“Laughable”?
“Appalling” is more like it
Appallingly light that is
£26 in fines is more insulting than no punishment at all honestly
Except they’re on the sex offender registry a have youth rehabilitation orders? Nowhere in the article does it even describe what those two things are or what impact they have on youth offenders. This is rage-baiting, not news. Just because they didn’t receive a sentence that makes the victims feel better doesn’t mean there is any injustice, or that nothing was done.
Rapists walking free in society without any correction whatsoever having taken place is an injustice taking place. They belong in a cage at minimum until they’ve been through some kind of program to evaluate that they’re no longer a threat to the rest of society. Having to report to some kind of counseling while they otherwise enjoy their lives does not prevent them from victimizing someone else.
Yes, it does mean there was an injustice. Any discrepancy between the moral outcome and the legal one is an injustice. Civilization is the struggle to reduce or reconcile that massive dichotomy.
The morally ideal outcome for rapists is instant death. That’s impractical (since it would endanger victims, for instance, and make people upset). So we have optimum alternatives.
A $26 fine ain’t it.
Well that is such a far reaching expectations that you’ll never be satisfied, it also undermines the practical notion of justice at all. Who even decides what the optimistic outcome is? Surely not the victims.
Morality has no place in a justice systems sentencings if the goal is efficacious outcomes, demonstrated no better than your moral stance of death sentences.
The fee is completely unrelated to the offense and is charged for all kinds of crimes. This emphasis on it is part of the rage bait and you fell for it.
Our whole civilization is a fundamentally asymptotic project. The same way that artists, scholars, and athletes are never satisfied. It’s the human condition.
That said, your claim that
morality has no place in a justice system
is such a basic misunderstanding of the entire point of human civilization, I’d be curious to hear what you think we’re doing when we debate and pass laws.
Children cannot be held to the same level of criminal responsibility as adults: justice is not served by locking, say, 10-year-olds up for the full prison sentence an adult rapist ought to be jailed for. Such a child needs punishment, but obliterating their childhood will not turn them into an upstanding adult citizen. However, 17 years old is not far off 18 years old, and so a 17-year-old convicted of rape should face a correspondingly similar sentence to an 18-year old. Someone just within the threshold of criminal responsibility according to the law should face the least punishment, but it still needs to be a punishment.
They might be waiting for them to turn 18 and process them as adults or they’ll recruit him to be a cop or politician.
Processing them for the same crime twice is double jeopardy, and is explicitly banned by the constitution.
This is just letting them off basically unscathed.
These were not date rape situations where a judge with a bias could hide behind the classic misogyny of “she was asking for it”.
Here’s a section describing it from an earlier article,
In the first attack a 15-year-old girl was raped by two of the defendants, both aged 14 at the time.
In the second assault, the three boys threatened a 14-year-old girl with a knife and two of them took it in turns to rape her while the others encouraged the offending and filmed the assaults.
On Thursday, at Southampton crown court, two boys, both 15, were each sentenced to a three-year youth rehabilitation order and made subject to intensive supervision and surveillance (ISS). The third boy, 14, was given an 18-month youth rehabilitation order.
Seems to me, that sort of organized violence needs some sort of custodial sentence, if only to protect the public.
now do the sentences of protestors
“Sentencing decisions are made by independent judges in line with sentencing guidelines,” said a spokesperson. “We are clear that punishments must fit the severity of the crime, and custody should always be considered for serious offences. This government is determined to do all we can to make sure victims have confidence they will get justice.”
rape
£26 fines
I see England has a very distorted view of how severe rape is. Clearly the teenagers ‘didn’t know what they were doing’ and ‘should be given another chance’.
Rape in England has been a major pain point for awhile now. The politicians setting the laws there seem to just not give a fuck.
I mean that’s the point where vigilante justice starts happening. And that is not a good sign for a civilisation.
The attorney general has referred the case to the court of appeals for resentencing, so the politicians seem to think that there’s been some kind of fuckup applying the sentencing guidelines that politicians set. It’s news because this isn’t normal, and the mechanisms to resolve it are in motion. They’ll probably take years to sort it out, as the justice system is incredibly slow and wildly overwhelmed after over a decade of funding cuts and policy decisions that force people to resort to crime, but in 2040 or whenever they get around to it, the decision is almost certainly going to be that the judge made a mistake.
What are you talking about? This is so normal. The most normal. Rapists do not generally get punished.
That was a different case.
IMO there’s a handful of crimes - generally, the most depraved ones that cause the most damage, such as murder, rape, sexual assaults - that should be handled as if the defendant was an adult, even if they’re underage.
It’s borderline insane to think that a 17 year old can walk away from a rape charge with a fucking fine.
