Well, try this:
A top judge is at the centre of an investigation after he freed a child rapist who then kidnapped and raped another youngster just eight days later.Say what?
Judge Adrian Smith had spared the 16-year old sex attacker a jail term after his first victim's family, who are devout Christians, forgave the teenager.Say WHAT!?
But just days after the boy was placed on a community order amid protests from prosecutors and police, he lured a five-year-old boy from the front of his home and raped him nearby.*speechless*
By chance the case was due to come back before Judge Smith again but he agreed to release the case to another judge after intervention from lawyers for the Crown Prosecution Service.!!!
Now the Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, has been asked to investigate the case after police and lawyers expressed dismay over the original sentence.At this stage, I'd not be surprised to find that Gary Glitter has been contracted to make a charity single about it...
5 comments:
So the judge listened to 'the family' and though clearly barking took the course of action he did. One reads of many, many occassions where very emotional 'impact statements' are read out to courts by grieving family members only to have themn seemingly ignored. What is going on? This judge should be removed immediately.
This bit of the report really hit home-
'As part of the punishment he was ordered to go to counselling sessions to address his behaviour and was to be supervised by probation officers.'
Almost half a century ago Joe Orton & Kenneth Halliwell were jailed for 3 months for defacing library books. Today a juvenile rapist now gets 3 months of tea & sympathy from a 'counsellor'. Can Baroness Scotland, or anyone else from the legal establisment, explain precisely how this constitutes 'progress' ?
"One reads of many, many occassions where very emotional 'impact statements' are read out to courts by grieving family members only to have themn seemingly ignored. What is going on?"
Precisely. I guess those are the 'wrong kind of impact statements'...
"Almost half a century ago Joe Orton & Kenneth Halliwell were jailed for 3 months for defacing library books. Today a juvenile rapist now gets 3 months of tea & sympathy from a 'counsellor'."
It's not progress by any reasonable stretch of the term. Maybe we sould call these people 'regressives'?
The judge should learn that law is for collective security. Get that? It's not just about what the victim or the victim's family wants now: judgement is intended to protect everyone else by enforcing the law.
I bet if the family of Victim Number One had said 'Throw away the key, please, m'lud?' he'd have ignored them.
But then we have Victim Number Two, and his family. THEY are what the law was and should be about, becasue they shouldn't exist. The judge has to go.
"The judge should learn that law is for collective security. Get that? It's not just about what the victim or the victim's family wants now: judgement is intended to protect everyone else by enforcing the law."
Exactly! Note the people saying that Polanski should go free because his victim has 'forgiven' him.
For that reason, I wasn't keen on the victim statement idea - it shouldn't be needed.
Post a Comment