A Message From Britain

[R. Richard]

Apparently, British girls had better be very careful about how they dress. If they wear 'provacative clothing' and/or 'frilly underthings,' they are asking to be raped. At least that's what a British judge thinks. What the hell is going on over in Britain? Comment?

Girl provoked pedophile - judge

10-year-old girl was raped and assaulted
Judge says victim 'dressed provocatively'
Pedophile will be free in just four months

A PEDOPHILE who raped a 10-year-old girl will be free in just four months after a British judge said his victim had "dressed provocatively".

Window cleaner Keith Fenn, 24, could have been jailed for life after twice attacking the girl in a riverside park.

Judge Julian Hall was at the centre of a storm over the "pathetic" sentence he imposed after hearing the girl had appeared much older than her age.

The same judge caused uproar earlier this year by setting free another paedophile and telling him to give his victim money "to buy a nice new bicycle".

In the latest case, Oxford Crown Court heard harrowing details of the assault on the 10-year-old. She was attacked in a park in South Oxfordshire by Fenn and his accomplice Darren Wright, 34, on October 14 last year.

Fenn removed all her clothes and raped her, then Wright took her to his home and sexually assaulted her.

Yet Judge Hall said the case was exceptional because the "young woman" had been wearing a frilly bra and thong.

The girl has been in local authority care since the age of four.

She was on her own when she met the pair in the street. They went to the park together. The judge said he faced a moral dilemma.

The court heard that the girl regularly wore make-up, strappy tops and jeans.

"It is quite clear she is a very disturbed child and a very needy child and she is a sexually precocious child. She liked to dress provocatively," the judge said.

"Did she look like she was 10? Certainly not. She looked 16."

He gave Fenn concurrent two-year and 18-month sentences but he will be free in just weeks after spending eight months in jail awaiting sentence.

Wright is a free man because he too had served eight months on remand.

Yesterday Dr Michele Elliott, of Kidscape, said: "This is beyond pathetic, it is utterly derisory. For the judge to say that the way she was dressed in any way excuses a 24-year-old man having sex with her is disgraceful and ridiculous."

Fenn admitted two counts of rape of a child under 13 and Wright admitted one charge of causing or inciting sexual activity with a child aged under 13.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

What a load of CRAP! That judge should be removed from the bench.

 

[Vermilion]

Sounds to me like the judge was a little *too* sympathetic to the rapists... perhaps his private life should be looked into...
x
V

 

[lucky-E-leven]

....

 

[BlackShanglan]

Thoroughly disgusting. If this is at all accurate -

In the latest case, Oxford Crown Court heard harrowing details of the assault on the 10-year-old. She was attacked in a park in South Oxfordshire by Fenn and his accomplice Darren Wright, 34, on October 14 last year.

Fenn removed all her clothes and raped her, then Wright took her to his home and sexually assaulted her.

- this was a rape regardless of her age. Whether she looked 10 or 30, they should be locked away for a very long time. The fact that she was a child makes it all the more horrific, but for a rape of any victim of any age to draw a four-month penalty for the perpetrator is an outrage. I pray that the public demand an answer to this.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

Sounds to me like the judge was a little *too* sympathetic to the rapists... perhaps his private life should be looked into...
x
V

I was thinking the same thing (while away from my desk eating lunch and unable to reply before you )

Something is definitely amiss here with this judge. If any of these released people should be so stupid as to commit another crime, this judge should be held accountable for aiding and abetting.

 

[Adi87]

CRAP!!!

 

[R. Richard]

Sounds to me like the judge was a little *too* sympathetic to the rapists... perhaps his private life should be looked into...
x
V

I was think more that his sanity, rather than his private life should be looked into.

 

[neonlyte]

The Attorney General in the UK announced two days ago he was to reconsider the sentence on grounds of leniency.

The remarks attributed to sentencing Judge include 'she may have been 10 but she dressed to look 16', completely ignoring she was raped. Rape is rape, age is immaterial but since she was only 10, one would have expected a much longer sentence. A Judge like this ought be put out to pasture.

 

[R. Richard]

The Attorney General in the UK announced two days ago he was to reconsider the sentence on grounds of leniency.

I hate to be picky here, but you mispelled 'lunacy.'

 

[Liar]

The remarks attributed to sentencing Judge include 'she may have been 10 but she dressed to look 16', completely ignoring she was raped. Rape is rape, age is immaterial but since she was only 10, one would have expected a much longer sentence. A Judge like this ought be put out to pasture.

First of all, that.

Second of all, can a girl of 10, even dressed up accordingly, be reasonably mistaken for 16? I fail to see how.

 

[R. Richard]

First of all, that.

Second of all, can a girl of 10, even dressed up accordingly, be reasonably mistaken for 16? I fail to see how.

