Teenager who sexually abused a child given absolute discharge

[woodview]

16 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

No, what I said is that an absolute discharge is a criminal conviction and no amount of signatures on a petition will make it not a criminal conviction.

 

I have just seen that the conviction was under Scottish law therefore the conviction is not recorded as it would be under UK law.

 

 

So are you saying now that when you wrote:

 

AN ABSOLUTE DISCHARGE IS A CRIMINAL CONVICTION AND THE OFFENDER WILL HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD!

You were wrong? 

[Top Cats Hat]

3 minutes ago, lottiecass said:

Hopefully a review can alter that, and the judge wants sacking. Mitigation ,he  was naïve.

First of all it was a Sheriff not a judge and secondly how come you, who had probably never heard of the case until a couple of hours ago, suddenly know more about this case than the judge who has been involved the whole way through this case? 

[lottiecass]

7 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

What makes you such an expert on the matter?   How the hell do you know anything about the mitigation that was even pleaded. 

 

I never understand reactionaries like you (and the multiple others).     I know better.  What I say is right.   I can make a better Judgment.  Call that Justice..    blah blah blah. 

 

Its pathetic

 

Unless you were there in the court room observing every single piece of eveidence and hearing every single argument with the legal qualifications required to make an informed Judgment you have no basis to make such comments.

 

The only people with any sway in whether it should be challenged and appealed will be the lawyers and parties actually involved in the case.  Everyone else is just giving a load of hot air on whatever side of the story they choose to pick to suit their own agenda.   Guess what, trial by emotional reactionary social media storms is not justice.

 

 

I make my opinion on what was published, you say its pathetic, ask the 6yr olds parents who they agree with.

[woodview]

6 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

First of all it was a Sheriff not a judge and secondly how come you, who had probably never heard of the case until a couple of hours ago, suddenly know more about this case than the judge who has been involved the whole way through this case? 

Well, if we were talking about capital punishment, you'd be banging on about miscarriages of justice through the ages.

But all of a sudden, because a paedophile has been released scot free, the justice system cant be questioned. How come????

[lottiecass]

12 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

First of all it was a Sheriff not a judge and secondly how come you, who had probably never heard of the case until a couple of hours ago, suddenly know more about this case than the judge who has been involved the whole way through this case? 

The thing you are using is called the internet and it was on the news .

[ECCOnoob]

1 minute ago, lottiecass said:

I make my opinion on what was published, you say its pathetic, ask the 6yr olds parents who they agree with.

So based on a published article with absolutely no context you jump to the 'opinion' that the judge should be sacked and was naive.   Hmmm, very rational.

 

As for asking the parents  - why would I ?    What they think is totally irrelvant.   They have a  blindingly obvious partiality and thus will give no meaningful response.

 

 Justice is achieved with an impartial  assessment of BOTH sides of the case.      "I dont agree" and "I dont like" and "i'm upset" do not automatically deem a Judgment wrong.  

 

 They can appeal and Im sure they will on advice of those who actually have knowledge of the circumstances not a load of reactionary keyboard warriors throwing around 1001 uninformed "opinions" 

 

[Top Cats Hat]

8 minutes ago, woodview said:

But all of a sudden, because a paedophile has been released scot free, the justice system cant be questioned. How come????

That depends on your definition of 'scot free'. He has been convicted of a sexual offence and has had his name in most of the Scottish newspapers.

 

Given that Lottiecass won't answer maybe you could tell us how you know as much about the case as the Sheriff who ruled in it?

[lottiecass]

Just now, ECCOnoob said:

So based on a published article with absolutely no context you jump to the 'opinion' that the judge should be sacked and was naive.   Hmmm, very rational.

 

As for asking the parents  - why would I ?    What they think is totally irrelvant.   They have a  blindingly obvious partiality and thus will give no meaningful response.

 

 Justice is achieved with an impartial  assessment of BOTH sides of the case.      "I dont agree" and "I dont like" and "i'm upset" do not automatically deem a Judgment wrong.  

 

 They can appeal and Im sure they will on advice of those who actually have knowledge of the circumstances not a load of reactionary keyboard warriors throwing around 1001 uninformed "opinions" 

 

If this was your 6yr old would you be satisfied with the result? this wasn't a one off, it was over a 2yr span.

 

Just now, Top Cats Hat said:

That depends on your definition of 'scot free'. He has been convicted of a sexual offence and has had his name in most of the Scottish newspapers.

 

Given that Lottiecass won't answer maybe you could tell us how you know as much about the case as the Sheriff who ruled in it?

Oh yes lottie has.

[woodview]

3 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

That depends on your definition of 'scot free'. He has been convicted of a sexual offence and has had his name in most of the Scottish newspapers.

 

Given that Lottiecass won't answer maybe you could tell us how you know as much about the case as the Sheriff who ruled in it?

I don't. But, it's clearly reported he commited the crime. Could you offer a suggestion as to why a 17/18 year old who abused a six year old over 2 years shouldn't receive a punishment?

Why are you so defencive of someone who did such a vile crime?

[Top Cats Hat]

3 minutes ago, woodview said:

Could you offer a suggestion as to why a 17/18 year old who abused a six year old over 2 years shouldn't receive a punishment?

First of all he was 15, not 17 or 18 and secondly I have no idea of the circumstances other than what was reported in the paper so unlike others who also have no idea of the circumstances, I shall leave that decision to those in a much better position to make it.