So If You Are A Repeat Offender You Cannot Be Jailed Again, How Can This Be Fair?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995913/Teaching-assistant-sex-pupils-home-husband-car-avoids-second-prison-stretch.html

Oh I forgot, she is a woman and her victims were young males, now if it had been a male teacher and his victims had been young girls?????????????????

[youngmafbog]

//The 44-year-old also lured the ‘inexperienced’ boys//

I wonder exactly how much luring she had to do for 15/16 year old boys!

[jim360]

I suppose the argument in this case is that it's not so much repeat offending as it is offending "even more than we'd realised at the time".

[Pete65]

"Oh I forgot"
I dont see how you have forgotten?
You have read and posted the article.

[hc4361]

Do you think her behaviour is acceptable, youngmafbog?

[hc4361]

I think the reasoning is that her prison sentence would not have been different if these offences had come to light at the same time - they all happened over the same period. She didn't come out of prison and start offending again.

If she does offend again, she will go back to prison both for the new offences and to serve this new suspended sentence.

[andy-hughes]

AOG - // Oh I forgot, she is a woman and her victims were young males, now if it had been a male teacher and his victims had been young girls????????????????? //

The result would have been exactly the same.

The law doesn't adjust its sense of outrage on the basis of gender.

[anotheoldgit]

hc4361

/// I think the reasoning is that her prison sentence would not have been different if these offences had come to light at the same time - they all happened over the same period. She didn't come out of prison and start offending again. ///

I know nothing of the law, but does that mean no matter how many other cases come to light, the offender cannot be sent back to prison, just as long as they were committed around about the same time?

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

/// The result would have been exactly the same. ///

/// The law doesn't adjust its sense of outrage on the basis of gender. ///

You are being oh so naive once again.

[retrocop]

I would of thought she should of been advised to have all other offences "taken into consideration " when being sentenced at the original trial.

[andy-hughes]

AOG - // andy-hughes

/// The result would have been exactly the same. ///

/// The law doesn't adjust its sense of outrage on the basis of gender. ///

You are being oh so naive once again. //

Feel free to disagree with my view, that is the spirit of debate.

Take your rude pompous high-handed tone with me on a personal level again, and I will report you.

[youngmafbog]

No I don't HC, more of an observation on the wording.

[youngmafbog]

//and I will report you.//

No need for that.

AOG thinks you are being naive, how would that be reportable?

[hc4361]

AOG, not necessarily but it in this case she had been sent to prison for multiple offences with 5 boys. Her sentence would have been no longer if she had been tried for these offences with the two different boys at the same time.

If these additional offences would have increased her sentence then the outcome at the new trial would have been different. If, perhaps, one of the boys was much younger or if she had used force or blackmail as examples.

[andy-hughes]

youngmafbog - // //and I will report you.//

No need for that.

AOG thinks you are being naive, how would that be reportable? //

AOG is being rude and offensive, and he knows it - and that is reportable.

he can think I am naïve if he wishes, I have thoughts about him, but I keep them to myself because to do otherwise would be offensive, and that is not how this site works.

I am not 'Oh so naïve' as he loftily puts it, and I take offence at being called as such.

[youngmafbog]

Ok, Andy but honestly it didn't seem that bad to me - You should see what I get (well you probably have). I just close the browser for a bit - or I would get banned!

I think sometimes you come over not in quite the way you intend.

[EDDIE51]

hc4361 has said it, as she has already served the maximum sentence for this type of offence and the 'new' offence was committed concurrently with the others the sentence can not be increased. We may not like it but that is the law.

[andy-hughes]

ngmafbog - // Ok, Andy but honestly it didn't seem that bad to me - You should see what I get (well you probably have). I just close the browser for a bit - or I would get banned!

I think sometimes you come over not in quite the way you intend. //

Thank you for your post.

For someone who is hyper-sensitive to criticism, and not averse to telling all and sundry about it - even to the level of asking what to post (!) - AOG should avoid making personal judgements for which he has no foundation - he is quick enough to pick others up for doing the same when he is on the receiving end.

[hc4361]

AOG, did you realise she had been sent to prison? She has been treated exactly the same as a male teacher would have been for those offences in those circumstances.
I'm sure you know that I could trawl the internet and provide links where male teachers have not gone to prison, just as I could regarding other women teachers.

Sentencing is dependent on many factors, the guidelines give wide ranges and we are not given all the facts nor the victim impact statements in the news reports.

[andy-hughes]

hc - // She has been treated exactly the same as a male teacher would have been for those offences in those circumstances. //

A point I made as well - and was abused for doing so.