Pardon Me Judge I Didn't Quite Hear That?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3749757/Paedophile-sisters-abused-six-year-old-boy-repeatedly-molested-14-years-SPARED-jail-deaf.html

/// Two sisters who sexually abused a boy over a 14-year period have been spared jail because they are both deaf and would experience 'complete isolation' in prison. ///

Complete isolation?????????

I very much doubt it, I think they would attract plenty of attention.

[Islay]

OK it does not matter how I answer this but you will find fault with it.

Firstly, the headline is very misleading and you need to read the full story to actually understand why the judge made his decision the way he did.

Secondly, I could try and explain the reason for his decision but I fear that I will be called a paedophile sympathiser.

Thirdly, this has been through the court system and justice has been served.

[Gromit]

The fact that she is pregnant and had recently had a miscarriage is the reason the Judge did not jail her.

Another misleading Daily Mail article and waste of a thread.

[webbo3]

So if you are pregnant you can avoid jail, I wonder how men could avoid jail.



Dave.

[jno]

webbo, women were long able to avoid execution by "pleading their bellies", nothing new here.

Men could avoid jail by not doing anything illegal

[webbo3]

Precisely jno.


Dave.

[Gladeian]

Perhaps the Attorney General could be persuaded to appeal this one on the grounds of excessive leniency.

[anotheoldgit]

Islay

/// OK it does not matter how I answer this but you will find fault with it. ///

Why from the very first answer do you find the need to go on the defensive?

But lets get back to debate and see how we go on, but please be prepared to accept an opposing view because that is what debating is all about, you put:

/// Firstly, the headline is very misleading and you need to read the full story to actually understand why the judge made his decision the way he did. ///

The headline said:

*** Paedophile sisters who abused a six-year-old boy and then repeatedly molested him for 14 years are SPARED jail because they are deaf ***

I have read the story and this is what I read:

*** The judge said he was sparing the sisters an immediate jail term because their deafness would mean they would be in a state of 'complete isolation' in prison. ***

/// Secondly, I could try and explain the reason for his decision but I fear that I will be called a paedophile sympathiser. ///

No need to explain his reason it has already been made clear, but if you have anything further to add please feel free, I am sure your fears of being called a "paedophile sympathiser" are totally unfounded.

/// Thirdly, this has been through the court system and justice has been served. ///

No one is denying that, but what we are free to discuss is "Did they receive the correct justice"?

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

/// The fact that she is pregnant and had recently had a miscarriage is the reason the Judge did not jail her. ///

That was an additional factor for one sister, but the overall decision was because they were both deaf.

/// Another misleading Daily Mail article and waste of a thread. ///

Oh so just because it has been reported in the Daily Mail it is a wasted thread is it, no mention of any utter disgust at the actions of these two disgusting excuses for womanhood, these two paedophiles?

[Togo]

//Thirdly, this has been through the court system and justice has been served.//

I wonder if family, of what was a six year old, think that justice has been served? ............... Nor me.

[Just-Jude]

They had a fair hearing, the judge made the right decision.

[ichkeria]

AOG the reason some people find it necessary to be defensive in their answers is because very often the questions asked on here are in the form of a polemic, and this one is a good example.

"Was justice done in this case" is indeed the point of your question, so why not ask that simply :-)

[jambutty]

Gobsmacked, that's all I can say, Gobsmacked !!!

[andy-hughes]

In any case of child abuse, and the judicial ruling after a trial, it is very easy to allow (perfectly justified) outrage to divert attention away from the dispassionate and proportionate application of punishment.

I have two grandchildren of that age, part of me would like to see a far harsher punishment than was meted out.

But I am always mindful that the law is proportionate, and sentences delivered without emotion, which is absolutely as it should be.

In this case, there were good legal reasons for not imprisoning these women, and for analysis and therapy to ensure no repeat offences, which has to be the correct way forward.

It may not sit well with outside observers, and I am absolutely one of them, but judges have to take all factors into account, and it is clear from the report that the judge did so here.

[sinderella]

Its because the lunatics have taken over the asylum.