Girl provoked pedophile - judge

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Going back to the UK - this is a little old, but it might explain something of the processes at work.

Judge Coombe, 71, said he felt obliged to pass a similar sentence on Davenport on Tuesday.

But he criticised the Crown Prosecution Service for dropping two more serious charges against Davenport, which would have carried a longer sentence. He said the sentence Davenport was receiving was "woefully inadequate" for the offence he had committed, which he described "as cowardly a case of bullying that I can recall".

"It is quite beyond the pale of normal understanding. I have many years on the bench and criminal bar and although I have been concerned in more serious cases such as murder, I cannot remember any quite so revolting and degrading as this one." When he sentenced the 17-year-olds, Judge Coombe said discretion was being taken increasingly from a judge's power.

At Davenport's sentencing, he repeated his criticism, saying the sentencing system was "a fetter on a judge's discretion".

"Only a trial judge can be in a position to decide what is appropriate," he said.

Judge Coombe's stance won support from former High Court judge Sir Michael Davies, who told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Wednesday that judges were "unnecessarily harnessed" in their sentencing options.

He said judges felt tied by a legal code enforced by ministers.

"It is the duty of politicians to lay down general principles but not to try to think they can lay down a code which will decide the sentence in all cases.

"Here we had a very experienced and very competent judge, and he wouldn't have blown his top without good reason. I think he had good reason in this case.

"The judge brought it out that in his view ... the Crown Prosecution Service was at fault because they had dropped a more serious charge which would have justified a longer sentence."

And by way of a contrast....

As pointed out above - sometimes the judge's hands are tied.

[archie07 0]

Who's rights are we worried about here? The child that was scarred for life or the pervert that raped her for years? I find your compassion for this guy amazing. He is a boil on our society and needs to be lanced. The judge that gave him 60 days should be disbarred and made to serve time in jail also. What he did is beyond any reason. When our childrens lives are at stake I don't give a damn about the rapists rights or whether he gets treatment. He should just get his azz streached in prison for the rest of his life.

So we show you the error in your argument, and you turn this into a personal attack about having compassion for the accused and not protecting children.

Sorry man, a fair justice system is not a one sided justice system, even when a child is the victim. You can still protect children without ignoring the human rights of others.

In lieu of better laws, the judge made the right decision in this case. He respected the right of the accused of being able to live a life after this incident, but made it conditional upon completing treatment. It could be aruged that he should have been given more jail time, but the way the laws were written he would have gotten out after 8 years, and with no treatment, likely to recommit again. So who are you interested in protecting? Obviously not human rights as your willing to put them aside in this case. And without treatment, its hard to say children either.

Sorry man, you haven't shown me any error in my judgment. In fact you have shown a total lack of knowledge of what child abuse is and it's effects. Have you ever met someone that had been abused like this? My step daughter from my first marriage was raped by her father over a 3 year period. A loony judge went for treatment for his drinking instead of sending him to jail. 6 years later he got remarried and was caught raping his 2 year old son!!! People like this don't change. Because of this monster my step-daughter is messed up for life. She ended up with severe mental problems, became a drug addict and in the end lost her 3 children. He didn't ruin one life, he ruined an entire family.Your compassion for the rapist really touches me.

No compassion. I don't want our justice system to run only on emotion. Satisfying only the victim at cost the accused. That is not justice, thats vengeance. The justice system provides justice not vengeance. It exists to give a fair judgment and sometimes that fair judgment will conflict with what you want. But I would rather have that system, than a system that gives zero rights to the accused, wrongly or not.

At least now I know your bias on this issue and why you will likely never be able to look at this issue from a balanced perspective.

WEll, I have no compassion either for these sick fcuks. LIFE IN PRISON and if they need counseling they can get it from BIG BUBBA and then we will have safe streets for our children. Sorry folks I'm with Gary on this one. A 10 year old child raped and all you people can think of is rehabilitation. That's one sick judge too. Who's child will it be next?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again - its not always the judge's fault.

[archie07 0]

Who's rights are we worried about here? The child that was scarred for life or the pervert that raped her for years? I find your compassion for this guy amazing. He is a boil on our society and needs to be lanced. The judge that gave him 60 days should be disbarred and made to serve time in jail also. What he did is beyond any reason. When our childrens lives are at stake I don't give a damn about the rapists rights or whether he gets treatment. He should just get his azz streached in prison for the rest of his life.

So we show you the error in your argument, and you turn this into a personal attack about having compassion for the accused and not protecting children.

Sorry man, a fair justice system is not a one sided justice system, even when a child is the victim. You can still protect children without ignoring the human rights of others.

In lieu of better laws, the judge made the right decision in this case. He respected the right of the accused of being able to live a life after this incident, but made it conditional upon completing treatment. It could be aruged that he should have been given more jail time, but the way the laws were written he would have gotten out after 8 years, and with no treatment, likely to recommit again. So who are you interested in protecting? Obviously not human rights as your willing to put them aside in this case. And without treatment, its hard to say children either.

