The Student Room Group

Mother escapes jail after luring man to ‘humiliating’ torture with offer of threesome

Absolutely ridiculous that the woman gets nothing and both men only get around 4/5 years each.

The defense for the woman is equally ridiculous. How manipulated could she have been if she was perverted enough to initiate sex with her boyfriend while they were torturing the guy just because she 'felt horny'?


http://metro.co.uk/2014/01/20/honeytrap-mother-escapes-jail-after-luring-man-to-humiliating-torture-with-offer-of-a-threesome-4270099/?ITO=facebook

Scroll to see replies

The fact of the matter is that none of us were jurors at the court hearing so none of us know the full story. The Metro is allowed to report whatever information is convenient to the story it chooses to run. Whilst it might be true that this is a miscarriage of justice, it is more likely that there's something we don't know about that led to the Judge's decision.
Reply 2
Those salt and vinegar crisps tho :drool:

Edit - Horrible story though holy ****. Sounds like she knew exactly what she was doing.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 3
Original post by Chlorophile
The fact of the matter is that none of us were jurors at the court hearing so none of us know the full story. The Metro is allowed to report whatever information is convenient to the story it chooses to run. Whilst it might be true that this is a miscarriage of justice, it is more likely that there's something we don't know about that led to the Judge's decision.


You may be right, perhaps they had more control over her than we know, but I fail to see why the torturers didn't deserve more jail time. Again I am ignorant over full the story so the judge may have his reasons.
More than one person agreed to have sex with her?

I'm quite shocked.
Original post by Chlorophile
The fact of the matter is that none of us were jurors at the court hearing so none of us know the full story. The Metro is allowed to report whatever information is convenient to the story it chooses to run. Whilst it might be true that this is a miscarriage of justice, it is more likely that there's something we don't know about that led to the Judge's decision.


Jurors? She pleaded guilty to false imprisonment. Therefore, the sentence was based on the judge's decision with reference to sentencing guidelines.

Personally, I can't see anything - bar a severe mental illness - that would warrant her not spending at least a day in jail for this crime.

The problem with our justice system is that it does not place much weight on offences against the person. Defraud someone or a business - instant jail. Harm a person and their dignity - wishy washy sentence. I guess capitalism/class structure has its part to play in this and that justice on the cheap is desired.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 6
Original post by Lady Comstock
Jurors? She pleaded guilty to false imprisonment. Therefore, the sentence was based on the judge's decision with reference to sentencing guidelines.

Personally, I can't see anything - bar a severe mental illness - that would warrant her not spending at least a day in jail for this crime.

The problem with our justice system is that it does not place much weight on offences against the person. Defraud someone or a business - instant jail. Harm a person and their dignity - wishy washy sentence. I guess capitalism/class structure has its part to play in this and that justice on the cheap is desired.


That's not entirely true. I've actually studied the sentencing guidelines as part of my course (and could do with revising them), so I could attempt, based on whatever information is reported in the media, to explain how the judge might have reached his decision - if that's of interest to (enough) people.
Original post by Tortious
That's not entirely true. I've actually studied the sentencing guidelines as part of my course (and could do with revising them), so I could attempt, based on whatever information is reported in the media, to explain how the judge might have reached his decision - if that's of interest to (enough) people.


That's all theory, in practice it seems to me that most corporate/financial offences receive harsher sentences than non-lethal offences against the person. Anecdotal, sure, but just something I have noticed and something that doesn't surprise me in a culture where the financial elite are privileged but the plumber who is beaten up receives less consideration.
Has no one else spotted that:

The traumatised victim, now 42, did not speak of his ordeal for four years


which means that this woman was just nineteen when this happened?
Reply 9
well- her face is known, so is her surname; hopefully someone will "take care" of her.
It wouldn't be a big lost for the mankind (although it would be shame for the kid).
Our justice system is an utter joke. It's well known women get lighter sentences than men, or no sentence as in this case.

Did anyone look at the sentences the blokes got?

Assuming the article is true, they: Made him drink bleach, submerged his head in urine, beat him and burnt him with a "flamethrower" whatever that means.

Can you imagine the suffering, humiliation and pain that poor guy went through? Everyone knows how painful a split second burn is, imagine being burnt and being unable to pull away..

You can torture a man in this country and you'll be out in 2 years.

It seriously takes the piss, i'm raging right now.
This is a shocking verdict. The guy took 4 years to even TALK about his ordeal, and the harshest sentence was only 5! How is that justice? It's very easy for the woman to play the "in fear of the man" card, but the fact that she was "horny" during the attack somewhat contradicts that... She was obviously enjoying and willingly taking part to some extent.
Reply 12
Reply 13
Bloomin' awful. Such light sentences for the men, but especially for the woman.
His first error was agreeing to have sex with her.
Reply 15
Typical. Just another example of women getting off easy when it comes to the law
Reply 16
this country, let alone our judiciary, needs a second enlightenment period of sorts. matters such as this prove that. we need to go beyond gender favouritism (as is clearly evident here) or any kind of state privilege (e.g. positive discrimination) and simply treat people as members of the same group - individuals, pure and simple. we need the rule of law in its purest meaning.
Reply 17
Original post by simon_g
well- her face is known, so is her surname; hopefully someone will "take care" of her.
It wouldn't be a big lost for the mankind (although it would be shame for the kid).

Recourse to vigilante justice would be a pretty big loss to society, actually. If you want to live in that society, good luck to you.

Original post by Panda Bear
His first error was agreeing to have sex with her.

...what?
Reply 18
Original post by Lady Comstock
The problem with our justice system is that it does not place much weight on offences against the person. Defraud someone or a business - instant jail. Harm a person and their dignity - wishy washy sentence. I guess capitalism/class structure has its part to play in this and that justice on the cheap is desired.


I like the class system and I'm as big a supporter of Capitalism as you're likely to meet, but even I am inclined to agree with that issue. Crimes of violence should be dealt with much differently than they are at present.

Original post by snowyowl
Has no one else spotted that:

which means that this woman was just nineteen when this happened?


That's hardly an excuse. The problem with excusing people who are under the 'influence' of others ignores something in human nature: it is weakness, rather than strength, that makes people do horrible, vile and inhuman things.

We treat weakness as some sort of mitigating factor in crime. In my book, weakness should be seen for what it is: a character fault which, in the right context, is extremely dangerous indeed.
Original post by L i b

That's hardly an excuse. The problem with excusing people who are under the 'influence' of others ignores something in human nature: it is weakness, rather than strength, that makes people do horrible, vile and inhuman things.

We treat weakness as some sort of mitigating factor in crime. In my book, weakness should be seen for what it is: a character fault which, in the right context, is extremely dangerous indeed.


Sorry, perhaps you misunderstand me. I wasn't saying it as if it excused her behaviour. I was pointing it out because I find it shocking that someone who is only 19 could do something like this.

It is disgusting whatever the age, of course, but the fact she is still rather young shocked me.

Quick Reply

Latest