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?????????????????

[andy-hughes]

divebuddy - //It is naive to think that the law does not treat women more leniently and here is something to back that statement up........

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311004/Judges-ordered-mercy-women-criminals-deciding-sentences.html //

A fair point, properly expressed - thank you for the link, I stand corrected.

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

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

Who is being rude, pompous and high-handed apart from yourself.

And please be aware I do not take kindly to being threatened either, so you may as well add 'threatening' to your list of self achievements.

[RATTER15]

In reality there is a difference between the offences between boys and girls in my opinion. A young girl that has been coerced into a sexual liaison with a much older man could suffer guilt and shame for many years to come, especially if she lost her virginity this way. where as boys are most likely to brag about it and boast their conquest to all their mates for years to come. Whilst I don't think there should be any difference in law, I think in reality it is very different.

[baza]

How did she find the time to abuse all these boys ?

[anotheoldgit]

hc4361

Thank you for your explanations, so nice to have someone who is prepared to enlighten a fellow ABer, without the need for pompousness and aggressive insults

[andy-hughes]

divebuddy - //Andy, perhaps you could retract your over reaction to AOG, then. //

Don't think so.

You referred to my view as naïve, and backed it up with evidence.

That is a world away from directly calling me 'oh so naive' which is personal and rude.

But for the record, I am not going to be drawn into yet another yawn-inducing exchange with AOG about his lack of manners, I have done it too many times before (maybe there is a reason for that?) and it simply clutters up the site, and must be tedious for those not involved.

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

divebuddy /It is naive to think that the law does not treat women more leniently and here is something to back that statement up......

/// A fair point, properly expressed - thank you for the link, I stand
corrected. ///

Oh so I was correct when I said that you were being naive?

[andy-hughes]

AOG - But for the record, I am not going to be drawn into yet another yawn-inducing exchange with AOG about his lack of manners, I have done it too many times before (maybe there is a reason for that?) and it simply clutters up the site, and must be tedious for those not involved.

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

/// But for the record, I am not going to be drawn into yet another yawn-inducing exchange with AOG about his lack of manners, I have done it too many times before (maybe there is a reason for that?) and it simply clutters up the site, and must be tedious for those not involved. ///

You sir have no right to say that I have no manners, and for that I will no longer be debating with you, it has been pointed out to you many times (not only by me but other ABers), that you are very pompous and tend to look down on people from your own high level of self righteousness.

You have now gone too far, and no matter how many times you return to apologise to me, (when that rather strange uncalled for drug of nastiness has worn off), then I will not be so willing and gentlemanly as I have been in the past to let all things be bygones.

[andy-hughes]

AOG - But for the record, I am not going to be drawn into yet another yawn-inducing exchange with AOG about his lack of manners, I have done it too many times before (maybe there is a reason for that?) and it simply clutters up the site, and must be tedious for those not involved.

[hc4361]

Women aren't treated more leniently, like for like. The guidelines linked to give quite specific examples of when women should be treated more leniently than men for the same offence, for example if they are single parents then a jail sentence may not be the best thing overall. (I would expect men with sole care of their children to be given the same consideration).

If a man and woman of similar intelligence, similar childcare responsibilities, similar mental health issues, similar background, similar criminal history etc committed identical offences they would be treated the same.

It is a cruel punishment that sees children put in to care because a parent is jailed and the other parent isn't around or able to care for the children. Needless to say I don't believe that being a single parent is carte blanch for avoiding prison but it must be a consideration where the defendant is not a threat to their family or society. I would be very reluctant to put any child in to care because the mother is a shoplifter or fraudster, as examples.

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

You do seem in a strange state today, you are now beginning to repeat yourself.

[RATTER15]

aog, for goodness sake, get over yourself and move on!!!

[naomi24]

AOG, //So If You Are A Repeat Offender You Cannot Be Jailed Again//

That’s rather misleading really. It doesn’t apply to all offenders, does it?

May I just ask the precious people here to stop being quite so precious. Too many eggshells lately – and that's not only tedious – it’s spoiling more and more of what ought to be lively and interesting discussions.