Sorry man, you haven't shown me any error in my judgment. In fact you have shown a total lack of knowledge of what child abuse is and it's effects. Have you ever met someone that had been abused like this? My step daughter from my first marriage was raped by her father over a 3 year period. A loony judge went for treatment for his drinking instead of sending him to jail. 6 years later he got remarried and was caught raping his 2 year old son!!! People like this don't change. Because of this monster my step-daughter is messed up for life. She ended up with severe mental problems, became a drug addict and in the end lost her 3 children. He didn't ruin one life, he ruined an entire family.Your compassion for the rapist really touches me.

No compassion. I don't want our justice system to run only on emotion. Satisfying only the victim at cost the accused. That is not justice, thats vengeance. The justice system provides justice not vengeance. It exists to give a fair judgment and sometimes that fair judgment will conflict with what you want. But I would rather have that system, than a system that gives zero rights to the accused, wrongly or not.

At least now I know your bias on this issue and why you will likely never be able to look at this issue from a balanced perspective.

WEll, I have no compassion either for these sick fcuks. LIFE IN PRISON and if they need counseling they can get it from BIG BUBBA and then we will have safe streets for our children. Sorry folks I'm with Gary on this one. A 10 year old child raped and all you people can think of is rehabilitation. That's one sick judge too. Who's child will it be next?

Florida law-*Sexual Battery

(under 12 Yrs of age)

Capital Felony, Life without Parole

[GaryC 7]

Again - its not always the judge's fault.

That is why we need manditory minimums. That way the judge isn't faced with the problem.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again - its not always the judge's fault.

That is why we need manditory minimums. That way the judge isn't faced with the problem.

Politicians should butt out of the judicial process - that's what's needed.

[archie07 0]

Again - its not always the judge's fault.

That is why we need manditory minimums. That way the judge isn't faced with the problem.

The judges still have sentencing guidelines. There is no reason for such a lenient sentence. I can't believe a judge can get away with something like this. But as someone else mentioned the UK case is on appeal.

[GaryC 7]

Again - its not always the judge's fault.

That is why we need manditory minimums. That way the judge isn't faced with the problem.

Politicians should butt out of the judicial process - that's what's needed.

Since politicians write the laws that is kind of hard to do.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again - its not always the judge's fault.

That is why we need manditory minimums. That way the judge isn't faced with the problem.

Politicians should butt out of the judicial process - that's what's needed.

Since politicians write the laws that is kind of hard to do.

Then you have to expect this sort of thing. Legislature should have limited influence over sentencing - especially if this is the result. The example I posted above is the direct result of a government initiative to dole out homogenous punishments regardless of the extenuating circumstances of the case - to the effect that the judge could not pass down a higher sentence (even though he wanted to).

[Dan J 277]

Who's rights are we worried about here? The child that was scarred for life or the pervert that raped her for years? I find your compassion for this guy amazing. He is a boil on our society and needs to be lanced. The judge that gave him 60 days should be disbarred and made to serve time in jail also. What he did is beyond any reason. When our childrens lives are at stake I don't give a damn about the rapists rights or whether he gets treatment. He should just get his azz streached in prison for the rest of his life.

So we show you the error in your argument, and you turn this into a personal attack about having compassion for the accused and not protecting children.

Sorry man, a fair justice system is not a one sided justice system, even when a child is the victim. You can still protect children without ignoring the human rights of others.

In lieu of better laws, the judge made the right decision in this case. He respected the right of the accused of being able to live a life after this incident, but made it conditional upon completing treatment. It could be aruged that he should have been given more jail time, but the way the laws were written he would have gotten out after 8 years, and with no treatment, likely to recommit again. So who are you interested in protecting? Obviously not human rights as your willing to put them aside in this case. And without treatment, its hard to say children either.

Sorry man, you haven't shown me any error in my judgment. In fact you have shown a total lack of knowledge of what child abuse is and it's effects. Have you ever met someone that had been abused like this? My step daughter from my first marriage was raped by her father over a 3 year period. A loony judge went for treatment for his drinking instead of sending him to jail. 6 years later he got remarried and was caught raping his 2 year old son!!! People like this don't change. Because of this monster my step-daughter is messed up for life. She ended up with severe mental problems, became a drug addict and in the end lost her 3 children. He didn't ruin one life, he ruined an entire family.Your compassion for the rapist really touches me.

No compassion. I don't want our justice system to run only on emotion. Satisfying only the victim at cost the accused. That is not justice, thats vengeance. The justice system provides justice not vengeance. It exists to give a fair judgment and sometimes that fair judgment will conflict with what you want. But I would rather have that system, than a system that gives zero rights to the accused, wrongly or not.

At least now I know your bias on this issue and why you will likely never be able to look at this issue from a balanced perspective.

WEll, I have no compassion either for these sick fcuks. LIFE IN PRISON and if they need counseling they can get it from BIG BUBBA and then we will have safe streets for our children. Sorry folks I'm with Gary on this one. A 10 year old child raped and all you people can think of is rehabilitation. That's one sick judge too. Who's child will it be next?

If you go down that road once, its a lot easier to go down that road again. How soon before people are forced to serve 5 year jail sentences for speeding 5 miles over the speed limit through a neighborhood because they might endanger the life of a child playing in the street? Is that fair? Do you want the internet to be censored to only kid friendly sites because they might get porn?

