Should the Judge in the teenagers rape case be struck off ?

bmacca

I don’t think it’s just this judge that’s the problem. Yes, his decision has been reversed on Appeal. Yes it’s an improvement that the two r@pists were sentenced to 4 years detention. However, did you know that the starting point for production of indecent images of children is 6 years and the boys were NOT sentenced for that even though they admitted it? This case demonstrates clearly how males (boys/men) are rarely given appropriate punishment for their violence towards women & girls.

I agree.
And this is why so many girls and women don’t even report sexual assaults and rape, their attitude is probs ‘what is the point?’ Indeed even in this particular rape case the defence mentioned that one of the underage girls was a bit of a rebel.
After suffering sexual trauma many feel that a gruelling court case in which their behaviour is under the spotlight as well as imagining a judge will take a sympathetic view of the perpetrators, I can understand why so many are discouraged from coming forwards.
People often ask with historic rape cases ‘why leave it so long?’ Perhaps because the victims thought there would be no point until they heard of other victims coming forwards.

Dickens

A former New Scotland Yard Behavioural Analyst, who has a page on Facebook ("Crime Analyst") has been doing some digging into the background of the boys - and the judge's sentencing record.

It appears one of the boys has a history of threatening and intimidating behaviour towards girls. It was reported by the girls, but no action taken. And no record of that behaviour was available in the Court hearing.

Another boy killed a swan with a catapult. He also damaged property with it.

The judge in question has apparently a history of giving out lenient sentences, especially towards young males.

This is, allegedly, what she and her team have unearthed.

Thanks Dickens, useful information. If this judge has a record of leniency to young males, that’s a serious training need (at least)

Thanks Dickens, useful information. If this judge has a record of leniency to young males, that’s a serious training need (at least)

Iam64

I'm always cautious about reports such as this. It's not verifiable news - the woman is a content creator.

However, I believe her motives are a genuine concern, and hope she wouldn't want to tarnish her reputation by embellishing the information she's discovered.

But, when people have a case or point to make, they do sometimes exaggerate - or omit - information that may not support their point. IYSWIM.

That's why I finished by saying that this is "allegedly" what she and her team have found out. I don't doubt her motive, which is highlighting the violence and crimes committed against women and girls, but... well, you get the picture.

This Judge should be de-robed 😡

I don't think he should be struck off.

valdali

I don't think he should be struck off.

If not then he should be questioned about his motives in going for such lenient sentencing and even praising the boys for their behaviour in court whilst ignoring the victims. At the very least he should apologise to the victims and their families .

He made one mistake. Let whoever has never made one bad mistake in life be the one to throw the first stone.

This case has been high profile. The High Court judge said the calculations were right - and the third boy;'s sentence was not overturned - but that too much allowance was made for the boys youth and not enough of the girl's suffering - and I think that was absolutely right.

His wrist has been slapped and he will probably have a couple of serious sessions with those who are experts in the sentencing, plus training to make sure he understands the lifetime effects of serious sexual assault on all women, but especially such young girls.

But sack for one mistake. How many of us would have got by in life f we had lost, not just our job but our profession after one mistake?

I’m hearing that the boys had a learning disability and a history of pestering girls

Regardless of and disability it sounds case of bad parenting and supervision, if they had caused problems in the past close supervision was called for.

We had 3 daughters and my wife NEVER allowed them out unless it was with someone she personally trusted until they were 16. Boys are easier as long as their behavior is generally good

MOnica - of course you set out the right approach to this Judge.
Hopefully it will draw much needed attention to the need to consider harm done with intent by males to females. These girls were subjected to horrific abuse with long lasting consequences

I’m also bemused at the Judge saying he wanted to avoid criminalising the boys when he’d found them guilty, despite them pleading innocence. I recognise custody plays a poor part in rehabilitation but it does protect society

Iam64

MOnica - of course you set out the right approach to this Judge.
Hopefully it will draw much needed attention to the need to consider harm done with intent by males to females. These girls were subjected to horrific abuse with long lasting consequences

I’m also bemused at the Judge saying he wanted to avoid criminalising the boys when he’d found them guilty, despite them pleading innocence. I recognise custody plays a poor part in rehabilitation but it does protect society

I think you make a good point. Locking up any criminal regardless of age may not rehabilitate the offender but it does keep them off our streets. It depends whether our sympathies are with the criminal or the victims imho.
Of course the boys are underage but in their teens when bad habits can be learned and repeated if they are from a background where those bad habits are never challenged but rather encouraged, in which case not detaining them but returning them to their families and friends could be just as detrimental.

Fallingstar

Of course the boys are underage but in their teens when bad habits can be learned and repeated if they are from a background where those bad habits are never challenged but rather encouraged, in which case not detaining them but returning them to their families and friends could be just as detrimental.

I am not optimistic that these boys will ever change.

They will eventually return to the same family environment in which they learned to criminalise themselves. Yes, there will be restrictions and involvement with social services, but I doubt that will change who they are, or how they think.

The only option that would possibly change their whole way of thinking and their lives would be to remove them entirely from their family environment to one where the whole process of their early-years' learning, nurturing and care, could be reset.

And obviously, that's not possible.

These boys are repeat rapists, they enjoyed what they did to their victims, sharing footage on line. They are said to be of low intelligence so any rehabilitation work would be even more of a challenge than it is with sex offenders generally.
If they are from the traveller community that adds to the complexity of any work to encourage them to take responsibility and change.

I imagine the initial Judge believed they were more likely to have offence focussed intervention in the community than in custody. That can be a sensible approach with some young offenders but imo the severity of the offences, the not guilty pleas, the impact on the victims should have led to the sentences imposed by the appeal court

I share the gloomy view expressed by Dickens, significant change unlikely

I’m hearing that the boys had a learning disability and a history of pestering girls

I think this only applied to only the youngest boy, whose sentence was not changed. I do not think any comment was made about the educational level of the two who committed the rapes.

I think the judges are caught between a rock and a hard place. Youth custody institutes are not pleasant places. The boys could be seen by other inmates as 'heroes' for their crime and they will be mixing with older boys and come out wised up hardened offenders.

On the other hand that they committed these crimes means that the uality of parenting they are receiving and the support they are getting from their home community, will once again leave them congratulating themselves on their activities.

However I strongly support them having custodial sentences. Rape is an act of violence that does lifelong damage, as does every kind of forced sexual activity and it should always earn a custodial sentence of significant length.

Iam64

These boys are repeat rapists, they enjoyed what they did to their victims, sharing footage on line. They are said to be of low intelligence so any rehabilitation work would be even more of a challenge than it is with sex offenders generally.
If they are from the traveller community that adds to the complexity of any work to encourage them to take responsibility and change.

I imagine the initial Judge believed they were more likely to have offence focussed intervention in the community than in custody. That can be a sensible approach with some young offenders but imo the severity of the offences, the not guilty pleas, the impact on the victims should have led to the sentences imposed by the appeal court

I share the gloomy view expressed by Dickens, significant change unlikely

If it's true they are travelers then you can forget parenting and supervision, they are a lost cause, fighting and thieving is the only thing they learn off their parents. There are several groups locally, my Grandaughter went to the same school as their children - all the local children left including GD behaviour was so bad!

Before any dogooder objects to this post just go and live next door to a travelled site and speak from experience.