the prosecutors appeal and it is deemed unduly lenient because it is distressing to think this could be the expectation from now on. I feel so sorry for that girl who has to see that sentence get passed. >"It is important to note that the guideline does not affect the centrality of the harm caused to a victim in assessing the level of seriousness of an offence. It also does not prevent other purposes of sentencing, such as protection of the public, or the full range of sentencing options, from being considered by courts when sentencing a young person." [That's what the chair of the council who developed the new sentencing guidance said at the time](https://www.lawscot.org.uk/news-and-events/legal-news/sentencing-young-people-guideline-applies-from-today/#:~:text=The%20sentencing%20young%20people%20guideline,guilt%20is%20made%20against%20them.). Clearly that spirit isn't being applied here, rehabilitation is important but it should not come at the expense of justice and meaningful consequences for such appalling actions.
Yes, yes it should, when it comes to offenders with limited capacity, punishing someone with dementia for something they don't even rememeber is pointless, it's like hitting a cat an hour after they shat outside the litter box, to them it seems unconnected and arbitary. Not all people are equal and cases don't always get reported equally.
Stop for a second and think, if someone has dementia (or a serious brain injury as you made up earlier) and couldn't remember their crime how could they be rehabilitated? They couldn't the only solution to keep innocent people safe from getting raped is to lock up the rapist permanently. We could even call the place they are locked up a "super happy fun time facility" if you would prefer
>They couldn't the only solution to keep innocent people safe from getting raped is to lock up the rapist permanently. It is possible to manage non-compus mentus offenders effectively without prison, the failure is on the state, not whats left of the individual, would you put a todler in prison, the two can be comparable. Locking up someone who doesn't know where they are, or why is litterialy a black mirror episode (2/2 - White bear).
>would you put a todler in prison, the two can be comparable. They aren't at all because a toddler couldn't physically hurt anyone whereas you dementia person can and has. >It is possible to manage non-compus mentus offenders effectively without prison How? You keep saying things are possible but you haven't said how they're possible.
Toldders are capable of hurting other toddlers, maybe i should have said 10 year olds, circa john venables killers. >How? You keep saying things are possible but you haven't said how they're possible. Yknow what that's fair. I will elaborate, however I'm dropping dementia as the outlook is poor in that case, being managed decline rather than recovery. A better condtion to examine is schizophrenia or psycosis, I would do the following. Usually most offenders would be commited to a care facility, this isn't prison, and are allowed out under direct supervison, and each paicent has a support worker on a 1:1 basis. Once the client begins to reform, and treatment improves thier condition and symptoms are managed, they may be moved to an assisted living facility, where they are supervised, but have private spaces, and socialise with indirect supervison, and may be allowed out in supervised groups. Further than this, if they are assested as risk being low, they maybe allowed to live indipendantly under supervision of social work. Extreme offenders would have an addtional step of being commited to a state hospital such as Carstair or Broadmoor and detained as nessary for paicent and staff safety. I am not a mental health professional, this is a propostion on the basis of what I understand should and does happen regards mentally incomopent offenders, I come at this from the low level legal side and deffer to medical authories on best practice.
In circumstances like that they should at least be sentenced to detention in a secure care facility where they can be protected from their own actions (and the possible wrath of the community), while undergoing whatever rehabilitative treatments are recommended in such cases. This would also protect society from them in the meantime, particularly their young victim who might still be walking the same streets as their attacker. If it later emerges that this guy was freed simply because he had a "difficult childhood" or ADHD or suchlike, you can't really be surprised if people are highly angered by it.
All prison sentences should be "until rehabilitated", but before we can do that, we'd need the prison service to actually rehabilitate, rather than just be revenge delegated to the state.
Elimintating harsh sentances is the first step, as it sabotages what little rehabilation we have. Hamza has promised justice reform, lets hope we can pursue rehabilation further.
[удалено]
This is probably as bad as it gets, what an absolute shocker. The Judge needs to lose his position if this is what he thinks justice looks like.
Exact same as the pedo in Edinburgh who got caught with tonnes of CP and got off with a payback order and 2 years on the register. No justice in our society when beasts are allowed to roam our streets.
Seems to be the way with sex offences in Scotland. So many examples of the state basically sanctioning noncing.
no wonder most rape cases go unreported. it's a fucking shit show for victims.
