3 years for raping two boys, twice.

Forums New posts
Brainwrong said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-23285317

What do you reckon? I'm not sure that even when a rape results in a conviction we get a particularly appropriately weighted sentence.

I'd be tempted to kill this fucker. Arse, I'm getting far more grumpy in my old age.
Click to expand...

Wait until you get to my age. My two laddies often refer to me as the angriest man in the world and express constant surprise that I am still at liberty and havent killed someone for some minor misdemeanour (in their eyes) which has me incandescent with rage.


But on your original point the culprit at least spared his victims the court ordeal, which could only have compounded the horrific experiences they had already suffered. Whether that is enough to have saved him from getting a bullet behind the ear is debateable. Sex crimes against children are particularly abhorrent to most of us and the younger the victim the worse it seems.
This lad and he is hardly more than a child himself will be punished by his peers once incarcerated no doubt. The fact that he looks like Dean Shiels may get him an additional kicking with a bit of luck.

The two wee victims will possibly serve a far longer sentence though.
 
Brainwrong said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-23285317

What do you reckon? I'm not sure that even when a rape results in a conviction we get a particularly appropriately weighted sentence.

I'd be tempted to kill this fucker. Arse, I'm getting far more grumpy in my old age.
Click to expand...

3 years for the rape of 2 young boys doesn't seem like much of a sentence to me. Put the beast in for life [which might not be too long a sentence in reality if he is in with the main prisoner body].
 
Dr Shrink said:
Wait until you get to my age. My two laddies often refer to me as the angriest man in the world and express constant surprise that I am still at liberty and havent killed someone for some minor misdemeanour (in their eyes) which has me incandescent with rage.


But on your original point the culprit at least spared his victims the court ordeal, which could only have compounded the horrific experiences they had already suffered. Whether that is enough to have saved him from getting a bullet behind the ear is debateable. Sex crimes against children are particularly abhorrent to most of us and the younger the victim the worse it seems.
This lad and he is hardly more than a child himself will be punished by his peers once incarcerated no doubt. The fact that he looks like Dean Shiels may get him an additional kicking with a bit of luck.

The two wee victims will possibly serve a far longer sentence though.
Click to expand...

It is rough, the perpatrator is still a kid really. But when in the article there the statement along the lines of "...he accepts that he's immature..." my feckin' blood boils, like this is a jolly jape gone wrong.

Immature for his age is perhaps sticking his tongue out at a teacher. Not feckin' violent sex crimes with children.

He will get fucked up in the institute and his life will be destroyed, just as he did to those poor children. I can't help thinking it's just another pointless exercise. But, it's a justice of sorts. Not sure it'll 'fix' him though.
 
Dub said:
3 years for the rape of 2 young boys doesn't seem like much of a sentence to me. Put the beast in for life [which might not be too long a sentence in reality if he is in with the main prisoner body].
Click to expand...

He did it twice, I mean to them both on two separate occassions. That's technically a serial offender, imo. For someone to be that detached from a notion of empathy strikes me as proper psychopath material.
 
With a sentence like that being given to a guy I can only imagine that if it had been a girl who raped/assaulted 2 young boys THEY would be the ones being put in jail.
 
I'd imagine the sentence would be different if he was older. I'm generally uneasy with punitive sentences for kids because there's a neurological deficit when it comes to inhibition, it's very possible that he wouldn't have committed the crime if he had a 19-year-old's brain. Judge says the sentence is required for public safety, which is fairly straightforward. Hopefully he's a different person by the end of it (and not just cos he's been in borstal for years).
 
FTJT said:
I'd imagine the sentence would be different if he was older. I'm generally uneasy with punitive sentences for kids because there's a neurological deficit when it comes to inhibition, it's very possible that he wouldn't have committed the crime if he had a 19-year-old's brain. Judge says the sentence is required for public safety, which is fairly straightforward. Hopefully he's a different person by the end of it (and not just cos he's been in borstal for years).
Click to expand...

Put in simplistic terms though, does that neurological deficit translate as immaturity? Might explain their unbelievably crass references to such.

If he comes out (the pokey), he will come out utterly broken.

Re the sentence; as far as I'm aware he was not judged mentally unstable. Therefore, I reckon, it's weird that the law don't treat him like they would an adult female rapist or a general run of the mill murderer. He's pretty much done one of the worse thing any of us could imagine, FOUR fucking times, but it's all just kinds not really all that bad cause he looks like a fuckin victim himself.

Not an attack on you, by the way. Just purely as I see the utter wonk of this society.
 
