TrentVilla Posted July 4, 2014 Moderator Share Posted July 4, 2014 It is But i think 5 years 9 months is lenient for a man who's committed 12 sex offences one on a child who was 8 years of age His sentence was based on when the crime was committed so the 8 year old charge had a max sentence of 5 years and the others 2 years So a maximum of 27 years inside and he gets 5 years 9 months because he's managed to get away with it for so long and he is now old and frail (Poor him) How is it lenient for a man of 84. He will probably die in prison... Good. His age has knob all to do with the leniency or otherwise of his sentence, the sentence is relative to the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted July 4, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted July 4, 2014 I wonder if Rolf will get the beatings by fellow inmates that nonces usually get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 He'll be in a vulnerable prisoner wing so highly likely he won't come into any contact with the average prisoner. All the same, best he doesn't go anywhere near somebody with a boiling kettle and an empty sugar bag. Being in his 80's having had a fairly soft and priviledged life he's going to have to be that fast a learner. The sentence looks lenient because he has the 'good fortune' of having been convicted for crimes committed before the mid 80's. It was only around 1985 that courts and politicians began to take child rape and kiddy fiddling seriously. He can only be tried and convicted for the crimes of the day, with the punishments of the day. Sex with a minor back in the 70's could only be worth 2 years (out in 11 months), so the judge has wrapped up pretty much the maximum he could give hime without danger of an appeal. He'll serve 33 months by current tariffs, with the slight difference that as a sex offender he'll have to admit to his crime and get therapy to be considered for such an early release. 33 months inside for someone in their 80's, he might not come back out. Not least, as they are now considering further charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 It was only around 1985 that courts and politicians began to take child rape and kiddy fiddling seriously. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 (edited) A suspended sentence would have been fair for a person of his age who is no threat to society. I know people will strongly disagree. but its not how this country should treat the elderly... Edited July 4, 2014 by PaulC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 correct, I strongly disagree if you don't want to spend time in prison for child molestation it's really simple, don't molest children it wasn't tax fraud or parking fines, he wrecked lives, he's scum whatever his last birthday was he was also still down loading child sex images in 2012 when they arrested him btw 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 (edited) This was a man who showed no shame for what he had done.These were, apparently, what would now count as serious sexual assaults. He didn't plead guilty; he instructed his defence to go for the angle that his victims were liars, fantasists or 'gravely mistaken'. I don't really care whether people agree or disagree (I think the 5 3/4 years is acceptable taking in to account all of the things that have already been said) but imprisonment for someone found guilty of his crimes is how this country should react to sexual abuse of the young.Edit: changed 'county' to 'country'. Edited July 4, 2014 by snowychap 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ismail-villa Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I don't get how you can think of children in a sexual manner. Makes me feel sick. Whether it may be down to a mental disorder or not, it's putrid. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 What he did was terribly wrong but I think people who want him hurt in prison are wrong too....His poor frail wife is going to be so distraught... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Who wants him hurt? and again, if you don't want the poor frail wife distraught, don't do the crime it really really is that simple 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 ...I think people who want him hurt in prison are wrong too...Me, too - but that's quite different to saying that he's old and we shouldn't lock the poor old fart up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 By people mentioning that it might happen suggests to me that they would be quite happy if it did.. I agree with you but there are other people apart from the victims that will suffer.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 By people mentioning that it might happen suggests to me that they would be quite happy if it did.. I agree with you but there are other people apart from the victims that will suffer.... Nah, come on that's not fair, don't make that leap because it's not right. I would never want anyone anywhere physically harmed regardless of what they've done. But there are people inside with a warped sense of 'good' criminality and 'poor' criminality and people that want a slice of celebrity. These people may well be unlike anyone Harris has previously had to share his life with and unlike anyone he's ever previously had in the same room when he's trying to shower or have a shit and there is no door to close or lock. Don't turn that fact in to people wishing physical pain and revenge. Chemical castration, well now that's a whole different discussion...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 (edited) Nobody wants him to be hurt in prison They want him to serve the time for crimes he has committed It's called punishment for a reason and he's got off lightly even the attorney general is looking into the case now How anyone can say that serving a paltry 5 years 9 months for 12 offences which had a possible max sentence of 27 years harsh is beyond me Edited July 4, 2014 by AshVilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 27 years today isn't it but not when he committed the crimes. A paltry 5 years years and 9 months is a lot to a person of such an elderly age. Basically he's unlikely to live long enough to see out his sentence. Question is what purpose does it solve putting him in prison. Does it give the victims justice? Is it a waste of tax payers money? is the shame of it all not enough? Would it not have been better for him to pay out compensation to the victims. He must be a very wealthy man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Buy them off? How much would be enough? I guess £15 would get them enough vodka to forget for a night. £1,000 and they could have a nice holiday and put it all behind them. I don't know if you missed it, he was still downloading the filth right up until he was arrested. What about the kids in those 2012 pictures? Chuck them a few quid and explain he's just a harmless old man? I guess whilst he's inside there's a lesser chance he'll continue downloading and creating demand for new images. Anyway, that's my lot. If you can't work out my views from that lot it ain't gonna happen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted July 4, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted July 4, 2014 I don't get how you can think of children in a sexual manner. Makes me feel sick. Whether it may be down to a mental disorder or not, it's putrid. I agree, I've never understood it either. But it would be interesting to know if he was himself a victim as a child, because they VERY often are. It goes down the generations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 (edited) 27 years is the maximum he could have got when the offences were committed back then when the laws were lighter If he had committed the offences after the laws got stricter he could have actually got a much bigger sentence I really don't care about his age and how old the guy is boohoo what about the age of the kiddies he fiddled one was young as 8 He left them all with emotional scars for the rest of their lives and he has shown no remorse for his actions Edited July 4, 2014 by AshVilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 (edited) 27 years is the maximum he could have got when the offences were committed back then when the laws were lighterI'm guessing that's the maximum for each of the sentences if they were served consecutively?Are there many/any examples in this country of people committing multiple crimes who have been sentenced based upon each crime consecutively?This '27 years' thing sounds like a huge red herring.Is it a waste of tax payers money?If you are worried about 'taxpayers' money' then you ought to direct your gaze towards other areas of the criminal justice system rather than the fate of a serial sexual offender.On the money issue, either the Grud or the Beeb were reporting that he will have to pay costs for the case (I'm guessing that's some kind of seizure of assets to make a contribution towards the successful prosecution but the legal eagles on here could probably sort that one out more clearly for us). Edited July 4, 2014 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Buy them off? How much would be enough? I guess £15 would get them enough vodka to forget for a night. £1,000 and they could have a nice holiday and put it all behind them. I don't know if you missed it, he was still downloading the filth right up until he was arrested. What about the kids in those 2012 pictures? Chuck them a few quid and explain he's just a harmless old man? I guess whilst he's inside there's a lesser chance he'll continue downloading and creating demand for new images. Anyway, that's my lot. If you can't work out my views from that lot it ain't gonna happen. A bit more than that.... Pete Townsend had a load of kiddie pictures on his computer and he didn't get charged. I'm not trying to defend what he did... Anyway I'm finished on the subject. Come on Colombia!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts