Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

brookehouse

The Legal System Has Lost Its Marbles.

Recommended Posts

Yep. It's right up there with paedophilia charges for children who text naked pictures of themselves to their friends (and their concomitant registration on the sex offenders register. The legal system, or those driving certain aspects of it, is completely mad.

Just more evidence of how completely deranged, neurotic and out of touch with reality our society has become. Much like "high house prices are a good thing."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a youth court system in England and Wales but I presume they can't hear very serious cases. Maybe that should change.

If they'd been under 10, there wouldn't have been a trial, but I don't know if there would have been a referral for compulsory 'therapy' or 'monitoring.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too found this conviction to be astounding. These pre-pubescent boys would not have the sexual drive that leads to rape. So they showed her their genitals and she showed them hers. Hardly a big deal. It is often called "You show me yours and will show you mine" and all children do it. It is more out of curiosity than anything else. I certainly recall doing this. To go from that to an attempted rape charge is a big step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't quite get my head around this. I thought last week, when the girl said she'd lied, that this whole thing would get thrown out.

I've been thinking back to the sorts of things that went on when I was a kid like Tony whatshisface popping it out in the cloakroom to show us. Me staring and my friend running away. All just part of learning and childish curiousity.

I'm raising boys and I can't think they would be capable of it at 10. I'm certain more damage has been done to those 3 children by this whole pantomime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too young to be physically capable of witchcrafta sexual act, but not too young to be burned as witches.

Yep, no surprises there. Best traditions of British Justice. Now they can take their place alongside other convicted criminals - ranging from those who've done something terrible right through to unfortunate victims found innocent only until proven broke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume there was a jury, it must have been seen as more than doctors and nurses for them to make this judgement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking back to the sorts of things that went on when I was a kid like Tony whatshisface popping it out in the cloakroom to show us.

Tony Blair? Tony Bennett? Tony Curtis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a surprising verdict but personally I have faith in the jury system. When I did jury service I was impressed by how people sought to weigh up the evidence and come to a just decision. That this jury took 2 days and passed a guilty verdict on a lesser charge by a majority vote shows that they tried long and hard to reach the right decision. The media (and the public) love making a snap decision on a controversial trial based on nothing more than a few lines of second-hand reporting. A friend once sat on the jury of a high-profile case and years later it was fascinating to be told about the bias in the media accounts from someone who'd sat attentively through the whole trial. However, it seems the rules of the Crown Court are ill suited to deal with this kind of case so it's absolutely right the judge should say lessons need to be learned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't quite get my head around this. I thought last week, when the girl said she'd lied, that this whole thing would get thrown out.

I've been thinking back to the sorts of things that went on when I was a kid like Tony whatshisface popping it out in the cloakroom to show us. Me staring and my friend running away. All just part of learning and childish curiousity.

I'm raising boys and I can't think they would be capable of it at 10. I'm certain more damage has been done to those 3 children by this whole pantomime.

I thought it would be thrown out too. The judge made a similar point, as reported by the Telegraph.

The jury was not told that the trial judge had admitted to having misgivings about allowing the case to go ahead.

Mr Justice Saunders conceded that the Old Bailey case would have been dropped if the victim had been an adult, because the evidence the girl gave via videolink was so contradictory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume that these boys will be unable to work with children in the future then?

Also if they where playing a game, surely the girl must be put on the sex offenders register as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it would be thrown out too. The judge made a similar point, as reported by the Telegraph.

This goes against the entire 'I have faith in hte Jury doing it's job' argument.

if even the judge states the evidence was contradictory - then how could anyone reach a guilty verdict ?

Not taking anything away from the 8 yeard old girl - no wonder she was perhaps confused. Then again who knows - children like to make stuff up all the time. Maybe this is what happened. Maybe not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume there was a jury, it must have been seen as more than doctors and nurses for them to make this judgement.

There was but don't forget that juries are instructed to find guilt based on facts and the law, not what's morally right. Sometimes juries rebel and refuse to convict but, mostly, they don't. A lot of NuLab laws also involve strict liability too - i.e. they couldn't get summary justice past parliament so abolished mens rea as the next best thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable

This happened in America, I presume?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This happened in America, I presume?

Hayes, west London

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too found this conviction to be astounding. These pre-pubescent boys would not have the sexual drive that leads to rape. So they showed her their genitals and she showed them hers. Hardly a big deal. It is often called "You show me yours and will show you mine" and all children do it. It is more out of curiosity than anything else. I certainly recall doing this. To go from that to an attempted rape charge is a big step.

