101 year old paedophile jailed for 13 years

Great post, M0nica

Well said, Monica! It is the very removal of freedom which is the punishment and prison, therefore is the right decision, regardless of age.

Yes, with only a walking stick he walked quite nimbly into court on the pictures shown on our local news.

A custodial sentence is the correct decision because, as Luckygirl says, other perpetrators may realise that, whatever age, they are not beyond the law.
Younger perpetrators could decide that they have sudden onset Alzheimers, some other disease and play the sympathy card to get a reduced, deferred or suspended sentence.

Remember Ernest Saunders - not a paedophile but a criminal who was sentenced to five years' imprisonment, but released after 10 months as he was believed to be suffering from Alzheimer's disease, which is incurable. He subsequently made a full recovery and started another business.
And another, a suspected paedophile whom I will not name, who supposedly had severe dementia and excused trial, but still managing to make decisions in the House of Lords on behalf of the rest of us.

Even if he was in a care home, people take children there to visit relatives. There's no guarantee he'd not be a danger to anyone.

Whether he's a danger now is irrelevant. He is being punished for a crime he committed.

Personally cant see why we keep paedophiles alive

Well, each case is taken on its own merits, so any sentence, be it custodial or otherwise, is not intended as a warning to others who may be tempted to commit a crime.

In the case of this particular individual, and particularly given his age, I don't feel that a custodial sentence is appropriate. I think the correct term is "not in the public interest".

That's not to say he doesn't deserve a harsh punishment. He does, in my view, but, as a pp pointed out, he's been named and shamed and will go to his grave as a paedophile.

Being named and shamed doesn't stop paedophiles re-offending. That's the point of a custodial sentence, it's to protect children as well as to punish. It is "in the public interest".
We need more non custodial sentences for people who don't pose a threat to the public. That does not include sex offenders, especially men (and women) who are sexually attracted to children. This man has no remorse so wouldn't be eligible for one of the programmes aimed at helping offenders who want to change their behaviour. Lock him up.

Well, considering this man is 101, in a care home and therefore already under lock and key, I doubt he's going to reoffend any time soon. He may well have shuffled off by next week. I'd rather see taxpayers' money spent on locking up an offender who genuinely poses an immediate and significant threat.

So we let him get away with his crimes because he managed to get to 101 before he was prosecuted.

What about the children who visit other people in the home? Will they be safe? Don't forget paedophiles will take any opportunity to touch a child.

The man committed the crimes. He's been prosecuted and found guilty so regardless of his age he should be in prison.

Has being in prison for a period of time been shown to be effective in stopping paedophiles from reoffending? Imprisonment doesn't seem to do much towards stopping people reoffending in other areas of crime. Quite the reverse in fact.

So I think the purpose of locking him up is to limit his freedom (as monica explained so well up thread) even more than it is limited by his age already. Not being free and the psychological impact that has is the punishment.

Whether it does any good in this case or others is moot.

Not necessary to do him any good at his age but to show he's been caught, been tried and convicted and is seen by the world as a criminal is all that can be hoped for in this case but doubt if he be too bothered personally

"In a care home" does not mean "under lock and key".

It certainly doesn't FarNorth I've had to return an elderly and confused woman, wearing a nightie and a dressing gown but bare-footed, to a local nursing home twice this year.

I think we need to be pragmatic about this though. The man is under close supervision. He's unlikely to be in a position to offend again. He IS a convicted criminal, and a custodial sentence would not make a difference to the heinousness of the crime. He will go to his grave a shamed man. Ok, he will not "serve his time" but, given his age, he won't do that anyway.

And there are are many convicted criminals walking the streets for whom non-custodial sentences have been deemed appropriate punishment by the courts.

I agree that he should have been given a custodial sentence. I sometimes think when sentences for crimes such as these are being handed down that the victims are to a certain extent forgotten. The victims of these awful paedophiles have to live with the memory of their abuse for the rest of their lives.

Good point smokeless we have somehow ignored that the victims will feel relieved? safer? satisfied? better? now their abuser is being punished for what he did to them.

they are in their forties or fifties so doubt they thought him a threat now,

gettingonabit's post had me considering the responsibility of any care/residential home or probation hostel to formulate a risk assessment on any resident. This man may be old but he accepts no responsibility for his offending behaviour, on that basis he's unlikely to be offered a place in a probation hostel. If he was, as with care/residential homes, children or other vulnerable individuals may either visit, or live there. How do you ensure they are kept safe?

It doesn't matter how old the victims are now. You can still feel threatened even when the abuser is dead because you never totally escape the feelings.

I doubt he would be accepted in a care home. He will be safer in prison , if one of the peodophile vigilante gangs decided to persue him it would be so frightening for other residents in the care home and the staff