Minor things like theft, sure, have a separate court, take the age into consideration. But anyone who willingly kills or rapes/sexually assaults someone to the highest degree (making the differentiation here because in the UK, only men can commit the crime of rape, as by legal definition, it requires the forced insertion of one’s penis into the victim - any other case what one would colloquially consider “rape” is actually “sexual assault of high degree”… it’s dumb but it is what it is. Upskirt photos are also sexual assault but we can agree on it being slightly lesser than raping someone, I think), nope, you did the adult crime, you sit the adult time.
I understand the feeling, but the totality of the case should be taken into account. I think if we all look back to our 17 year old self we can agree that we were really not that smart. That does not excuse everything but in conjunction with the facts does matter.
I support allowing it to be upgraded by the prosecutor/judge if it meets a proper threshold. If you plan a crime and then execute that crime you can be charged as an adult. But let’s say for example you are 17 get into an argument with a friend over something dumb, fight, and then your friend hits their head and dies then maybe being charge as a juvenile would still be appropriate.
Of course some of the crimes you mentioned would almost always fall under the “planned” distinction I made.
So many headlines are borderline disinformation with how misleadingly they present the content of the article - I have almost given up wanting to read things when I am click-baited >90% of the time into a nothing-burger that was made out to be so “interesting” and “impactful”. Unfortunately in this case, it seems spot-on.
“The survivors who have experienced these outcomes say they feel hopeless and worried for other young people who might fall victim to the crimes of individuals who are not being held meaningfully accountable. They are rightly questioning whether reporting to the police and enduring the process is worth it.”
“You would be charged more for a parking ticket than for rape. A £26 fine for rape is laughable and insulting to the public who put trust and faith and taxes into a system which is not protecting these girls. This is pure impunity for the attackers.
I disagree and think the headline is still misleading.
They’re three separate cases, all of the convicted are minors, and the article never mentions anything about what the Youth Rehabilitation Order they were given entails.
It can include things such as putting them into a youth detention center, a foster home, order not to leave a certain area, constant supervision with an ankle monitor, community service, forced participation in a full-time rehab programme, etc.
I understand that this can in no way be satisfactory for the victims or public opinion, but I also wonder what else would be better to deal with a rapist who’s himself still only 14 years old.The article has a link to a slightly older article, it was two incidents, and they’re not good. Not that any rape is good, but these boys took it to another level.
In the first attack a 15-year-old girl was raped by two of the defendants, both aged 14 at the time.
In the second assault, the three boys threatened a 14-year-old girl with a knife and two of them took it in turns to rape her while the others encouraged the offending and filmed the assaults.
Which is why everyone is talking about this sentence.
Without those additional details we will never know, but I thought I recalled the article mentioning things like the boys being able to simply go home, so that would be HIGHLY misleading then of the article to state that if after going home they had to report to a foster care center.
Yes there are additional consequences such as being put on the sex offender registry for 30 months iirc, which I presume does things like block the ability to get higher-paying jobs and the like.
Unfortunately the very reason we are talking like this is due to the fact that nobody can trust the for-profit corporate enshittified mainstream media, which has lead to such notable downstream effects as Brexit and the election of Donald Trump… twice. When facts themselves are no longer valued, anything goes. We should have paid more attention.
deleted by creator
The UK has turned into such a shithole, the twats making rules are encouraging rape with this bullshit because they want to create more slaves even if they are unwillingly created.
Well, this is a mildly unhinged conspiracy theory.
Maybe but the rape victims would disagree that their rape was a “theory”.
Okay, but how does that relate to anything here?
I cant describe how angry things linked to rape make me , especially with this mevel of impunity. I want to beat the shit of these monsters
Given how hard it is often to prove beyond reasonable doubt any case that is proven should get the book thrown at them, defiling a human being in such a way is a unforgivable crime imo
Is UK really a country or just 3 shitholes wearing a trench coat?
4
At least two of them want out
After Brexit start questioning the intelligence oh who am I kidding leadership has mental disabilities undiagnosed.
That seems quite a low sentence, even if they are underage. Are all violent crimes under that low of a punishment for underage people? If say e.g. a 15 year old stabs someone because they think it’s “gangster”, would they also just get a 26£ fine?
How are they not at least getting the shit beat out of them through street justice?
Free and mandatory gender reassignment treatment for rapists. Let them feel what it’s like.
The morally correct recourse for rape is death.
No, but only because that encourages murdering the victims to hide evidence since you’d be dead anyway if you got caught.
You mean it’s impractical — which has very little to do with what I said.
I take a holistic view of morality, which means that the morally correct recourse is the one that causes the most long term good. A knee jerk reaction of killing someone found to be reprehensible causes more long term harm due to the subsequent behaviors it encourages.
You’re misinterpreting my claim. The optimific outcome, the one that results in the most moral good, is the death of the rapist. Literally. If a law of the universe caused rapists to be instantly struck dead, this would be best.
The different normative question of what we should do (by definition, morally speaking) is also a practical one, exactly as you said.
The purpose of my original claim is to highlight the distance between the morally optimal outcome (simpliciter) and the justice system.
Who are they?
