posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 07:57 AM
Originally posted by Big Raging Loner
Originally posted by Pixus
Where were these kinds of women when I was 13?
[southpark] Niiiccccceeeeeeee [/southpark]
What she did was wrong, and she does deserve punishment, but does she deserve such a huge sentence? No.
"We better give him his luckiest boy in America badge right away!" I know when I was 13 I would have killed for such a scenario too, but as you get
older you kind of realise how weird and wrong it is. When your that age you just starting to get those crazy hormones that make it hard to think str8,
she took advantage of that.
However I don't believe this sentence is accurate for the crime at all, and she is not as bad as a man doing this to a 13 year old girl. Why? Because
if she gets pregnant it's her own stupid fault, not so if it had been a young girl. It would also be a penetrative act of sexual abuse by the man
aswell much worse IMO. Makes me wonder where are these tough sentences for Paedophiles in the UK?
The Sexual Offences Act (2007, I think) codifies all prior common-law and statutory sexual offences and provides for a variety of punishments based on
certain factors of the crime in question i.e. the age of the child (younger than 14/ between 14 and 16) and what the actual offence was (i.e. touching
in a sexually suggestive way, sexual assault, penetrative sexual assault, penetrative coitus etc) and providing minimum sentences for each. I don't
recall what the maximum custodial sentence was, but I know for a fact that by and large they were mostly less than 15 years. Any attempt to impose
such a sentence in the UK (or Europe, for that matter) would almost undoubtedly invite appeals to the European Court of Human Rights who would strike
out such a sentence as being plainly disproportionate.
And, to be honest, although paedophilia is a horrible act, I hardly think that this instance warranted a life sentence. Does anyone know if this was a
sentence without chance of parole? If so, that is a grossly disproportionate sentence for the act in question. Although certainly deplorable for the
exploitation of a child, I think the Court should have actually looked towards what the actual psychological effect on the child was. I hardly doubt
he was scarred for life.
Furthermore, I note that above, some had asked whether or not the Courts had gone mental and need to review this; where the legislature has imposed a
minimum sentence, the Court can do nothing but apply the law as it stands on the books, as unfair as that can be.
Best of luck to this woman in her appeals, although I would be interested to know what the grounds of the appeal would be (presumably, for a Supreme
Court appeal, whichever Amendment to the American Constitution which forbids cruel and unusual punishment).