At closing time, I have seen drunks mistake a woman, who looked like she been whupped with an ugly stick, for Miss Universe. That was, of course, through the beer goggles.

 

[oggbashan]

This is not the first time that this judge's verdicts have been questioned.

An independent judiciary is just that - independent. If their judgements seem unfair, there is little redress.

Og

 

[R. Richard]

This is not the first time that this judge's verdicts have been questioned.

An independent judiciary is just that - independent. If their judgements seem unfair, there is little redress.

Og

In the US there is appellate review. Normally, the process of appellate review is initiated by the 'losing' side. However, it is not restricted to that avenue. Way back when, a Negro man in Georgia was convicted on what amounted to pure prejudice. The US Supreme Court reversed the rulling within 15 minutes.

 

[NoJo]

Remember the difference between giving a verdict and sentencing. In criminal cases, judges decide the sentence, which may or may not be fair. But criminal cases like rape are decided in Crown court, where a jury gives the verdict.

It's possible to appeal on matters of law, for example on the result of a verdict. But unfairly "soft" or "hard" sentences are very hard to overturn in any court of appeal unless it can be shown that some miscarriage has taken place.

I think this situation is prbably similar in the U.S.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

Remember the difference between giving a verdict and sentencing. In criminal cases, judges decide the sentence, which may or may not be fair. But criminal cases like rape are decided in Crown court, where a jury gives the verdict.

It's possible to appeal on matters of law, for example on the result of a verdict. But unfairly "soft" or "hard" sentences are very hard to overturn in any court of appeal unless it can be shown that some miscarriage has taken place.

I think this situation is prbably similar in the U.S.

I think some states might have minimum sentences on that type of crime.

 

[MagicaPractica]

A similar sentence was handed down in Vermont last year but for a different reason. Public outcry seems to have led to a change in the sentence.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182869,00.html

 

[R. Richard]

Remember the difference between giving a verdict and sentencing. In criminal cases, judges decide the sentence, which may or may not be fair. But criminal cases like rape are decided in Crown court, where a jury gives the verdict.

It's possible to appeal on matters of law, for example on the result of a verdict. But unfairly "soft" or "hard" sentences are very hard to overturn in any court of appeal unless it can be shown that some miscarriage has taken place.

I think this situation is prbably similar in the U.S.

In the US and, by extension, in any western styled justice system, there are peo-ple who actually run the system, not always the politicians who appear to be in charge. If a judge gets out of control, the proper pressures are brought to bear and the offender is normally eased out of the judge position. If the judge tries to oppose the system, the entire weight of the system is brought to bear and the judge has no support whatsoever. The pressures are somerimes overt, sometimes subtle, but the people involved have the power to grant or withhold jobs. If your jobs for the rest of your life are at stake, you tend to bend a bit to the pressure.

 

[Weird Harold]

Second of all, can a girl of 10, even dressed up accordingly, be reasonably mistaken for 16? I fail to see how.

Yes. Not all of them, and probably not many through a conversation longer than a few minutes.

I raised one daughter that could pass for 200% of her actual age from the time she learned to talk, and the "Breast Fairy" visited her early and often. She would have had little trouble passing for sixteen at age ten if she so desired.

A ten-year-old who can pass visual inspection for sixteen is by no means unrealistic, especially when there are just as many sixteen-year-olds that can pass for ten-year-olds without even trying.

Still, as others have noted, the apparent age of the victim is irrelevant to the crime as described. If the "rape" described was strictly statutory in nature, the news reporting doesn't give any indication.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Still, as others have noted, the apparent age of the victim is irrelevant to the crime as described. If the "rape" described was strictly statutory in nature, the news reporting doesn't give any indication.

Uh, Harold, you didn't think it through. The age of the victim is relevant and whether or not it was statutory is irrelevant, since those who make the laws saw fit to (just in case) include that a 10 year old child cannot consent to being raped.

The judge probably feels he made a mistake by not ordering the child rapists to buy her a spiffy new bicycle, and that is why he is facing criticism. Which makes me wonder if the judge has a 10 year old daughter and how many bicycles she has.

The judge referred to her at least once as a young woman, and I would be very concered about allowing him be around children, let alone be a judge.

**************************************************************

Anyways, to him, the suspects are irrelevant.

A case came to his court, he heard the evidence and explained why.

"It is quite clear she is a very disturbed child and a very needy child and she is a sexually precocious child. She liked to dress provocatively," the judge said."

And that is why he found the lil slut guilty.

************************************************************

This could all probably be cleared up easily if someone would point out to him that he was confused about the "suspects" and "victims" part.

But all in all, this is the second time he has proven, in a court of law, that he is unable to be a judge in a child sexual assault case, he needs to be moved out before he tries to throw a child who was raped in prison, and orders her to buy a spiffy new bicycle for her rapist.

