Absolute *** of our time Pt.MXXVI

[Daggers]

Girl, 14, raped by schoolboy gang

Nine schoolboys have been convicted of raping a 14-year-old girl.

The gang snatched her from the street and took her to a stairwell in a block of flats in Hackney, east London, in April last year, a court heard.

She was told she should be raped for insulting their leader's girlfriend, and they laughed as they took turns.

Six boys were found guilty of rape, kidnap and false imprisonment. Three others admitted the same charges. All will be sentenced on Monday.

Legal anonymity was lifted by Snaresbrook Crown Court on seven of the nine.

Plight ignored

O'Neil Denton, 16, Weiled Ibraham, 17, and Yusuf Raymond, 16, admitted the offences.

The others before the court - Jayden Ryan, 16, Alexander Vanderpuije, 15, Jack Bartle, 16, Cleon Brown, 15, and two aged 14 and 16 who still cannot be named - were convicted by a jury of the same charges.

Nicola Merrick, prosecuting, said the girl's ordeal began when some of her attackers - aged as young as 13 at the time - snatched her from the street.

She said although she was "too afraid" to call for help, her obvious plight was ignored by passers-by.

Ms Merrick said other boys were phoned to join in and they were laughing and shouting encouragement to each other as the girl was raped.

The victim was so traumatised she later attempted suicide, the prosecution said.

Applying for anonymity orders to be lifted, Miss Merrick said it was "in the public interest" that the defendants should be named.

"Those young people who become members of gangs, should know the outcome of this trial, that they will not mete out punishments as a gang with impunity and not ultimately retain their anonymity."

[GLC]

i read that in the paper, they should be shot, bloody bastards!, how could they do something like that,

[JakeShingler]

That's wrong makes me feel sik.

[Guest]

The more and more I read, and the more and more I see, I really wish City didn't mean so much to me, and I could just go off to some deserted island up in the Hebrides and live my time out there away from every other tosser out there.

[Thracian]

Imagine the outcry if it was their families' women who were abused.

How much will decent people put up with before they really demand change?

Edited 6 December 2008 by Thracian

[Thracian]

Sometimes i fcuking hate this World.

Words fail me....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/jan/11/ukcrime.davidward

People protest Raj. But they're not prepared to sanction doing something about it.

Edited 6 December 2008 by Thracian

[Raj]

People protest Raj. But they're not prepared to sanction doing something about it.

What can mere mortals like us pissants do Thrac?

I posted that 'story' because the wan ker is set to be released after 'serving' about 5 years.

THAT in itself is bad enough.

Some legal eagle should be shot too for letting the cvnt out.

[Daggers]

What can mere mortals like us pissants do Thrac?

I posted that 'story' because the wan ker is set to be released after 'serving' about 5 years.

THAT in itself is bad enough.

Some legal eagle should be shot too for letting the cvnt out.

Alan Webster was sentenced to a minimum period of 12 years, it's his "girlfriend" who is out after 5.

[Thracian]

What can mere mortals like us pissants do Thrac?

I posted that 'story' because the wan ker is set to be released after 'serving' about 5 years.

THAT in itself is bad enough.

Some legal eagle should be shot too for letting the cvnt out.

That really raises a question for Lisa. Are the people who, through their recommendations, are party to prisoners being released early from prison ever held criminally responsible if the person released commits further offences?.

I ask because so many of us are now forced to be responsible for our actions; drink drivers, organisers of public events, school teachers, sports coaches etc.

[Guest]

That really raises a question for Lisa. Are the people who, through their recommendations, are party to prisoners being released early from prison ever held criminally responsible if the person released commits further offences?.

I ask because so many of us are now forced to be responsible for our actions; drink drivers, organisers of public events, school teachers, sports coaches etc.

No, but quite often they come under a lot of criticism and lose their careers over it, from what I have seen.

And your last point raises the question, why shouldn't we all be responsible for our actions? Are we free-thinking individuals making our own choices, or are we merely puppets being pushed and pulled in different directions?

To be honest, there is no right or wrong answer.

[skinnydipper]

That really raises a question for Lisa. Are the people who, through their recommendations, are party to prisoners being released early from prison ever held criminally responsible if the person released commits further offences?.

I ask because so many of us are now forced to be responsible for our actions; drink drivers, organisers of public events, school teachers, sports coaches etc.

It is the parole board who take the ultimate decision as to early release typically based on risk assessments from psychiatrists/ psychologists/ probation and information based on others who have worked with the offender. In addition to lay members a parole board may be made up of judiciary, probation, psychiatrists, psychologists and criminologists.Where possible our system has a twofold aim; punishment and rehabilitation. Therefore the parole board will in certain cases be balancing the risk to the public against the viability of successful rehabilitation of an offender. This is the role that our system tasks parole boards with and it is of course an imperfect science. If parole board members released an offender who went on to commit further offences and then found themselves liable to criminal sanctions who would be willing to put themselves forward for these panels. Do you also go on to hold the statute makers who set the maximum sentence , the senior judiciary who set the tarriffs for offences, the trial judge who didn't give the maximum sentence and the defence barrister who did too good a job with his plea in mitigation as responsible for further offences? If the answer to this is Yes then quite frankly the whole criminal justice system would collapse