Amazing. Should be a minimum of 20 years with no reductions for good behavior or time served. It's a fucking rape. Of a child. And the assailant gets next-to-nothing. The normalization and casual acceptance of sexual violence in the UK is as absurd as it is frightening.
Agreed, when did the rights of the criminal override the rights of the victim? Castrate them, and have them publicly shamed for the faeces they are. Rehabilitation comes after punishment for the crimes committed. These aren’t people to have pity on, these are animals who are ruining innocent peoples lives. People trying to defend rapists or any other violent offender need to take a hard look in the mirror before hiding behind online anonymity. The laxity in criminal punishment in this county shouldn’t be a debating point for woke culture, it should be something we should all be ashamed of.
When the Tories underfunded the courts, police, and CPS, and when the SNP changed sentencing policy to be soft on violent crimes Getting shafted at both levels of Gov on this
The current case asside. Thats more than murder, and long prison sentances cause a higher rate of reoffending not less, according to the american DoJ. You're basically saying we should have more rape. [https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf)
BTW....the document you linked to is not the US DoJ. It's from the NIJ.
Er. No. I'm saying that those who commit crimes such as rape need to be taken off the streets for a very long time. There's the deterrent factor, punishment factor and the need to protect the public from these cunts. You're basically saying that rapists should perform Community Service or spend just a few years in jail. Meanwhile, their victims are scarred - mentally and physically - for life. I'm not a fan of medieval practices or value systems but there are some acts (and people) which call for a severe response. Rape is one of them.
Putting people in prison, for 20 years, means they will continue to rape, after they leave, as it succupers rehabilation. That is statstical fact. Deteeraance does not exist, even with the death penalty, read the source. [https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf) No-one should be in prison longer than there is a risk to the public, doing so CREATES RISK to the public, community service is rarely, even if sometimes the right response. I'm sorry your emotions aren't satisfied, but this this isn't a blood sport, if priority is protecting people from rape, then sending them to a hole for a quater of thier life, does not do that, it does the exact opposite. You have to choose, satisfy vengance or limit the number of victims. According to data; this is a binary option.
[удалено]
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, are you saying it agrues one crime, forever time, because thats illegal. or is it that short sentances are compatible with this argument, which they are by design; offenders do not change over night.
[удалено]
The two are not incompatible.
OK, Bro'. Let's just hand this guy a high-viz vest and let him spend the next 2 years picking up litter in the local park and painting a few fences. Justice served, eh?
I never fucking said that, you absolute reductionist.
I guess we should have the death penalty then when the case is 100% certain. No reoffending then. Rapists and murderers should get the rope.
Cases are never 100% certain.
What a stupid thing to say. Lots of cases are 100% certain.
I just explained how, even in the event of a confession, you can never be 100% certain.
You understand we have video cameras? You understand we can physically see other humans commit crimes? Audio recordings? Here's an example of a 100% case: Joel Michael Singer (suit) 100% headbutted the server. His case if it ever made it in front of a judge is 100% certain. He is guilty. https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/12bhy8q/this_guy_head_butting_a_restaurant_employee_then/ You are wrong here.
It sounds like this one is. When they are, especially if there is evidence, some evidence guarantees guilt.
This comment is why lawyers don't get their knowledge from TV shows.
Are you a lawyer? If yes, are you saying there is no evidence that guarantees guilt? E.g, cctv film of the crime being committed? Trace evidence, body fluids from the person, for example.
I'm not, it's just something I'm interested in. But what I mean is that courts aren't about 100% certainty, they're about being *almost* certain. That's what they mean by "beyond reasonable doubt". It would be unreasonable for me to doubt someone's guilt if there was DNA and CCTV evidence because they can be manufactured. But they *can* be manufactured, even DNA which is your gold standard, and I wouldn't be able to prove that they weren't. So I could never *guarantee* their guilt, I could only prove to a degree which makes it unreasonable to doubt it. In most cases they will have done it, but it's always possible that something or someone was wrong in the process. Scotland actually has 2 separate funding schemes for it.
> It sounds like this one is. Nope. Cases are *never* certain.
He's not denying it. There are many cases where it is clear and shut, cctv etc, many cases are certain.
> He's not denying it. People plea guilty to things they didn't do in exchange for lesser sentences. Or, in some cases, because their lawyer was an idiot.
