Adam Johnson pleads guilty...

Agreed, however it's tricky with these things to say that one seems far worse than the other without people somehow accusing you of condoning the least worse of the crimes.

I certainly think what Johnson did was wrong, but I also feel that there is potential for rehabilitation for such a crime. With the raping of a 12 year old, I lean more towards incineration.

 

It's pretty easy to identify that there is a sliding scale of inappropriateness. For example, a 15 years and 364 day old teenager is below the age of consent at 11.59pm, but the moment the clock hits 12am and they become 16 years old does something magically change? Clearly not. They are the same person as they were 15 minutes ago.

I'd still suggest an adult waiting for the stroke of midnight to jump on a now-16 year old is predatory, mind.

Still, a 6 year old is clearly worse than a 12 year old which is clearly worse than a 15 years-364-days old.

There's also factors of relative ages. A 16 year old girl hooking up with a boy one month younger than her on her birthday is not the same thing as a 55 year old man jumping on a 16 year old at midnight. In fact, while the latter is legal and the former is not, I think the latter is reprehensible and the former not really worthy of punishment.

 

Crikey, you're very sore about your Giroud embarrassment aren't you? Bless.

 

This is relatively long but worthwhile reading. It's the sentencing remarks by the judge in the Johnson case and lays bare the reality of his offending.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/r-v-johnson-sentencing.pdf

 

No complaints from me except perhaps the severity of the sentencing .... 3 years for kissing a 15 year old girl - jeez!

 

He got 4 months on Count 2 which was the kissing...?

 

That serves me right for glossing .... but that you can actually get 3 years for a single kiss I find "amazing", do they charge by the minute?

 

No, the sentencing guidelines categorise cases and the judge has to then apply the facts of whatever case is before them and put it in the right category. The category the kiss in the AJ case falls into is very broad, hence sentencing options run from community service to 3 years in the slammer. Be assured no one is going to get 3 years for a single kiss.

 

I did...with my ex girlfriend...although it wasn't a custodial sentence...it was a 'relationship' apparently...however doing porridge would probably have been more fun.

 

The guy done wrong, but 6 years is ridiculous.

 

Of course we're all entitled to opinions on these things. But I would be interested in if you've read the judges remarks I linked to a couple of posts ago? Do they change your view at all?

 

I does seem that way when that Dutch basketball player only got four years for raping a twelve year old, it's almost as if judges swapped cases for the day.

What I disagree with is that the grooming has been obviously considered when laying the cat 1 charge yet it has also been charged as a separate offence, which seems wrong as he seemingly gets punished twice for it. Also there's much made of the psychiatric harm when quite frankly she brought much of the hurt upon herself by bragging to her mates (and yes I know she's a kid and kids often don't consider repercussions). By all accounts AJ didn't actually physically force her to do anything, I think that's important but of course she may have felt pressured. Her age of 15 seems to have too little impact in the sentence because as we all know, the younger the victim the more serious the offence. With 16 there is no offence.

Obviously the 2014 sentencing guidelines are much harsher than previously and with good reason as it's a very emotive subject but I think had AJ got four years we would all be agreeing that it was deserved and in that I include extra severity just for who he is and his role in society.

Of course you may disagree.

 

I think stripping him of his England caps was harsh.

 

It's not unprovoked when he posted we should sign him.

 

Totally agree, it was a step too far.

 

They didn't.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...-stripped-of-his-england-caps-lawyer-reveals/

 

I think dropping our transfer interest in him would be harsh. He's been punished enough.

He's an English winger at his peak. If wages are reasonable I'd still be interested in him playing for us, as long as he's learnt his lesson.

 

I have a match program with his autograph. Does that mean it is worth more????

 

Depends how you got him to sign it :naughty:

 

One day he's signing match programmes and shirts, the next he's signing the sex offenders register. How times change.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/school-dinner-lady-who-repeatedly-7358054

Seems like the UK courts have lost all sense of proportion.

 

Made it about 3 paragraphs before getting distracted by this bonkers story.

 

What does that story have to do with the UK?

 

The Bee Gees sang a song about the lights there, I could be wrong but I think at least one of them was/is English.

 

Duh, the link clearly says "mirror.co.uk"!!!!

 

Weymouth and Norfolk are clearly stated in the story m8

 

Ha, that'll teach me to do more than scan for key words! Apologies. Still interesting to see the differences.

Anyway, back to the main issue, which is this mother and son relationship... :drinking:

 

Appeal lodged against sentence. No shock really.

 

12 months for each offence. She was lucky.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/c...-woman-jailed-two-7889929#j4xTJ2XGWtQUP3zY.97

 

Can someone explain how that sentencing works compared against Johnson? Do the sentencing guidelines instruct judges to treat men and women's crimes differently? Our legal system is a joke.

 

While I know UEA and SLB will, quite correctly, point out it's dangerous to draw comparisons in sentencing between two seemingly similar crimes it does beg your question. Once again I have absolutely no facts to substantiate this claim but I would wager if a big enough sample of men vs women sleeping with underage partners was made the sentencing for the women would be considerably lighter.

 

Whilst I do agree with the caveat that there are often other factors at play that may not be apparent in newspaper reports, I do think there is a general tendency to sentence women more lightly than men for equivalent crimes (and not just restricted to sexual offences). I'm sure there are a variety of factors that could explain this that are probably a reflection of society and might include: gender imbalance in the judiciary; the relatively small proportion of female defendants; old-fashioned attitudes about women and crime; attempts from male co-defendants to downplay the woman's part in a crime.

 

That and the eye fluttering thing women can seemingly do to get out of almost any minor traffic stop.

I did think after the fact just about everything you said, I just was needed elsewhere to be able to go back and edit my post. Men have this innate urge to protect women....archaic and sexist or chivalrous it doesn't matter. It just is. Even women who do wrong men will usually punish other men harsher. Even me as a parent with my one son and two daughters. Isn't it true that a rape defendant is better off with an all female jury?

I doubt it is a general tendency I am sure it's absolute tendency and I don't particularly mind it (sexist pig or chivalrous gent - you decide)

 

I am pretty sure that the judge felt the weight of public and media pressure on him/her as they sentenced Johnson. We can be certain that there would have been an outcry had the sentence been deemed to be too short by the pressure groups, etc, and I am pretty sure the judge would have sentenced accordingly to try and avoid the public outcry.

 

Are people trawling the internet for female sexual offences?