Brainwrong said:
Put in simplistic terms though, does that neurological deficit translate as immaturity? Might explain their unbelievably crass references to such.
Click to expand...
Yes. It might sound crass but it's exactly the right word even as you take it as being meant - you genuinely don't have a fully-developed capacity to a) understand the consequences of your actions and b) control your impulses until your mid-20s.

See also the Bulger killers - at that age they very likely wouldn't have had the innate ability to see the bairn, or each other, or anyone except themselves, as an actual person who would be in pain/scared/etc like them. You're taught to do that by parents/others until you're able to do it yourself, and they wernae.

If he comes out (the pokey), he will come out utterly broken.
Click to expand...
Prolly aye. Suspect he's going in that way anaw though.

Re the sentence; as far as I'm aware he was not judged mentally unstable. Therefore, I reckon, it's weird that the law don't treat him like they would an adult female rapist or a general run of the mill murderer. He's pretty much done one of the worse thing any of us could imagine, FOUR $#@!ing times, but it's all just kinds not really all that bad cause he looks like a $#@!in victim himself.

Not an attack on you, by the way. Just purely as I see the utter wonk of this society.
Click to expand...

Mentally unstable is a pretty different thing though, and clearly there being intrinsically diminished responsibility is central to the idea of separate juvenile detention in the first place.

I'm no looking benevolently on the wee shite but I've got to say there's a weird attitude to youth crime of any type in this country. In most countries/cultures there's a tendency to see it as tragic but that they don't know any better; here it skews a bit more towards the daily mail, born evil narrative. Clockwork Orange was a satire don't you know...

(Unless we're talking about ex-cashies obviously in which case it's youthful hijinks them were the days etc etc)
 
Three years is nowt for this evil little fucker.

If it was because of his immaturity then perhaps he needs to be kept in till he knows the difference.

I'll give pretty short odds within a decade he'll be in the spotlight again for similar or worse.
 
When you consider that a male school teacher got 5 years for consensual sex with a pupil this sentence is a joke. The teacher was rightly punished and jailed, but how can he get less for raping and abusing 2 young kids?
 
FTJT said:
Yes. It might sound crass but it's exactly the right word even as you take it as being meant - you genuinely don't have a fully-developed capacity to a) understand the consequences of your actions and b) control your impulses until your mid-20s.

See also the Bulger killers - at that age they very likely wouldn't have had the innate ability to see the bairn, or each other, or anyone except themselves, as an actual person who would be in pain/scared/etc like them. You're taught to do that by parents/others until you're able to do it yourself, and they wernae.

Prolly aye. Suspect he's going in that way anaw though.



Mentally unstable is a pretty different thing though, and clearly there being intrinsically diminished responsibility is central to the idea of separate juvenile detention in the first place.

I'm no looking benevolently on the wee shite but I've got to say there's a weird attitude to youth crime of any type in this country. In most countries/cultures there's a tendency to see it as tragic but that they don't know any better; here it skews a bit more towards the daily mail, born evil narrative. Clockwork Orange was a satire don't you know...

(Unless we're talking about ex-cashies obviously in which case it's youthful hijinks them were the days etc etc)
Click to expand...

I just don't accept that there isn't something wrong with this kid. He's either been treated badly, has a mental condition or both. I'm basing this on myself and everyone I've ever met. At 15 years old everyone sane that I have ever known or been aware of have been fully able to cope with not shagging children or killing folk. The Bulger killers were far younger and I reckon the immaturity could possibly be an explanation for that. But at 15, not having the ability to harness empathy is deeply retarded and smacks of issues.

There is a terrible attitude in some quarters in the UK. Which is also lacking empathy. But there're also too many people prepared to do existential backflips to prove they don't read the daily mail.
 
Brainwrong said:
I just don't accept that there isn't something wrong with this kid. He's either been treated badly, has a mental condition or both. I'm basing this on myself and everyone I've ever met. At 15 years old everyone sane that I have ever known or been aware of have been fully able to cope with not shagging children or killing folk. The Bulger killers were far younger and I reckon the immaturity could possibly be an explanation for that. But at 15, not having the ability to harness empathy is deeply retarded and smacks of issues.

There is a terrible attitude in some quarters in the UK. Which is also lacking empathy. But there're also too many people prepared to do existential backflips to prove they don't read the daily mail.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying there's not anything wrong with him. I think that's pretty obvious. I'm saying his ability to deal with his circumstances, and subsequently his control over his behaviour, is massively affected by his age. And that the attitude to sentencing reflects that.
 
FTJT said:
I'm not saying there's not anything wrong with him. I think that's pretty obvious. I'm saying his ability to deal with his circumstances, and subsequently his control over his behaviour, is massively affected by his age. And that the attitude to sentencing reflects that.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. He's a bad 'un and knew very well the difference between right and wrong. There's more talk about the perpetrator's feelings and rights than the victims. True justice should always take the side of the victim.
 
