A question for those who think a 12 year old?

[OneDrop]

should not be jailed if convicted of rape.

If jailing a 12 year old for rape deprives him of the opportunity to be rehabilitated and is likely to turn him in to a hardened criminal thus making him more of a problem to society later on, what is the reason that an 17 year old rape convict should not be spared jail?

I mean, your life is not over at 17, a 17 year old is also a child so you can make exactly the same arguments for the 17 year old can't you, he has his whole life ahead of him, he can be rehabilitated better in the community blah blah blah.

I've linked Corny's Q in so we can be clear who's been saying what in defence of the 12 year old, don't want any retracting or dithering. If the offender was 17 should he have been jailed or not? Every other circumstance the same, the victim 7 yrs old and his sister.

Let's hear it

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...947AAbCCBX
@Celia - So just to confirm then (as I seemed to have missed it) if he was 17 and not 12, should he have been jailed in your opinion?

@Roger - I take less issue with your reasoning than some others but I still think it's of the utmost importance that even a 12 year old learns the hard way that when you break the law and your actions in doing so will have a lifetime negative effect on your own sister, the 7 year old who never would have dreamt that her own brother would harm her in that way and whilst she was meant to be in the safe environment of her home, you will face the consequences. He's gotten away with it here, big time. THIS is what turns boys in to hardened criminals, when you let them off the hook, the deterrent is absent
@Alan- A link to Corny's Q is in the main body of my Q. And I'll be reading all of your answer shortly just gotta do something
@Alan - Some good questions raised but I am disappointed you didn't have the steel to say yes or no, the judge had to and based on the article I was hoping you would be able to assert your opinion on whether or not the assailant should be allowed to walk free from court despite the fact that the law says that once you reach 10 you're accountable for your crimes. I really don't understand why some are defending his escape from justice when the little girl will for the rest of her life, have to remember and live with the fact that her big brother stole her virginity and destroyed her life. She thinks it's OK now because she's 7 but when she is 17 she will realise that the criminal justice system has let her down something royal

[Celia H]

Yes, let's hear what a young offenders' institution would do to a 12 year old. And let's hear why this sad instance has filled you with such ranting atavistic malice. What is it about sexual offences that makes C2DE people lose what little restraint they had? Because it's a very, very ugly spectacle, redolent of lynch mobs and atrocities.

Fortunately, criminal justice is administered, in general by more intelligent people than simplistic ranters with clockwork minds.

[Roger the Dodger]

Because a 17 year old is far more capable of making a fully informed decision and understanding the consequences of his actions than a 12 year old.

This is a wholly exceptional case, and the judge weighed up all the evidence and spoke to the family, then made the best decision for the victim, the family, and finally the long term rehabilitation of the boy. I wouldn't generally be in favour of a non-custodial sentence even for a 12 year old, but this is exceptional.

Of course a 17 year old is not beyond rehabilitation, but it's tougher. If everything else had been the same it would be hard not to see a 17 year old jailed.

EDIT: I disagree. By allowing this tragic event to split up the family, it will forever be the pivotal moment of the victim's life, and will haunt her forever, perhaps even blaming herself. The best thing for the victim is to return to a normal family life, and for this to become an upsetting memory, but not one which rips her and her family's life apart.

I think it's important to remember that all of us know a tiny fraction of what went on here from minimal news reporting. Those who made the important decision here will have access to the family, the victim, the boy, and will have been absolutely certain that the chances of this boy repeating such behaviour was negligible, before considering the outcome.

The law doesn't say that at the age of 10 you're accountable for your crimes. it says that you can be held accoutable, provided the court is shown you understood what you were doing was wrong, and this proviso holds at least until the age of 14. However, I don't think there was any suggestion that the boy didn't understand he was doing wrong.

[Alan]

I can't help wondering (I didn't see Corny's question), if jail is the only resolution on offer here?

I'm sure we all condemn the act of rape, and we have all become far more educated on the consequences for the victims (though we still read The Sun and the Daily Mail... papers that blamed the women for the way they dressed!) not so very long ago.

The dilemma here is whether a 12 or 17 year old should be treated the same as a 46 year old. We have a legal age of maturity, a legal age of consent... and a legal age of criminal responsibility... yet they are all different. We can still get married and have children 2 years before we can buy a tin of lager.

It is interesting that the debate on 'whole life sentences' has been in the news lately, as it begs a similar question... and it is a question of when and how the notion of rehabilitation is relevant in law.

