from the article:
"A PEDOPHILE who raped a 10-year-old girl will be free in just four months after a British judge said his victim had "dressed provocatively"."
Ok, I have to say I've seen some VERY mature-looking kids. I have yet to see a 10 year old that looks of age, regardless of how she was dressed...
"In the latest case, Oxford Crown Court heard harrowing details of the assault on the 10-year-old. She was attacked in a park in South Oxfordshire by Fenn and his accomplice Darren Wright, 34, on October 14 last year.
Fenn removed all her clothes and raped her, then Wright took her to his home and sexually assaulted her."
So the one perv molested her, then the other took her home and continued the abuse?I think I've got some rusty pinking shears somewhere around here...
"Yet Judge Hall said the case was exceptional because the "young woman" had been wearing a frilly bra and thong."
Ok... Squeaky Wheel already touched on this, but I think I want to emphasize: a ten-year-old does NOT, in any way, qualify as a "young woman". The term "woman" is usually used to describe someone who has started to physically develop: I've NEVER seen a ten-year-old who qualified. "Girl", or even "Little Girl" are the appropriate terms...
Also... at NO point should how someone is dressed be a qualifier to allow sexual assault. Period. Full stop. If a human of the female persuasion feels most comfortable walking around in nothing but revealing lingerie, that does NOT excuse some low-life forcing his sexual attentions on her...
"The court heard that the girl regularly wore make-up, strappy tops and jeans."
So? Half the girls I saw out today were wearing less: does that mean they're all "asking for it"? Give my five minutes with any scum that feels so, and acts on the presumed "invitation"...
"It is quite clear she is a very disturbed child and a very needy child and she is a sexually precocious child. She liked to dress provocatively," the judge said.
What the HELL does "sexually precocious" mean? Was she egging them on, ASKING them to molest her? Did she BEG the one to take her to his home, so he could continue the rape?
"Did she look like she was 10? Certainly not. She looked 16.""
Ok... I'm not sure of the laws in Britain. However, it's usually considered bad for a 24 year old to have relations with a 16 year old. And beyond the pale for a 34 year old to do so. Besides, I could've sworn the legal age of consent was 18 (or do they allow greater freedom earlier in England?)...
"The same judge caused uproar earlier this year by setting free another paedophile and telling him to give his victim money "to buy a nice new bicycle"."
He not only (for all intents and purposes) ignored the victim's pain, he also ENCOURAGED further contact between the victim and his abuser? And THIS is supposed to be the "Guardian of Justice" in Britain?
I can't WAIT for my brothers and sisters back in the old country to get organized. Maybe they can help stem the tide of such insanity...
5 comments:
It is reasonable to argue exactly where the age of consent should be. In England, it is 16. It is not reasonable to argue that the age of consent should be 10.
It is somewhat reasonable to argue that a good-faith belief that a person was over the age of consent should be a mitigating factor. It is not reasonable to believe that someone could mistake a 10 year old for 16.
Even if you accept both of those in terms most favorable to the scum, we're left with consent. The article says attacked and raped, not seduced. Even accounting for media sensationalism, possible mitigating factors, and anything else I can think of that could be in favor of the scum, I cannot see anything justifying a sentence measured in less than decades.
I can't agree with you, sevensteen. A sentence measured in decades? Only if it includes daily torture. Ever see Princess Bride? "To the pain. Your eyes, your nose, and then your tongue." These animals should cease to breathe, but only after cruel and unusual punishment. I'm typically all for fair treatment of convicted criminals, but there's nothing fair about what they did to that little girl. I have to say, were that my daughter, I'd likely be in jail right now.....
See, I'm actually torn: I don't think I would've gone after the perp. However, I'm not sure I could've restrained myself from going after the judge...
Strings, you're a sweetheart for even giving a damn in the first place. Please keep up the good work, you and your friends, for those who cannot stick up for themselves. The judge in this case sounds like an even the worse kind of sympathetic perp yet I still have no sympathy for the two adult males who made idiotic choices with no discipline or self-control.
Asphyxiated, I do not believe these...monsters can be deterred or rehabilitated. The only thing to do with them is keep them away from innocents by whatever means necessary, for as long as possible. I won't argue that they deserve to be tortured, but treating them as cruelly as they deserve doesn't help, and has too many side effects to society. Decades (plural) is the minimum tolerable sentence. Life without parole is the most appropriate, and I wouldn't object to a quick and humane death.
Post a Comment