FTJT said:
I'm not saying there's not anything wrong with him. I think that's pretty obvious. I'm saying his ability to deal with his circumstances, and subsequently his control over his behaviour, is massively affected by his age. And that the attitude to sentencing reflects that.
Click to expand...

So you're saying it's not immaturity, it's a combination of immaturity & fuckedupness? So, why defend or illustrate the immaturity point? Who really gives a fuck? What's the point of bringing immaturity into the equation when it doesn't factor? I'm not say you did. I'm saying they way this story is reported and the way it seems it was dealt with is deeply disturbing. This little fuck up should have been dealt a severe custodial sentence and at that point we should be dealing with empathy and dealing with whatever slight chance he has of rehabilitation. We should not first be thinking about how the abuser is a fucking victim. Jesus. We've got it all wrong.
 
Brainwrong said:
So you're saying it's not immaturity, it's a combination of immaturity & $#@!edupness? So, why defend or illustrate the immaturity point? Who really gives a $#@!? What's the point of bringing immaturity into the equation when it doesn't factor? I'm not say you did. I'm saying they way this story is reported and the way it seems it was dealt with is deeply disturbing. This little $#@! up should have been dealt a severe custodial sentence and at that point we should be dealing with empathy and dealing with whatever slight chance he has of rehabilitation. We should not first be thinking about how the abuser is a $#@!ing victim. Jesus. We've got it all wrong.
Click to expand...
are you pished?

not saying that to argue but i don't understand what point you're making and it's a saturday night.
 
This can't be passed off as immaturity.

He gets 3 years in a young offenders place and then gets let out as an adult to carry on doing god knows what. Clearly has issues that aren't being addressed. He should be going into a proper prison for a term after his young offenders.

Would this have been the same if it was 2 little girls instead?
 
FTJT said:
are you pished?

not saying that to argue but i don't understand what point you're making and it's a saturday night.
Click to expand...

Steamin'! Though I thought my punctuation & coherence was pretty decent considering! It did sound very ranty though. If you still require a translation, let me know ;)
 
Hammi said:
This can't be passed off as immaturity.
Click to expand...
Not completely, no, but substantially.

He gets 3 years in a young offenders place and then gets let out as an adult to carry on doing god knows what. Clearly has issues that aren't being addressed. He should be going into a proper prison for a term after his young offenders.
Click to expand...
Presumably the aim is that those issues will be addressed while he's inside such that by the time he's released he won't represent a risk.

Would this have been the same if it was 2 little girls instead?
Click to expand...

Probably not, because wee girls fits the evil monster paedo media narrative better and a lot of judges would shy away from getting caught up in that. But that wouldn't mean it would have been right in that situation and wrong in this one.

Brainwrong said:
Steamin'! Though I thought my punctuation & coherence was pretty decent considering! It did sound very ranty though. If you still require a translation, let me know ;)
Click to expand...

As battered typing goes it was a technically accomplished performance. I couldn't understand why immaturity stopped being a factor though!
 
FTJT said:
Not completely, no, but substantially.
Click to expand...

I don't see how.

What's the age cut off before immaturity isn't a concern. There's not many crimes that are looked on with more disgust than a rape, so not being mature enough to know what you're doing is wrong is almost a defense.

Maybe I just don't understand :dunno:
 
Hammi said:
I don't see how.

What's the age cut off before immaturity isn't a concern. There's not many crimes that are looked on with more disgust than a rape, so not being mature enough to know what you're doing is wrong is almost a defense.

Maybe I just don't understand :dunno:
Click to expand...

To understand these things you have to be a Guardian-knitting muesli-reading No Logo-eating type of person I suppose.
:dunno:
 
Is banned said:
I would chemically castrate the dirty little $#@!!
Click to expand...
Exactly what i always say to the mate when debating what should be done with beasts...
That way they won't ever get the urge again...if it is a disease and they cannot help it and they say their is not really a cure, which seems their isn't, then this is their only option, fuck their "rights" kids should always irrelevant of anything, come before the rights of a beast....
They want out of jail after their sentence? Only way of making sure they will not reoffend and ruin another child's life, or kill said child, then agree to
a chemical castration, it has been proved they will
always have these sick urges otherwise...
 
FTJT said:
Not completely, no, but substantially.

Presumably the aim is that those issues will be addressed while he's inside such that by the time he's released he won't represent a risk.



Probably not, because wee girls fits the evil monster paedo media narrative better and a lot of judges would shy away from getting caught up in that. But that wouldn't mean it would have been right in that situation and wrong in this one.



