Letters to the Editor
-
"I assume you are arguing this point because you feel the judge was too lenient."
No. I am simply answering your seeming concern that women who sexually abuse are let off too lightly. I don't think they should be.
How you can possibly say that that point of view is somehow feminist is beyond me. My point of view concerns justice. I am not speaking as a feminist but rather as someone who has spend some years as an avocate for children and for victims of crime.
If you do not understand that I am more concerned for the rights of children than I am for the rights of women, then all I can say is that you just don't "get" me. I think I have been quite clear where my focus is in this thread.
Let me be more explicit: The law should take all precaution to make sure that children are safe from sexual exploitation, and men and women who sexually offend against children should spend a very long time in prison -- say 20-30 years. This insures that these predators will only have an adult population to exploit rather than children.
I once read a stat that indicated that pedophile offend against about 70 children in their lifetime careers as sexual predators. Keeping them entirely away from children saves children.
-
AKA
I dont know how to respond. You say "men and women who sexually offend against children should spend a very long time in prison -- say 20-30 years". Applying your logic to this case would seem ludicrous. I would not even consider this man a pedophile based on what I know of this case. Your right, I dont "get" you, and have no interest in being drawn into one of your spiraling threads.
-
@ Allie
However, no one could have mistaken me for a 16-year-old five minutes after I opened my mouth and started talking.
And too many people who have responded that "well, she looked 16!" have totally ignored this crucial point in the stories about this case. People did say she could look 16 at first glance, but once she opened her mouth, it was very, very clear that she was MUCH younger.
Also, all this emphasis on her bra and thong? She was wearing jeans and a T-shirt. You don't see the frilly bra and thong until you undress her.
The girl was 10. she is a messed up 10, in foster care. but she is 10.
And the judge, by the way, is being investigated for being too lenient. This isn't the first time he's gone easy on a pedophile, either.
-
"I would not even consider this man a pedophile based on what I know of this case."
Anonymous, if you read the thread you will see that there are two cases mentioned concerning this judge. One involved a six year old girl. Even if you could argue that the men charged in the case of the 10 year old are not pedophiles because they might have mistaken her for 16 -- which I don't buy -- you cannot argue that any guy who has sex with a 6 year old is anything but a pedophile.
However, let us suppose that people who have sex with girls or boys age six are not likely to be repeat offenders (not too likely in cases that involve strangers, teachers, or friends), then that person still deserves severe long term incarceration for his behavior.
You may not want to be drawn into the thread, but you have clearly put yourself here. To what purpose? To attack feminists? To defend child molesters?
-
Anonymous
My point exactly. I don't believe little girls can be held accountable for their actions. Amen!
-
About speech and behavior:
I know sixteen year olds who speak and behave as if they were ten. I know of no ten year olds who speak and behave as if they were sixteen.
-
"She liked to dress provocatively"
Getting back to the point -- the reason the judge gave for the lenient sentence was that the girl liked to dress provocatively, in other words "she asked for it." This is not an acceptable reason to diminish a sex crime REGARDLESS of the victim's age.
That said, the girl was 10 years old. She was not able to consent. It doesn't matter if she looked 16, said she was 16 or if he thought she was 16. She wasn't. She was 10.
The unfortunate take-away from this light sentence, above and beyond the general injustice, is that no doubt another young girl will fall prey to the man who committed the crime.
-
Defense arguments
One of the few legal defenses against underage sex is that there was a mistake made about the young person's age, especially if due diligence was exercised and the young person showed a fake ID or made false representation.
I am not sure that I really believe the defendant in this case, but I have not seen the girl, nor, as far as I know, has AKA Smith. But the judge and others did think she appeared much older than her chronological age, hence there was a certain amount of reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant had a point.
Hard cases make bad law, and while this is probably not the best test case, would AKA Smith really want to see a lusty young woman who was deceived by a precocious lad who was advanced for his years locked up for 20-30 years?
Anyone who follows the UK news will know that the issue of prison overcrowding has been a major topic recently and that judges are under some pressure to use alternatives to prison such as community treatment orders for people who are not deemed to be a danger to the public.
If you were on trial, would you prefer to have an experienced judge sentence you according to the severity of your particular offence including aggravating and mitigating factors, or would you rather throw yourself on the tender mercies of AKA Smith who would probably personally castrate you with her bare hands.
-
can you exercise due diligence or anything like it and mistake a 10 year old for a 16 year old
obvioulsy many people simply do not believe this is possible. It would be interesting to find a girl, if one exists, who is 10 or 11 or whatever who could pass as older to women.
-
if we're going to hang everything on the mental maturity argument we'll have to prohibit all sex up to age 21
or maybe 25, and even that might be too young.
-
"would you rather throw yourself on the tender mercies of AKA Smith who would probably personally castrate you with her bare hands"
Actually there are tools for that.
I have never pretended to be a judge, nor have I pretended to be impartial. What part of the words victim avocate do you have trouble understanding? As an advocate for children, I make no apologies whatsoever about putting the needs of children first. Sexual abuse of children causes them a great deal of harm and it is not a small problem but a large one with many social repurcussions. Judges are just people. They make mistakes. Moreover, some judges are good people and some judges are bad people. Apparently, from this guy's track record he is a bad judge who is much more likely to think of the defendant's needs than the victim's. That is NOT impartiality.
To the extent that sexual victimization continues to contribute to further sexual victimization, it is not just the victim's problem. It is everyone's problem. Incarceration has two purposes. One is retribution and the other is rehabilitation. Pedophiles are notoriously difficult to rehabilitate. They resist treatment. In prison, they often refuse treatment. They have problems coming to terms with the harm that they do and they often lack simple ordinary human empathy. It is not at all uncommon for them to ask for sympathy for their "illness/compulsion," and still not get it that their victims did not ask to be sexually exploited. They often will admit that they cannot control their behavior (if they admit to having done the crime in the first place). I have said it before and I will say it again. I do have compassion for them, yet I have a great deal more compassion for their victims.
BTW, actual or chemical castration is often ineffective in the treatment of sexual offenders. I believe that is because sex offenses are not just about sex but about issues of power and helplessness.
As for prison overcrowding, the prisons are too full of people with minor drug offenses and minor property crimes. Make room for the sexual offenders by releasing people who do less harm.