JMO

See ya, Lisa.

 

[ishtat]

Wrong

In the US and, by extension, in any western styled justice system, there are peo-ple who actually run the system, not always the politicians who appear to be in charge. If a judge gets out of control, the proper pressures are brought to bear and the offender is normally eased out of the judge position. If the judge tries to oppose the system, the entire weight of the system is brought to bear and the judge has no support whatsoever. The pressures are somerimes overt, sometimes subtle, but the people involved have the power to grant or withhold jobs. If your jobs for the rest of your life are at stake, you tend to bend a bit to the pressure.

No actually. Firstly no "other western styled justice system " is in any way an extension of the US . Despite the fact that Britain has its share of lazy, incompetent , sleeping and occasionally barking mad judges, it's practically impossible to get rid of them and any sort of pressure invariably rebounds on the person applying it. The reason for that is that any threat to remove a judge must impinge on his or her impartiality and allow the executive to interfere with the powers of the judiciary.

 

[R. Richard]

No actually. Firstly no "other western styled justice system " is in any way an extension of the US . Despite the fact that Britain has its share of lazy, incompetent , sleeping and occasionally barking mad judges, it's practically impossible to get rid of them and any sort of pressure invariably rebounds on the person applying it. The reason for that is that any threat to remove a judge must impinge on his or her impartiality and allow the executive to interfere with the powers of the judiciary.

You are 100% correct, as far as you go. However, you don't go far enough. If a person or even a few persons attempt to remove a sitting judge, they will fail and probably bring disaster on themselves. However, if enough very powerful people decide to remove a sitting judge, the process is simple and even reasonably quick, if a bit messy. You state executive, however, the powerful people are frequntly not part of the executive, or any other, branch of government. In fact, the powerful people must have at least the ear of the leading political parties.

Although he was not a judge, the example of John Profumo is a good one. From what little I have read of the situation, he didn't break any really important laws, but 'public outrage' forced him out. If powerful people want to create public outrage, they can.

 

[Vermilion]

have been reading some comments posted about this story and apparently the girl gave her full consent and the men, supposing her to be 16, acted upon it. To quote one of the more intelligent commentators...

Posted by: Steve, Oxford on 10:31pm Mon 25 Jun 07
It saddens me to read all of this and once again realise the type of society I live in. The violent rape of a 10 year old would of course be a sad and serious offence that would be, in any court in this land, severly punished. All you out there who judge this case on the three or four paragraphs that most newspapers and websites have used to sum up what is a complicted case cannot be wholly to blame: these news outlets have a duty to the truth which they have seriously neglected in this instance. However, I find it unforgivable to answer an opposing opinion on a matter, any matter, with accusations and insults: "Matt in Newark, are you stupid or a sympathizer, maybe you should be locked up too".

For those who were not in the court when the judge sentenced these two men: This was not a violent attack, it was not rape in anything other than the legal definition of the word. It was not a knowingly paedaphilic act. Whether or not Kit from Oxford can believe it there are people out there who look older than they are...especially when dressed in a certain way and put in a certain situation. This is not in any way to blame this girl. She is 10 years old and cannot be expected to understand fully the consequences of her actions. There sometimes situations where no one is to blame...at least not in the manner in which those of you who like to witch-hunt are looking for. There are no aggresive predators in this case - these men are not a danger to your children, they are just normal men who made a tragic mistake, and if you think that the months that they have spent in custody is all the punishment they will get then you are kidding yourself...just read the bile and anger in the comments above and remember this is just the tip of the iceberg. Their names and addresses have been published by this paper. Their lives will never be the same.

We must all remember that we all are not judge and jury - none of us have heard all the facts in this case, and therefore none of us are fully able to criticise the judge's decision for sentence. He alone has heard all there is to hear - from the defendants, from the young girl, from social services and from any and all other sources available to the court. If you think he made this decision without a great deal of consideration, knowing that he would get this backlash, then you cannot have given it very much thought. When people lash out like those have in the comments above it does nothing to help the young girl at the centre of the case, it does nothing to help society and it does nothing for justice. We must learn that not everything is always black and white. A quick and thoughtless reaction often does more harm than no reaction at all.

It saddens me to read all of this and once again realise the type of society I live in. The violent rape of a 10 year old would of course be a sad and serious offence that would be, in any court in this land, severly punished. All you out there who judge this case on the three or four paragraphs that most newspapers and websites have used to sum up what is a complicted case cannot be wholly to blame: these news outlets have a duty to the truth which they have seriously neglected in this instance. However, I find it unforgivable to answer an opposing opinion on a matter, any matter, with accusations and insults: "Matt in Newark, are you stupid or a sympathizer, maybe you should be locked up too".