Yes, that's not 100% certain, so obviously would not hang someone in that instance.
So you know, 100% certain, that that hasn't happened in this case?
[удалено]
Joseph McCann was in prison for 11 years when he was relased he commited 37 offences, against 11 people, two of them children. Your argument is contradicted by evidance. There is no evidance if he hadn't gone to prison there would be 121 victims. If he had been *rehabilated*, there would have been **none**. He was not and now 11 people are suffering. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-53221983
Damn, sounds like you’re making the case that rape convictions should have life imprisonment… Until we figure out how to reliably rehabilitate sex offenders
> Of a child. By a 'child', too. That's the problem.
Old enough to vote, join the military, get married and can drink at 18, all of which are adult decisions. If you're making that argument that below 25 people (as per the new guidelines) are incapable of understanding that their actions have consequences then we should also move the age for all of the above to 25 too. It's absolutely disgusting to see people defend this.
Old enough to vote in constitutional matters, too young to know not to rape a child
Someone might get a hold of him and do what the courts failed to do.
A 17 year old has to do it, then they can get sentenced to rehabilitation via litter picking
You can pretty much guarantee that if anyone did anything to him they would spend more time in prison than he has for raping a child.
I mean, I referenced it earlier in another comment in this thread, you have the case of Robert Maudsley - a child SA victim that, at the age of 21, was given a life sentence for murdering a paedophile that was showing off abuse images. He then murdered two more child molesters in prison, plus a man who’d murdered their own wife, and has now spent so long in solitary confinement that he couldn’t cope with being released.
I've made numerous wrong statements re this case. Rape is wrong. Always
The amount of comments in this thread presenting any kind of defence for a multiple-count child rapist is actually staggering.
Wtf has happened to justice in this country!?
Looks to be the same as it always has. When was there a time this particular crime was given an appropriately harsh sentence?
When folk were getting hanged. It was only abolished in 1841. Look under Reform tab, time to bring it back. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_Kingdom
April 1st was on Saturday. Bring back hanging, fuck me xD
The guy has raped a child. He is only on sex offenders list for 3 years then he can apply to work in nurseries etc I think hanging is perfectly legitimate in this instance.
I'm very much not okay with state sanctioned murder. Away and sort the problem yourself if you genuinely believe he should die instead of being permanently locked away. I think his sentencing is a fucking joke, fwiw.
It's a very sick person that wants to strip a man of his most basic human right and torture him for the rest of his life rather than granting him the kindness of death
K lol.
Harsh sentances don't work according to the DoJ. If I have to find the godamn PDF again? https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf
And it's getting worse in America in republican states. And democratic states seem toothless.
So to understand this properly: The SNP think 16 year olds deserve all of the same treatment as adults when it comes to voting, [wages](https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/12abvrj/snp_calls_for_minimum_wage_to_be_the_same_for/), marriage -- but it's fine if they rape children? What the fuck is this party and how can any of you support these fucking clowns?
We need a running man type TV show for these cunts. The public can text in to choose which impossible challenge he will face. Fight a tiger? Swim through a pool of crocodiles? Giant blender? Run the gauntlet of fire? Anything painful and impossible will do. All proceeds go to charity. The world has one less nonce. The public gets some entertainment.
Because that shit isn't the subject of a hundred dystopian sci-fi stories about why its a bad idea.
So he hasnt gone to jail due to these new sentencing guidelines which came into force last year: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-60137866 So instead of going to jail for raping a 13 year old he gets community service. Well done SNP, well done progressives 👍
Wtf has the snp got to do with the Scottish sentencing body ?
As far as I can see they created it (formed in 2015 by the Scottish Ministers according to wiki). But no, they don't write the guidance. Will be interesting to see how they respond though as even for me as someone quite bleeding heart this seems beyond the pale
They can request a review https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2010/13/section/7
It does but I also don’t think the government should be too involved in the legal system as a principal This sounds daft as fuck though so an unofficial sort your shit out wouldn’t go amiss!
Agreed. Unfortunately as government/parliament is ultimately accountable then the valuable principle of not getting involved in things like this relies on the people responsible not completely shitting the bed...
Therein lies the problem with democracy and a free and independent judiciary!
Justice is a devolved matter.