And another thing, if this guys "treatment" is unsuccesful then you are dooming yet another child to being raped by him. You really want that on your hands? The repeat offencess of people like this are very high. I would rather protect the inocent than worry about the monsters rights. IMO he gives up his rights when he rapes a baby.

Of course treatment doesn't always work. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't use it. Jail doesn't always work either, should we not use jails? I would rather see a sex offender go through treatment and then be released, rather than a sex offender who only went to jail be released with no treatment. Both of them could reoffend, but one is more likely to than the other.

So you think 6 months and treatment is appropriate? Punishment and vengeance are not the same thing. In your rush to show your "progressivness" your forgetting that punishment and segregation from society is appropriate for people like this. I hope you never have to deal with the aftermath of someone you love being raped. It's especially worse when it's a child. I think you would have a different outlook if God forbid you were ever faced with it.

So can i permanently segregate from society anyone I don't agree with because I don't want my children to be harmed by their views? I think 6 months and treatment is appropriate if the law doesn't allow for treatment with a longer jail sentence. We cannot, while still respecting human rights put this person away for the rest of his life. He will be released again. And without treatment he is a lot more likely to re-offend and harm another child.

Punishment taking into account only the victims views is vengeance. Punishment taking in the victims views and the spirit of the law is justice. And no, those two things will not always agree.

[Dan J 277]

Again - its not always the judge's fault.

That is why we need manditory minimums. That way the judge isn't faced with the problem.

Politicians should butt out of the judicial process - that's what's needed.

Since politicians write the laws that is kind of hard to do.

Then you have to expect this sort of thing. Legislature should have limited influence over sentencing - especially if this is the result. The example I posted above is the direct result of a government initiative to dole out homogenous punishments regardless of the extenuating circumstances of the case - to the effect that the judge could not pass down a higher sentence (even though he wanted to).

Minimums and maximums work both ways. The politicians can write the laws, but the judges need discretion in applying the laws, otherwise it puts all the power in the hands of the politicians. With discretion, the power is shared.

[archie07 0]

Again - its not always the judge's fault.

That is why we need manditory minimums. That way the judge isn't faced with the problem.

Politicians should butt out of the judicial process - that's what's needed.

Since politicians write the laws that is kind of hard to do.

Then you have to expect this sort of thing. Legislature should have limited influence over sentencing - especially if this is the result. The example I posted above is the direct result of a government initiative to dole out homogenous punishments regardless of the extenuating circumstances of the case - to the effect that the judge could not pass down a higher sentence (even though he wanted to).

Minimums and maximums work both ways. The politicians can write the laws, but the judges need discretion in applying the laws, otherwise it puts all the power in the hands of the politicians. With discretion, the power is shared.

Then you have to expect this sort of thing. Legislature should have limited influence over sentencing - especially if this is the result. The example I posted above is the direct result of a government initiative to dole out homogenous punishments regardless of the extenuating circumstances of the case - to the effect that the judge could not pass down a higher sentence (even though he wanted to).

I would like to see the crime and punishment chart of the state where the man recieved 6 months for raping the child.

[Caladan 19]

A mandatory minimum sentence won't help if the prisons are so overcrowded they release the 'unlikely to re-offend' guys early; is the Vermont guy eligible for parole if he gets eight years?

I think the judge was too lenient, but I can see why he did it. He has, what, 25 years on the bench? Probably seen a lot of guys go to prison, come out, do the exact same crime, and he would probably like to sentence the guy to treatment AND prison, but the law has tied his hands. (Gee, sure would be nice if the judge had the discretion to assign him prison and treatment....)

[archie07 0]

A mandatory minimum sentence won't help if the prisons are so overcrowded they release the 'unlikely to re-offend' guys early; is the Vermont guy eligible for parole if he gets eight years?

I think the judge was too lenient, but I can see why he did it. He has, what, 25 years on the bench? Probably seen a lot of guys go to prison, come out, do the exact same crime, and he would probably like to sentence the guy to treatment AND prison, but the law has tied his hands. (Gee, sure would be nice if the judge had the discretion to assign him prison and treatment....)

I agree with that one. If they let out the pot heads there would be room for the violent offenders.

[Dan J 277]

A mandatory minimum sentence won't help if the prisons are so overcrowded they release the 'unlikely to re-offend' guys early; is the Vermont guy eligible for parole if he gets eight years?

I think the judge was too lenient, but I can see why he did it. He has, what, 25 years on the bench? Probably seen a lot of guys go to prison, come out, do the exact same crime, and he would probably like to sentence the guy to treatment AND prison, but the law has tied his hands. (Gee, sure would be nice if the judge had the discretion to assign him prison and treatment....)

I wouldn't say he was too lenient, I would say he knew what sentence he wanted to give, but was limited by the law and he decided that treatment of a sex offender what more important than jail time with no treatment. If anything the law should be written for the judge to give jail time and assign treatment separately, and not make it impossible to assign treatment if the judge choose jail time.

The judge knew he would get out after a certain time. And decided being released with treatment was better than being released later without.