Yet another gang rape.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....-13-jailed-years.html

I was under the impression that the maximum sentence for rape was life imprisonment.

Yet here we have not just a single rape committed against an adult, (which in itself is bad enough) but a gang rape plus the beating up of a 13 year old girl, were the ringleader of this gang of savages gets only 5 years, another gets 12 months in a young offenders institution, and two others who were involved were cleared completely..

Is this anyway to set an example against these abominable and sadistic gangs who consider young girls an easy target for their disgusting indulgences?

[ummmm]

The girl was 11. The ringleader was 13.

He would have been tried as a juvenile.

[d9f1c7]

These savages should never see freedom again. They'll be out in 2 years, free to do it again.

[Baldric]

It was an 11 year old, raped by a 13 year old.

[d9f1c7]

err.....and your point is baldric?

[ummmm]

That it's wrong in the OP. I said it as well!!

[Baldric]

^^^ that was my point, thanks ummmm ^^^

[FredPuli43]

Not so long ago, he couldn't have been convicted of rape at all, being 13 at the time.Not very consoling, but true.
It's his age that saved him. I still think it's on the low side.

[ummmm]

//The judge said had he been an adult he would have got 15 years.//

[Zeuhl]

If we think differently about this crime because the victim was only 11 and not an adult

- and I guess we all do

then logically we should also think differently about the perpetrator because he was only 13 and not an adult

Someone being a child either makes a difference to us or it doesn't.

[ummmm]

It does make a difference. It's a scary thought that a 13 year old can be capable of that.

[FredPuli43]

There's some help from the Sentencing Council. In cases such as rape of a child under 13, where the maximum is life imprisonment,the age of the offender is relevant, especially if the offender is very young and the disparity between the age of the victim and the offender is small.

This judge, in thinking that 15 years for an adult was the appropriate term, must have taken the above into account and hit upon 5 years as the figure.

[anotheoldgit]

Sorry for the mistake in their ages.

Some 13 year olds of today are almost adults, they are as strong as an adult, built like an adult, and possess more knowledge about certain things than some adults.

When I was his age I was running about in short trousers, trying to keep far away from those strange creatures called girls.

I am sure the rape of a child of 11 by an adult, would certainly carry a life sentence, by an adult or a juvenile it should make little difference.

This leads one to think, would his sentence had been even smaller if he had raped an adult woman?

[VHG]

If you let savages into the country they (or their children) will continue to behave like savages.

[andy-hughes]

VHG - as opposed to our own home-grown savages?

Have you inveted a savage-o-meter for use at airports?

It sounds like you ought to ... but then you'd be accused of sounding like a racist - which you clearly are!

[FredPuli43]

No aog, don't think it would be smaller if it were an adult woman!It might be greater. The small disparity in age counted in this defendant's favour together with his own age of 13 at the time. Courts work, and to a large extent the laws bind them, on the basis that young offenders may not grow up to be adult offenders. But in exceptionally serious cases, the court may sentence much as they would an adult offender, the place of detention being different.

When you were young and in short trousers, the law did say that you could not be convicted, as a principal, of rape, because there was a presumption that a boy under 14 was incapable of the act. Can't recall, offhand, when the law caught up with biology, but I feel sure it was later than 1970.

[FredPuli43]

The presumption that a boy under the age of 14 was physically incapable of rape was abolished by the Sexual Offences Act of 1993. There weren't many cases before then where that was a factor, otherwise the law would have been changed much earlier .He could be found guilty as an accomplice to the crime of rape e.g by holding the victim down when someone of 14 or older committed the act, but not of committing the act itself.

[sp1814]

VHG

I have re-written this post three times because the first couple of times, I had resorted to calling you a nasty name, which would've lowered the tone of the debate.

I feel VERY pleased with my self-control. Suffice to say, I don't think we should look at things so simplistically.

Perhaps we should consider that there are wicked people all over the world, and all over Britain, and associating immigrants with savagery perhaps isn't the best way of tackling the problem.

Also, it's quite defeatist isn't it?

[ummmm]

Sp...I could be mistaken, but I think VHG is taking the p!ss. Remember when AOG often used the word 'savages' in relations to crimes mainly carried out by non whites?

[andy-hughes]

If he is, then - as commonly happens when communicating in print - his irony has got lost in transmission.

If VHG confirms that he was being ironic, and his message was not clear, then I will be the first to offer my fulsome apologies for the misunderstanding.

[anotheoldgit]

ummmm

/// Sp...I could be mistaken, but I think VHG is taking the p!ss. Remember when AOG often used the word 'savages' in relations to crimes mainly carried out by non whites? ///

It is amazing I now get blamed for other persons posts.

For your information ummmm I use the word savages when I deem a crime savage enough to be called thus.

Can I help it if some of these savage crimes happen to be committed by non-whites?

Perhaps it is that chip on your shoulder that makes you come to such conclusions.