The Attorney General has been asked to investigate the case of a rapist who was allowed to walk free from court with a community sentence - and allegedly struck again just days later.A rapist set free with only a community sentence? Allegedly committing another crime straight away?
Oh, boy! Cath Elliot and the usual crowd over at CiF will be climbing aboard their steeds and donning their colours to bring the fight to the Criminal Justice System and its rampant misogyny any...moment...now.
But wait. There might be some tricky issues here:
Meanwhile, his close-knit local community has been left in a state of disbelief by the chain of events, with friends and family of the victims incensed he was let out to allegedly attack again. The teenager was allegedly known by police for his sexual interest in young boys.Hmmm....
The accused boy's family - he lived with his mother after his parents separated - have since left the area and moved into a safe house following threats.I can feel the brakes being thrown on right now...
A neighbour claims that the boy's mother had pleaded with social services to take him into care, but was ignored.
Over at House of Dumb, DumbJohn points out that not only are we not able to know the rapists name, but we can't know the judge's either.
4 comments:
I know, it´s so utterly ridiculous. His human right to privacy comes before the right of ordinary people to know "who he is"...
I´ve noticed that whenever a crime of violence is now reported, we never get the usual "identifit" or photo or even a description of the person. The only things described are what clothes he/she was wearing.
Protecting criminals is a ridiculous thing to do. If their photos were plastered all over the papers and within local communities, not only would we be more vigilant but it "should" shame them too.
The Judge has no doubt been protected just incase someone gets angry with him/her, or God forbid, that he/she is made to answer for such a terrible error in judgement.
"I´ve noticed that whenever a crime of violence is now reported, we never get the usual "identifit" or photo or even a description of the person."
Hmm, of course, colour is an aspect of personal appearance and, unlike clothing, it can't be changed easily - not without, say, expensive surgery.
But colour's irrelevant, isn't it?
So, Nightjack was outed by a judge because it was essential for the public to know who he was. A judge sets a rapist free under a community order and it isn't in the public interest to know the judge's name.
"...not only would we be more vigilant but it "should" shame them too."
We don't do shame anymore...
"But colour's irrelevant, isn't it?"
Apparently not.. ;)
"So, Nightjack was outed by a judge because it was essential for the public to know who he was. A judge sets a rapist free under a community order and it isn't in the public interest to know the judge's name."
That word keeps coming up, doesn't it? 'Judge'...
Post a Comment