[Guest]

It is the parole board who take the ultimate decision as to early release typically based on risk assessments from psychiatrists/ psychologists/ probation and information based on others who have worked with the offender. In addition to lay members a parole board may be made up of judiciary, probation, psychiatrists, psychologists and criminologists.Where possible our system has a twofold aim; punishment and rehabilitation. Therefore the parole board will in certain cases be balancing the risk to the public against the viability of successful rehabilitation of an offender. This is the role that our system tasks parole boards with and it is of course an imperfect science. If parole board members released an offender who went on to commit further offences and then found themselves liable to criminal sanctions who would be willing to put themselves forward for these panels. Do you also go on to hold the statute makers who set the maximum sentence , the senior judiciary who set the tarriffs for offences, the trial judge who didn't give the maximum sentence and the defence barrister who did too good a job with his plea in mitigation as responsible for further offences? If the answer to this is Yes then quite frankly the whole criminal justice system would collapse

It's not easy, is it!!

I really don't envy those decision makers.

[Daggers]

Sex act fatal crash driver jailed

A drunk driver who killed a father and son in a motorway smash was performing a sex act on himself minutes before the collision, a court heard.

Imran Hussain was driving at speeds of up to 120mph minutes before ploughing into the back of a Fiat Punto carrying the Proctor family, from Wakefield.

Full article

[Bellend Sebastian]

I was about to post that. It's hard to top, isn't it?

[Suffolk_fox]

Full article

I could never do that - the porn mag keeps falling into the footwell...

[Daggers]

I could never do that - the porn mag keeps falling into the footwell...

I can never get hard enough when drunk

[Master Fox]

Is wanking and driving illegal?

[Suffolk_fox]

Is wanking and driving illegal?

Only if you close your eyes....

Note to self - only buy cars with 'one careful female owner'

[skinnydipper]

I could never do that - the porn mag keeps falling into the footwell...

You should try hands-free

[Thracian]

It is the parole board who take the ultimate decision as to early release typically based on risk assessments from psychiatrists/ psychologists/ probation and information based on others who have worked with the offender. In addition to lay members a parole board may be made up of judiciary, probation, psychiatrists, psychologists and criminologists.Where possible our system has a twofold aim; punishment and rehabilitation. Therefore the parole board will in certain cases be balancing the risk to the public against the viability of successful rehabilitation of an offender. This is the role that our system tasks parole boards with and it is of course an imperfect science. If parole board members released an offender who went on to commit further offences and then found themselves liable to criminal sanctions who would be willing to put themselves forward for these panels. Do you also go on to hold the statute makers who set the maximum sentence , the senior judiciary who set the tarriffs for offences, the trial judge who didn't give the maximum sentence and the defence barrister who did too good a job with his plea in mitigation as responsible for further offences? If the answer to this is Yes then quite frankly the whole criminal justice system would collapse

All you've convinced me of there is that the system is far too complicated and, despite endless input from all sorts of theoretical experts, is fatally flawed on far too many occasions and seriously flawed on others.

[skinnydipper]

All you've convinced me of there is that the system is far too complicated and, despite endless input from all sorts of theoretical experts, is fatally flawed on far too many occasions and seriously flawed on others.

The alternative is the "throw away the key system" and it's not for me to persuade you of the rights and wrongs of either. In any case I suspect that you have your own settled view on the matter. In the throw away the key system judgements would still have to be made e.g what are the threshold offences beyond which there are no attempts to rehabilitate - shoplifting ,burlary , abh , gbh, death by careless/ dangerous driving ,rape , manslaughter , murder and are there ever circumstances relative to the offence that should take sentencing outside the normal parameters for it ? Should there be a 3 strikes and you're out type approach to lesser offences. If my memory serves me correctly an offender in California ended up with a life sentence after his 3rd minor conviction - stealing pizza. Isn't any system that relies on human judgement going to be flawed from time to time as will any system that fails to allow flexibility ?

[Thracian]

The alternative is the "throw away the key system" and it's not for me to persuade you of the rights and wrongs of either. In any case I suspect that you have your own settled view on the matter. In the throw away the key system judgements would still have to be made e.g what are the threshold offences beyond which there are no attempts to rehabilitate - shoplifting ,burlary , abh , gbh, death by careless/ dangerous driving ,rape , manslaughter , murder and are there ever circumstances relative to the offence that should take sentencing outside the normal parameters for it ? Should there be a 3 strikes and you're out type approach to lesser offences. If my memory serves me correctly an offender in California ended up with a life sentence after his 3rd minor conviction - stealing pizza. Isn't any system that relies on human judgement going to be flawed from time to time as will any system that fails to allow flexibility ?

I don't have a "settled" view on anything. In fact, and especially on crime and punishment, I have long tried to take a view that treating people in a civilised and positive fashion is the best way forward.

But when I look around now and see the way everyone's lives have been affected on a daily basis by imposing the theories of supposedly enlighted humanitarians, I fail to see any evidence at all of progress being made. Quite the contrary.

