General Chat

Teen jailed after second child rape

A Teen jailed after second child rape
A teenager who raped a five-year-old boy days after being spared custody for a sex assault on another youngster has been locked up.
The 16-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, attacked the child just eight days after escaping a custodial sentence for the rape of a seven-year-old boy, Minshull Street Crown Court in Manchester was told.

Judge Smith heard the first victim's family were committed Christians, had forgiven the boy and called for a "corrective" rather than punitive sentence.

But the original sentence handed down by Judge Adrian Smith prompted a legal challenge that it was unduly lenient.
Days later the teenager, described by police as acting like a "sexual predator", carried out the second attack. And it emerged on Wednesday that the defendant had already been through the courts accused of sex offences against another youngster.

In 2006 the defendant, then aged just 13, had carried out a sex attack on a boy of six, inciting him to sexual activity. He was acquitted of the offence in 2007 - but later admitted he had carried out the attack, the court heard.

On Wednesday he was branded a danger to the public and jailed indefinitely with Judge Peter Lakin ordering he must serve a minimum of two years, 359 days before he can be considered for parole and released only when he is no longer considered a danger to the public.

Passing sentence, Judge Lakin said: "The offences you have committed are deeply disturbing and very serious. You are a devious and manipulative young man with an unhealthy and completely unacceptable sexual interest in young boys. It is likely you will not be released for some very considerable period of time.

"On June 26 of this year you were made subject to a community rehabilitation order for a period of three years for sexual offences against a boy aged only seven. Eight days later you committed this appalling offence against a boy aged only five. You lured him to your home and once inside, in a planned and calculated way, you cynically took advantage of this young boy. You took away his innocence. What you did has had a devastating effect upon the boy and his family."

The youngster was sentenced to three years four months but with time already spent in custody taken into consideration he will serve two years, 359 days before it is decided whether he is safe enough to release back into the community.
___________

What is wrong with our justice system that they let these people out or only put them inside for short time, this lowlife will always be a threat to children.

Lizx

I do agree Liz, you'd think that the fact he was "offending" again in such a short time would ring alarm bells. What sort of message does it send to others. He should not have been given such a short sentence for this crime and obviously needs professional help.
Sue

I agree entirely.

This is a result of the subtle changes to sentencing rules which supports the accused more than the victim that evolved under Tony Blair, and as a result of pressure from Cherie's human rights lobby.

It has been made even worse by this same governments insistence in telling judges what they should and should not do, rather than leaving it to their experience and discretion.

I bet your bottom dollar that if you were to speak to the judge concerned he would say he was only acting on "government guidelines"

This country needs to sort itself out. We are sending people to prison for petty crimes then letting off the real criminals because of political correctness.

It doesn't necessarily follow that these people go to prison either. My friend works at a mental health unit and paedos are sent there instead of to jail.

Furthermore they are allowed out to the shops, albeit accompanied by a member of staff. They could easily run away from one member of staff as they are not handcuffed to them or anything. It is very frightening who is out there in our so calleed civilised society.

My thoughts are with these poor children and their families.

Dianne xx

Sentencing is not severe enough these days. No one is advocating going back to hanging for stealing game birds, etc, but these kind of sentences teach nothing except how easy it is to get away with things.

Castrate them,in my opinion all sex offenders should have the offending organs removed. That may sound barbaric,but it is the only way to stop them offending again.

I volunteer to do it with a rusty knife.

It was all very well for the Christian parents of one boy attacked by this person to say they forgive him and that probably had some influence on his previous lenient sentence. I wonder if their son actually feels forgiveness as he copes with the legacy of the attack, surely something he will never forget. Would they still be so Christian had it happened the other way round and their son was attacked after the person had been let go free when someone else forgave him? Apparently some of the deciding factors in letting him go free were because of the fact he had Autism or Aspergers and because of his vulnerability!!! What of the vulnerability of those little boys, out to play and enticed into such evil, does anyone care about that?

Lizx

Autism I know about but his vulnerability? Vulnerability to what?

The former might dictate the type of institution he is sent to serve his sentence, but not the term of the sentence. The latter is irrelevant.

That was what I heard on the news, vulnerability because of his autism/aspergers maybe? I can't recall which it was he has.
I still think some judges aren't in the real world!!
And I wonder how that little boy with the Christian forgiving parents will feel years on about their forgiveness to someone who raped him.

Lizx

n

Aspergers or not, what this boy needs is castrating, and I suppose the PC brigade, would say it is against human rights, what about the human rights of the poor little souls who have been raped.