Paedophile sisters who abused boy for over a decade spared prison after judge ruling

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1641064/paedophile-sisters-who-abused-a-boy-when-he-was-aged-just-six-have-been-spared-jail-because-theyre-both-deaf/

unbelievable...

what on earth was the judge thinking ?

And you know this how? The judge never said they aren't "filthy paedophiles" (I agree with you on that). Just that their deafness (and pregnancy/children) impacted the judge's decision to send them to prison. Obviously I agree that they should go to prison, because they damn well deserve to, but blaming feminism for the judge's decision is ridiculous, when that decision had nothing to do with their gender. Yes, many women do receive less harsh sentences for abuse, however you should make that argument on a relevant case, rather than this article where the gender isn't even mentioned (aside from pronouns and descriptions).

Realistically it has everything to do with their gender. If a man rapes a six year old he's going to jail, no doubt about it. There are so many cases of women engaging in sexual activity with children and getting suspended sentences and community service


Posted from TSR Mobile

Except that there's no evidence to support that in this case. Yes, social biases (including those surrounding gender) can influence a judge's decision. In this case, however, the decision was very clearly made (if you read the article) based on disability, not gender. I'm fully aware of women abusers and paedophiles, however feminism isn't to blame for the ineptness of the legal system and our social views on rape - we didn't even really get close to decent laws until 1956, and marital rape wasn't outlawed until 1991, for example (English laws). There's definitely a lot to be desired in terms of support for male rape survivors, but scapegoating feminism isn't helpful. If you care about male rape, why not look into ways to help, like emailing your MP about the funding cut to Survivors UK, for example?

There is evidence to support the theory that if it were a man the sentence would have been different because are routinely sentenced to longer sentences for the same crimes, particularly on child sex offences. Their gender played a huge part, the judge was hardly likely to say 'I'm not sentencing you to a custodial sentence because you're women' - the judgement is always dressed up. The simple fact is women are treated far more favourably by the law than men, particularly on sexual offences. I'm not talking about male rape victims, you brought that up not me.

But just to support my point that gender played a role here are a few stories of disabled male pedophiles being sent to jail:

http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/crime/dark-justice-vigilantes-catch-deaf-paedophile-carrying-condoms-vodka-and-teddy-bear-1-7396855
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/disabled-paedophile-who-sexually-abused-10576408
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33205245

I could keep going if you like?

Yes, there is evidence to support that gender can and does play a role in a judge's decision. I never said it didn't, and if you'll reread my previous reply, I'm sure you'll note that I mentioned that there as well. My point was that there's no evidence that gender played a role in this particular case. What could provide valuable evidence is the judge's record. For example, this male pensioner who that judge sentenced on child porn charges. (Based on Wikipedia, a standard sentence would be 1-3 years or more.) 20-year-old who raped a 14-year-old is given "nine months' detention suspended for 18 months." Another man who downloaded "sadistic" child porn is given 12 months suspended for 2 years with supervision." (To compare to the article in question: "Pregnant Julie, who wore a pink dress, was handed a two-year prison sentenced suspended for two years. Mum-of-one Jennifer, who wore a blue jacket with navy jogging bottoms, was handed a 12 month jail term, suspended for one year." Yes, that's definitely a light sentence and (in my opinion) should be much harsher, but this judge seems to give out sentences for all sexual assaults (and child porn) that's particularly light. (Again, my opinion, and it's certainly possible that my views on what a sexual assault sentence should be are disproportionate. Please also note that I have not quoted any other sentences, such as restraining orders, sex offender registration, fines etc., to keep the focus on the jail and suspended sentences themselves.)

Abusers in general often aren't sentenced sufficiently or at all. Only 5.7% of reported rape cases result in a conviction, and that's from only 15% of victims reporting the crime to the police. (In the link). This is not particularly uncommon - in fact, it's the standard. An argument that the (lack of sufficient) conviction is solely or primarily due to the perpetrator's gender doesn't have much merit when the vast majority of all rapists aren't convicted either.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1641064/paedophile-sisters-who-abused-a-boy-when-he-was-aged-just-six-have-been-spared-jail-because-theyre-both-deaf/

unbelievable...

what on earth was the judge thinking ?

Realistically it has everything to do with their gender. If a man rapes a six year old he's going to jail, no doubt about it. There are so many cases of women engaging in sexual activity with children and getting suspended sentences and community service


Posted from TSR Mobile