A simple answer would be to make it age relevant... but this doesn't take into account the background of the assailant, nor the severity of the attack. (Doubtless 'Bonkers' Boris would like to take children into 'care' if they are being trained and groomed into a life of sexual abuse). But I digress.

Rape amongst children is a difficult tragedy to legislate against. It is possible to have an assailant and a victim, neither of whom are even aware that a rape is taking place. The parents of each child may be completely unaware of the sexual capabilities of their children... and even their friends on social media may put their different claims down to youthful boasting of the type that has always been common in young people (even if the age is lower than it used to be).

It IS a dilemma. There is no obvious 'right' answer. There is however an obvious 'right' question., in fact... there are several.

How does sex become a right? How does a male child learn to 'take' what he is not entitled to take? How does any child learn to accept the unacceptable? Do children still learn from the adult world around them... or are today's children the fist generation to just make it up as they go along?
How does an assailant learn to be so selfish as to be indifferent to the pain of another?

There is no easy answer to your question. Should a 12 year old be jailed for anything? Can we really enact law that says yes or no?... I don't think so. In 1944 the US sent a 14 year old boy to the electric chair. He was black, the girl he was alleged to have attacked was white. No one knows to this day whether the attack actually took place or not. He was executed because the law said he was 'executable' under the law. The worrying thing is... that is still true today in some US States.

I'd rather look for another solution, though I don't pretend to know exactly what it is.

[Paul]

I worked in the law - criminal law - for ten years. I sat on many cases except those sent to the Crown court as this one undoubtedy was.

It is always easy to use emotion rather than employ the thinking processes required of those who have the often uneviable task of applying the law, as we had to.

It is also one of the reasons judicial decisions are ridiculed as if they are routinely wrong. Apart from the fact that the overwhelming majority of judicial decisions are not reported because there is nothing sensational about them, it is also a reason why many lay people see cases - often the ones whipped up to a frenzy for public consumption - in black and white terms.

I am not going to comment on the judge's decision in this instant case for the same reasons and if you are disappointed with that then so be it.

I was not in court for this case so did not hear all the evidence presented in accordance with the law rather than the agenda of the press.

[Essex Lewis]

Rape of a child is a Very Serious Crime, nearly as serious as Murder.

So of course he should've been given a "Custodial Sentence", and because he's 12 he wouldn't be sent to Jail or a Y.O.I, but a Secure Children's Home, which is a closed/secure environment, but still completely different to Prison, where he could get the help he needs, but still be "PUNISHED".
He needs to grasp the enormity of his crime, otherwise he will Re-offend.

If we let him off, why not let off Child Murderer's too?
Should we have given John Venables, Robert Thompson (James Bulger Murderers) and Mary Bell (Strangled two toddlers to death in Newcastle) Custodial Sentences - or just given them a slap on the wrist because they were 10/11 year olds?

[Norman]

Youve got a beef with another yahoo user, I'm a yahoo vegetarian so I don't mention names or use questions against anyone as ammo.

[Seven]

He should face some punishment. A young offenders institution or something else like that.

What annoys me is they are using the excuse of his sister wanting him home as some kind of get out of jail card. Of course she wants him home, she can see her parents distress and her family falling apart. At that age you do / say whatever you can to make it all all right. It won't be until she gets older that this will hit her and it could easily tear the family apart at that time when she knows he has gone unpunished and her parents are OK with that.

[nemesis]

With respect, the 'age of consent' is 16 by which time the law assumes young ones IN GENERAL are old enough to to know the difference beween consent and non-consent (rape).
Young ones develop at varying rate - it not an exact science - but for clarity lines have to be drawn somewhere and a 17 year-old is deemed to be as 'responsible as an 18 or 19 year-old, etc etc.
We may differ in our opinions where such lines are drawn - and where a Judge has grounds for 'rehabilitaion' other than in jail - which most accept are Universities of Crime.
'Walking free' smacks of the boy merrily going on as if he's got away with a serious crime, but his declared sense of remorse and the fact he'll have 'intense' supervision suggests otherwise.
Some 12 year-olds CAN be nasty, vindictive little swines and repeat offenders- for whom a dentention centre is more appropriate but in the Judge's view this boy isn't one of them.
I'm no softie on punishment - I'd like to see more jails, much tougher conditions and restoration of the death penalty - but counter-balanced by Judges having discretion as to where detention/jail is appropriate.