No, but they might well have the urge to 'experiment'.

A pretty bomb-proof friend of mine was shocked when her son said, 'Mummy, sometimes when I see a girl, I feel I want to go and rub my willy up against her.' He was FIVE at the time.

If he'd been a bit older (and a mite less innocent) I dare say he'd have kept his thoughts to himself.

Having said that, I agree entirely that it was appalling to drag such young children through the courts - I dare say they'll be screwed up for life after having their 'naughty' antics - basically just doctors and nurses taken a bit further - picked over in such shame-making detail, in public.

Child abuse, pure and simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so it's absolutely right the judge should say lessons need to be learned.

It's never right to say that.

Now we've got a new government, with luck as part of the budget they will slap a hefty tax on the use of those words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was but don't forget that juries are instructed to find guilt based on facts and the law, not what's morally right. Sometimes juries rebel and refuse to convict but, mostly, they don't. A lot of NuLab laws also involve strict liability too - i.e. they couldn't get summary justice past parliament so abolished mens rea as the next best thing.

Good point, but if the judge felt that way surely he could have directed the jury to return a not guilty verdict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really that amazing. The state simply followed the public (who the press were leading by the nose)

We've had outrage over serious crimes by young people, demands to lower the age at which kids are sent to adult criminal trial, Eric sized headlines about peado's whenever its possible to spin things that way. Imagine the media outrage at "10 years olds 'let off' rape charge".

The CPS really had no option, they were reflecting the public mood. As with all things a cycle. It appears that this might be the case that brings the public to its senses and makes them think for themselves again. If this marks the turning point in the cycle, and means less tabloid direction of our criminal systyem, its IMO a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but they might well have the urge to 'experiment'.

A pretty bomb-proof friend of mine was shocked when her son said, 'Mummy, sometimes when I see a girl, I feel I want to go and rub my willy up against her.' He was FIVE at the time.

If he'd been a bit older (and a mite less innocent) I dare say he'd have kept his thoughts to himself.

If a 5 year old comes out with this sort of stuff it is a natural part of development. When I was growing up, "doctors and nurses" was deemed natural. Kids might have gotten a bollocking if caught, but the police weren't involved.

Having said that, I agree entirely that it was appalling to drag such young children through the courts - I dare say they'll be screwed up for life after having their 'naughty' antics - basically just doctors and nurses taken a bit further - picked over in such shame-making detail, in public.

Child abuse, pure and simple.

Agreed. The legal system has become neurotic and lost touch with reality. There clearly has been little consideration of the damage that has likely been done to all 3 children by this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point, but if the judge felt that way surely he could have directed the jury to return a not guilty verdict.

I agree - if he felt that way, why didn't he direct the jury. In the same way, when the girl was found to have lied, why didn't the defence press harder for the case to be dismissed? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly there is something wrong here. Most posters think that the actions of the boys were within the range of normal human experience. The Jury did not. Why we don't know and that is why there must be an enquiry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest happy?

http://www.telegraph...and-nurses.html

I am losing my ability to be amazed by the antics of the state.

Seems to me more like the law of unintended consequences in action. Neither the judge, childrens' charities nor the defence thought an adversarial court the proper forum for such a case. I agree, part of the problem is that we have a tabloid press which wants to hang, draw, and quarter all sex offenders in this country and political parties need to court their opinion more than those who think a more measured response is appropriate.

We get the laws we have because the way that public opinion is formed. Cases such as this highlight the damage caused by the arena in which public opinion is debated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me more like the law of unintended consequences in action. Neither the judge, childrens' charities nor the defence thought an adversarial court the proper forum for such a case. I agree, part of the problem is that we have a tabloid press which wants to hang, draw, and quarter all sex offenders in this country and political parties need to court their opinion more than those who think a more measured response is appropriate.

We get the laws we have because the way that public opinion is formed. Cases such as this highlight the damage caused by the arena in which public opinion is debated.

This is half the reason. The other half is the irrational consistency of bureaucracy, which means that the resulting laws will always be enforced to the point of absurdity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is half the reason. The other half is the irrational consistency of bureaucracy, which means that the resulting laws will always be enforced to the point of absurdity

Didn't you meant the consistent irrationality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 200 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.