And who suggests there should be no attempt to rehabilitate?. Not me. I think every effort should be made to help prisoners become decent citizens when they finally serve their time. They could have as much education as they wish to absorb.

But their sentence should be just that. Barring the discovery of new evidence which genuinely puts the judgement in question, the sentence passed, which should be based first upon consideration of the effects of the crime in relation to the victims, should be the one served and there should simply be punishment in terms of isolation, loss of privileges, increase in sentence, and so on should there be a lack of co-operation etc.

As for a system relying on human judgement it's a poor do if, after so many years of study and striving, our appointed judges should not have the wisdom to make good judgements because that's the system we have and I don't see alternatives. And those same judges will, or at least should, hand out a sentence which does reflect the circumstances in which the crime was committed.

Indeed I would give them even greater flexibility although I would also make "witnesses" much more answerable for any deliberate perjury. The appeal system should protect against malicious or misguided sentences.

But the idea of getting umpteen heads together to decide on whether someone should get remission and someone should not is shit. People receive sentences for what they do not how they behave in consequence. People may be sorry or not but that doesn't change what they've done or the effect of what they've done. And by serving their sentence they get the maximum time possible to learn better ways.

PS: I've don't know the circumstances concerning the pizza thief. It does sound harsh but Lisa has rightly warned many times about the way the media quotes a case without actually dwelling on details of the reasons why a particular sentence was given. However, whatever the circumstances, the offender has responsibility for his actions anyway and, if he's had two convictions already, you'd think he'd be wise enough not to commit more offences.

Theft to me is theft, whether it be a pizza or something much more valuable. If one person is allowed to steal pizzas, more people steal pizzas and if enough pizzas are stolen a business becomes less viable, people might lose their jobs, might not then be able to pay their mortgages which in turn might ruin their marriage and leave kids being shuttled between parents. Don't ask me to sympathise with pizza thieves cos I don't.

Edited 9 December 2008 by Thracian

[potter3]

Don't ask me to sympathise with pizza thieves cos I don't.

I don't even know why I found that funny but I'm laughing.

[Guest]

To be honest Thrac, for the majority of people processed through the criminal justice system, once is enough.

[skinnydipper]

I don't have a "settled" view on anything. In fact, and especially on crime and punishment, I have long tried to take a view that treating people in a civilised and positive fashion is the best way forward.

But when I look around now and see the way everyone's lives have been affected on a daily basis by imposing the theories of supposedly enlighted humanitarians, I fail to see any evidence at all of progress being made. Quite the contrary.

And who suggests there should be no attempt to rehabilitate?. Not me. I think every effort should be made to help prisoners become decent citizens when they finally serve their time. They could have as much education as they wish to absorb.

But their sentence should be just that. Barring the discovery of new evidence which genuinely puts the judgement in question, the sentence passed, which should be based first upon consideration of the effects of the crime in relation to the victims, should be the one served and there should simply be punishment in terms of isolation, loss of privileges, increase in sentence, and so on should there be a lack of co-operation etc.

As for a system relying on human judgement it's a poor do if, after so many years of study and striving, our appointed judges should not have the wisdom to make good judgements because that's the system we have and I don't see alternatives. And those same judges will, or at least should, hand out a sentence which does reflect the circumstances in which the crime was committed.

Indeed I would give them even greater flexibility although I would also make "witnesses" much more answerable for any deliberate perjury. The appeal system should protect against malicious or misguided sentences.

But the idea of getting umpteen heads together to decide on whether someone should get remission and someone should not is shit. People receive sentences for what they do not how they behave in consequence. People may be sorry or not but that doesn't change what they've done or the effect of what they've done. And by serving their sentence they get the maximum time possible to learn better ways.

PS: I've don't know the circumstances concerning the pizza thief. It does sound harsh but Lisa has rightly warned many times about the way the media quotes a case without actually dwelling on details of the reasons why a particular sentence was given. However, whatever the circumstances, the offender has responsibility for his actions anyway and, if he's had two convictions already, you'd think he'd be wise enough not to commit more offences.

Theft to me is theft, whether it be a pizza or something much more valuable. If one person is allowed to steal pizzas, more people steal pizzas and if enough pizzas are stolen a business becomes less viable, people might lose their jobs, might not then be able to pay their mortgages which in turn might ruin their marriage and leave kids being shuttled between parents. Don't ask me to sympathise with pizza thieves cos I don't.

Just a few points in reply

With regard to the exercise of judgement hindsight is a wonderful thing with which to bludgeon the original decision maker. If a trial judge got the sentence wrong then both defence and prosecution have the right to appeal.

I'm not arguing the rights or wrongs of the present system and whether a 4 year sentence should mean 2, 4 or 10 years served. What I am saying is that those who work in the present system are sometimes tasked with decisions of great complexity. When subsequent events appear to make an earlier decision wrong that is not necessarily the case; the earlier decision may still have been the right one on the known circumstances at the time and in the absence of negligence it would be wrong to hold those decision makers to account.

Your stance on pizza thieves made me chuckle too. Death row for all serial pizza thieves