As battered typing goes it was a technically accomplished performance. I couldn't understand why immaturity stopped being a factor though!
Click to expand...

I've read through this and it strikes me that when I was that guy's age I was mature enough [even way back in the dark ages] to be able to differentiate between right and wrong.

I would have imagined that youngsters mature even more quickly nowadays so theoretically the streets should have been awash with young muggers, rapists that kind of thing back in the day and less so now.

I know you're a smart guy FTJT but I cannot fathom how these events could possibly be anything less than 100% his fault. How can he somehow not be fully responsible for his actions. You may well have empirical evidence to back up what you said but if you print it I will be doing this danniiR

Boy should have been sentenced to a whole lot longer than he got and as I said earlier should be put into the general prison population so he can have a taste of his own medicine on a daily basis with the lesson no doubt being pumped into him by some large and affectionate cell mate.
 
- - - Updated - - -

Also [MENTION=4263]Dub[/MENTION]....
I have read before that you can never "cure" these sick fuckers, the urge will always be there....so i am not sure where about Ftjt thinks he will come out of jail as a non risk....he is already a serial rapist....it will get worse once he matures,if that is the excuse, no???
Castrate the phucking lot of them
 
Dub said:
I've read through this and it strikes me that when I was that guy's age I was mature enough [even way back in the dark ages] to be able to differentiate between right and wrong.

I would have imagined that youngsters mature even more quickly nowadays so theoretically the streets should have been awash with young muggers, rapists that kind of thing back in the day and less so now.

I know you're a smart guy FTJT but I cannot fathom how these events could possibly be anything less than 100% his fault. How can he somehow not be fully responsible for his actions. You may well have empirical evidence to back up what you said but if you print it I will be doing this danniiR

Boy should have been sentenced to a whole lot longer than he got and as I said earlier should be put into the general prison population so he can have a taste of his own medicine on a daily basis with the lesson no doubt being pumped into him by some large and affectionate cell mate.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between psychosocial 'maturity' (ie not acting like a twat) and neurological maturity (changes to the composition and function of the frontal cortex). I'm not letting him off the hook, this is clearly not something where he couldn't possibly know it's out of order. What I'm saying is that because of his age and maturity in the latter sense, once he had the idea and took it seriously (which is the scary part and needs fixed) he was less able than someone five or ten years older would be to resist the impulse to carry it out.

I'm no saying he's a victim here. What I am saying is that the sentence appears lenient only because it has taken this into account: from a punitive point of view, he was less able to control his actions than an adult would be and diminished responsibility is regularly taken into account; from a public safety point of view, there's an assumption that he will be less likely to reoffend than someone who did this as an adult (because the adult's never going to develop greater capacity for impulse control); and in terms of rehabilitation and psychiatric involvement, as above, there will be percieved to be a greater chance of success in a shorter period of time than otherwise.

It's a short sentence because a longer one would serve no purpose other than institutionalising and criminalising the wee shit.
 
FTJT said:
There's a difference between psychosocial 'maturity' (ie not acting like a twat) and neurological maturity (changes to the composition and function of the frontal cortex). I'm not letting him off the hook, this is clearly not something where he couldn't possibly know it's out of order. What I'm saying is that because of his age and maturity in the latter sense, once he had the idea and took it seriously (which is the scary part and needs fixed) he was less able than someone five or ten years older would be to resist the impulse to carry it out.

I'm no saying he's a victim here. What I am saying is that the sentence appears lenient only because it has taken this into account: from a punitive point of view, he was less able to control his actions than an adult would be and diminished responsibility is regularly taken into account; from a public safety point of view, there's an assumption that he will be less likely to reoffend than someone who did this as an adult (because the adult's never going to develop greater capacity for impulse control); and in terms of rehabilitation and psychiatric involvement, as above, there will be percieved to be a greater chance of success in a shorter period of time than otherwise.

It's a short sentence because a longer one would serve no purpose other than institutionalising and criminalising the wee shit.
Click to expand...

That's a well explained and well laid out explanation, man. The major issues I have with that though is that no matter what the diminished responsibility factor calculates his ability to discern how much of a fuck up he was being its clearly a part of the law that's being, in my opinion, totally abused for the benefit of criminals.

I know the intention of the short term stay in the young offenders pokey is rehabilitation with a much higher success rate expected but if anyone thinks that he'll come out of there with his mind, arse & life in tact; they're delusional.

I appreciate your explanation though, actually makes it make a lot more sense. I totally don't agree with the approach though. There's something missing. And I'm not talking about violence or retribution. There're dots not being joined up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
  • Menu
  • Home
  • Hibs Chat
  • New Posts
  • Just Back
  • Chatroom