Teenager who sexually abused a child given absolute discharge

[woodview]

9 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

He was prosecuted...

Typically you're claiming things of people that haven't been said and aren't even slightly inferred.

A defence of the process isn't the same as a defence of a specific criminal.

What's being discussed here isn't the criminal act, it's the system which has resulted in the Sheriff giving the criminal an absolute discharge.  Nobody even disagrees that the verdict of guilty is wrong (except the people who couldn't be bothered to find out what 'absolute discharge' meant).  The only thing under discussion is the sentence and that's about the system that sets the sentence and the Sheriff, it isn't about the convicted person.

Im not making a false claim  you said "the victim appeared to have suffered no injury or long lasting effects" 

so I commented on your claim, which you conveniently forgotton.

So, is that your opinion? If the victim doesn't have any long lasting effects, the offender walks? 

[ANGELFIRE1]

Some offences are quite black and white with no mitigating circumstances. This case is one of them, in my opinion, 15, 16, 17 year old male interferes (for two years) with a female child of 6, although the sex of the child is irrelevant I think.

 

Black and white, he did it, he should be severely punished for his actions. As my OP says, imagine if this was your child if you will, his crime is un defenable.

 

Angel1 

[Top Cats Hat]

3 hours ago, woodview said:

So, presumably on those grounds, you believe rapists who use Rohypnol should also be set free?

Grow up! 🙄

[woodview]

2 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Grow up! 🙄

Why? Your argument for agreeing with letting him walk free is that the poor 6 year old would have not suffered any long term harm from his years of abuse. You'll have to explain the difference, because I'm really struggling with your logic on this, and I'm clearly not the only one.

[Top Cats Hat]

44 minutes ago, woodview said:

 I'm really struggling with your logic on this

I assume that you are deliberately misrepresenting my posts so if you are struggling with your own deliberate misrepresentations then your head must be a real mess.

 

I don't see anyone else struggling! 😂

[woodview]

1 hour ago, Top Cats Hat said:

I assume that you are deliberately misrepresenting my posts so if you are struggling with your own deliberate misrepresentations then your head must be a real mess.

 

I don't see anyone else struggling! 😂

Ok, can you give me an example of circumstances why this young adult should not receive any punishment? (and don't say 'he's been in the paper' as his punishment).

The report says it was because he is socially awkward and is doing a degree in dentistry. So, presumably that in itself isn't enough, is it??

So, why could he not receive a custodial sentence and the crime not be on his record??? Just an example of circumstances will suffice.

[Shunter]

3 hours ago, Cyclone said:

He was prosecuted...

Typically you're claiming things of people that haven't been said and aren't even slightly inferred.

A defence of the process isn't the same as a defence of a specific criminal.

What's being discussed here isn't the criminal act, it's the system which has resulted in the Sheriff giving the criminal an absolute discharge.  Nobody even disagrees that the verdict of guilty is wrong (except the people who couldn't be bothered to find out what 'absolute discharge' meant).  The only thing under discussion is the sentence and that's about the system that sets the sentence and the Sheriff, it isn't about the convicted person.

Could this be the biggest example of irony ever?

[Top Cats Hat]

18 minutes ago, woodview said:

So, why could he not receive a custodial sentence and the crime not be on his record??? Just an example of circumstances will suffice.

You are still struggling with this, aren’t you? 😂

[Cyclone]

3 hours ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

Some offences are quite black and white with no mitigating circumstances. This case is one of them, in my opinion, 15, 16, 17 year old male interferes (for two years) with a female child of 6, although the sex of the child is irrelevant I think.

 

Black and white, he did it, he should be severely punished for his actions. As my OP says, imagine if this was your child if you will, his crime is un defenable.

 

Angel1 

Severely punished in order to achieve what?  What do you think are the tenets of our justice system?

3 hours ago, woodview said:

Im not making a false claim  you said "the victim appeared to have suffered no injury or long lasting effects" 

so I commented on your claim, which you conveniently forgotton.

So, is that your opinion? If the victim doesn't have any long lasting effects, the offender walks? 

Now you're really confused.  I didn't say anything like that.  Perhaps you think that everyone who disagrees with you is the same person?

23 minutes ago, Shunter said:

Could this be the biggest example of irony ever?

Nope.

But you know, feel free to try to prove so.  Perhaps in this case you'll actually make an attempt to do so, rather than just repeating your opinion as if that makes it true.

2 hours ago, woodview said:

Why? Your argument for agreeing with letting him walk free is that the poor 6 year old would have not suffered any long term harm from his years of abuse. You'll have to explain the difference, because I'm really struggling with your logic on this, and I'm clearly not the only one.

It wasn't an argument for that at all.  You appear to be incapable of following a conversation or seeing the context of any post.

Top Cats Hat made that specific statement in response to K1Machine

"or what damage those two years have done to her in the long term"

Who apparently couldn't find out what possible damage might have been done, but clearly thought it might be significant.  However, on the contrary, in this case, there appears to be little to no damage.

You've taken his comment, removed the context of what he was replying to and then leapt to unsupported conclusions.

[woodview]

1 hour ago, Top Cats Hat said:

You are still struggling with this, aren’t you? 😂

Yes. I can't see what is even remotely funny about it.

Give me an example of circumstances of why he shouldn't receive a custodial sentence.

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

Severely punished in order to achieve what?  What do you think are the tenets of our justice system?

 

"or what damage those two years have done to her in the long term"

Who apparently couldn't find out what possible damage might have been done, but clearly thought it might be significant.  However, on the contrary, in this case, there appears to be little to no damage.

You've taken his comment, removed the context of what he was replying to and then leapt to unsupported conclusions.

So, here we have two critical senstences.

'to achieve what?' - so basically you don't think a punishment will achieve anything? This man has abused a six year old girl, not shoplifted to get his next meal.

and then

"or what damage those two years have done to her in the long term" , so the little girl has no long term damage (or someone says) , so let the bloke walk free.

 

My mind boggles at what planet you are living on.