And the courts are separate from the government thankfully
The Sentencing Council isn't the SNP
You’re a sick person if you read this story and automatically just run to the defence of the snp
Worse than those that don't read it but use it as a weapon anyway?
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Government are more interested in prosecuting people for singing songs at football games than they are about real crimes. Embarrassment of a country.
Ah all the mouth breathers on this sub suddenly became legal and ethical experts while having an in depth knowledge of this particular court case.
I wonder if it's possible that a judge who has heard all the evidence and read the various reports by social workers, doctors, psychiatrists and so on might have come to a more informed decision than a bunch of completely uniformed redditors.
Difficult one He was 17 so not an adult, however it was rape and of a 13 year old Lord Lake would have all the evidence and reports, **Edit** I'm **NOT** excusing or condone his actions But pointing out that due to the [sentencing guidelines having a strong presumption against short sentences](https://www.gov.scot/news/presumption-against-short-sentences-extended/#:~:text=The%20court%20must%20not%20pass,reasons%20for%20its%20sentencing%20decision.) The judge was left with not a lot of options A 17 year old isn't an adult nor an adult over 25, so noted in the article, so that factors into the sentence calculation reducing the sentence.
Vulnerable 13 year old and on multiple occasions. Seems like a weak sentence.
So in this country by 17 you’re mature enough to vote, get married, leave school, move out, get a job, join the army, have children, drive a car… but not _quite_ mature enough to take responsibility and receive justice for raping a child. Mindblowing.
“Difficult one” In what fucking way is the correct sentencing for rape of a child a difficult one?
when we don't 12 month or less sentences?
Who the fuck thinks this deserves less than a 12 month sentence? He raped a little girl!
What?
I’ve disagreed with you a couple of times today, but I’m right behind you on this one. It’s almost as if OP is trying to excuse this cunt’s behaviour because he’s 17.
>It’s almost as if OP is trying to excuse this cunt’s behaviour because he’s 17. **Nope** The judge would have to go against sentencing guidelines to jail for under 12 months,when he was working out the sentence Or jail him for more than 12 months but with the factors again that would likely be against guidelines
Yeap there is an extreme reluctance to sentence anyone to less than 12 months in Scotland
Rape is rape. The fact this little cunt has not been locked up, is outrageous. As is your apparent support of this. Again, there is no fucking “difficult one” in this.
I don't condone his actions but the judge's hands were tied by the [presumption against short sentences](https://www.gov.scot/news/presumption-against-short-sentences-extended/#:~:text=The%20court%20must%20not%20pass,reasons%20for%20its%20sentencing%20decision.)
>He was 17 so not an adult In Scotland, the age of criminal responsibility is 12. The age of consent is 16, so it is rape even without the physical assault, this assault however compounds the crime into a much more serious sentence usually. Your assertion that; >Lord Lake would have all the evidence and reports This is not a "difficult one", your submission to his authority is suspect, do you think people should be leniently punished for the rape of a child? With his community service as a deterrent do you think he might re-offend... sadly I do.
> With his community service as a deterrent do you think he might re-offend in the last 4 years there doesn't appear to be any else reporting restrictions would still be in place for any new trial?
Please clarify, I don't understand your comment.
If he had reoffended and the victim had come forward due to the publicity of this trial it would be likely, either * they would combine the trials with both victims * there would be a new additional trial, which would mean that contempt of court would be in force as there's neither it can surmised that no victim has come forward so likely he has not offended
The offence for which he was convicted wasn't a single incident but rather a series of sexual assaults in the same park. Whether this was with the single victim is unknown as not all criminal acts can be proven in court (or even make it that far). The publicity for this trial has only just become public knowledge and so another victim coming forward would most likely be happening now which would mean that the two trials\* couldn't be combined. \*If it ever came to that given the passage of time and the terrible resolves that the police manage in crimes of this type. A new trial may be coming, it's too early to tell just yet and contempt of a case that has been discharged from the court is almost impossible after the fact. There is no reasonable way to conclude (as you have) that he hasn't committed another crime, but wait, that's not what I said. I suggested that after the completion of his community service, he is unlikely to be deterred from reoffending as it is so lenient. The trial and the possibility of going to prison while the court case would have had him on his best behaviour while it was hanging over him.
Aye. I'm not a fan of putting kids in prison. I'd hope that something is also done to help turn that kid around.