For those who were not in the court when the judge sentenced these two men: This was not a violent attack, it was not rape in anything other than the legal definition of the word. It was not a knowingly paedaphilic act. Whether or not Kit from Oxford can believe it there are people out there who look older than they are...especially when dressed in a certain way and put in a certain situation. This is not in any way to blame this girl. She is 10 years old and cannot be expected to understand fully the consequences of her actions.

There sometimes situations where no one is to blame...at least not in the manner in which those of you who like to witch-hunt are looking for. There are no aggresive predators in this case - these men are not a danger to your children, they are just normal men who made a tragic mistake, and if you think that the months that they have spent in custody is all the punishment they will get then you are kidding yourself...just read the bile and anger in the comments above and remember this is just the tip of the iceberg. Their names and addresses have been published by this paper. Their lives will never be the same.

We must all remember that we all are not judge and jury - none of us have heard all the facts in this case, and therefore none of us are fully able to criticise the judge's decision for sentence. He alone has heard all there is to hear - from the defendants, from the young girl, from social services and from any and all other sources available to the court. If you think he made this decision without a great deal of consideration, knowing that he would get this backlash, then you cannot have given it very much thought.

When people lash out like those have in the comments above it does nothing to help the young girl at the centre of the case, it does nothing to help society and it does nothing for justice. We must learn that not everything is always black and white. A quick and thoughtless reaction often does more harm than no reaction at all.

I think perhaps it is the cumulative effect of the judges lenient sentencing in the past which makes his sentencing in this case appear more suspicious than is perhaps warranted. Saying that, I feel that a 10 year old hasn't enough knowledge to consent to sex - a 10 year old who committed a violent crime is not held accountable for their actions and nor should she be.

As far as the men go, ignorance is not a defence. If a '16' year old came up to you, a 24 year old man, in the street and suggested sex - would you do it? 16 is still pretty young, especially from the distance of an 8 year age gap... I think their defence is fairly questionable, however old she looked.

Mostly I just hope the girl is getting counselling to help her through this situation and to help her deal with the craving for affection that probably prompted any propositioning she did.

x
V

 

[Lee Chambers]

There was once a case similar to this in the U.S. I've been trying to find something on it, but unfortunately the recent Duke rape case websites keep coming up. It happened sometime back, I believe twenty years or more, but the basic rundown was this: A woman in a bar got drunk and began flirting with some of the men in the bar. In the end, several men in the bar raped her. She pointed out her rapists, they were arrested, and the case went to trial.

In the end the judge dismissed the case or ruled the men were innocent and said that the woman got what she deserved for dressing in a "provocative" manner, getting drunk, and flirting with the men. If I remember correctly, the case ended up having to go to the supreme court and was one of the cases that started the long standing rule of "No means no."

I've e-mailed my old professor to try and get some more concrete reference material for this case. If I get it I'll post it up here.

Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the British justice system and the process for removal of a judge who has such an awesomely horrific lack of common sense and decency. In Texas, we simply shoot them and put in a 700 pound gorilla for the duration of the case. So far, this system has worked well (The number of state executions by "Gorilla beatdown" has tripled in the last year, and Texas citizens are quite pleased by this number).

 

[Vermilion]

There was once a case similar to this in the U.S. I've been trying to find something on it, but unfortunately the recent Duke rape case websites keep coming up. It happened sometime back, I believe twenty years or more, but the basic rundown was this: A woman in a bar got drunk and began flirting with some of the men in the bar. In the end, several men in the bar raped her. She pointed out her rapists, they were arrested, and the case went to trial.

In the end the judge dismissed the case or ruled the men were innocent and said that the woman got what she deserved for dressing in a "provocative" manner, getting drunk, and flirting with the men. If I remember correctly, the case ended up having to go to the supreme court and was one of the cases that started the long standing rule of "No means no."

I've e-mailed my old professor to try and get some more concrete reference material for this case. If I get it I'll post it up here.

Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the British justice system and the process for removal of a judge who has such an awesomely horrific lack of common sense and decency. In Texas, we simply shoot them and put in a 700 pound gorilla for the duration of the case. So far, this system has worked well (The number of state executions by "Gorilla beatdown" has tripled in the last year, and Texas citizens are quite pleased by this number).

The problem in this case is that the girl apparently did not say no, or any variation thereof, meaning that this is 'merely' a case of consitutional rape, as it involves a child under 13. The comments about 'provocative' dressing were apparently more to do with whether the men were justified in thinking she was over 16 (the age of consent in the UK) than in whether the girl was 'asking' to be violently raped.

Please note my use of the word 'apparently'... all I know is from what I've read online and I'm trying to take a balanced view, rather than the emotive one I'm inclined to which goes something like "castrate the bastards with a blunt spoon"...

x
V