Quote: zooo @ 4th July 2014, 6:26 PM BST

I'm not sure anyone's said he did that?

View original

Not really, no. His crimes were hardly on the scale of Jimmy Saville.

And in crimes such as these where a respectable figure transgresses societal taboos it is the risk of detection rather than the sentence that acts as the deterrent. He has gone from being a much-loved family entertainer to being a despicable nonce; the jail term is almost irrelevant.

The message that the court case has sent out, which is an important one, is speak out and you will be believed.

Age is no excuser he should go to jail

or one of those old folks homes on Panorama where they bum you then they burn you in a bath tub

Quote: lofthouse @ 4th July 2014, 6:09 PM BST

How about deterrent ??

Rape children for years and years - destroying their lives

And that gets you about six years

Pathetic

Most of these filth will consider that a risk more than worth taking

There is NO worse crime than this

Six years is bullshit

And it's already been officially reported as such

View original

*Sighs.*

1. There is no evidence whatsoever that sentencing has a deterrent effect on anyone for anything. No-one thinks - oooh, I won't commit this particular murder. DNA evidence is a bugger these days and I don't want to miss Stubbsy's 40th bash.

2. He didn't "rape children for years and years". Fortunately judges sentence on evidence not hyperbole.

3. There are PLENTY of crimes worse than this. Actual rape. Murder.

4. It has not been "officially reported" as anything. Anyone can refer a sentence to the A-G if they feel it is unduly lenient. The CPS didn't in this case and it has no chance of succeeding. Just a crazy loon wasting the A-G's time.

Remember, Clifford, who did rape someone (under today's law) only got eight years.

As Stylee will delete his usual ill thought out bullshit within the hour, I won't even bother responding to it.

Just as I believe being old doesn't entitle you to automatic respect if you're an arsehole, I don't think it entitles you to a soft option if you've been an evil bastard. To hell with what age he is - he should be dealt with in the same way as,say, a 35-year-old.

Obviously I ' m looking at the punitive element here.

Maybe if all crimes were sentenced exactly equally then it would take the thrill out of especially naughty crimes.

I mean if serial murder was the same as say apple scrumping, maybe the kids wouldn't think it was cool and would stop doing it.

Quote: sootyj @ 4th July 2014, 7:20 PM BST

Age is no excuser he should go to jail

View original

I agree. If he didn't go to jail, the message would be "one rule for the famous, one for the rest of us".

He had to go to jail.

His sentence was about right on balance from a legal perspective (although we won't really know what it was he actually did. So it is difficult for us to say how fair it is or isn't.)

I love the fact he wore a jazzy tie and had a multi-coloured suitcase.

Quote: keewik @ 4th July 2014, 8:28 PM BST

Just as I believe being old doesn't entitle you to automatic respect if you're an arsehole, I don't think it entitles you to a soft option if you've been an evil bastard. To hell with what age he is - he should be dealt with in the same way as,say, a 35-year-old.

View original

As Jenny points out he didn't actually rape anyone. He did a bunch of vile other things for which he got a comparably stiff sentence.

Quote: keewik @ 4th July 2014, 8:28 PM BST

Just as I believe being old doesn't entitle you to automatic respect if you're an arsehole, I don't think it entitles you to a soft option if you've been an evil bastard. To hell with what age he is - he should be dealt with in the same way as,say, a 35-year-old.

View original

Every offender needs to be dealt with as an individual. That is the only way for true justice to occur - to take account of their specific requirements when sentencing them.

A 6 year sentence for a 35 year old is going to be considerably lower proportion of life than it is for Harris. Plus, it is expensive to keep him locked up long after he poses any threat to anyone.

The loss of his reputation is greater than any prison sentence.

Quote: Jennie @ 4th July 2014, 8:29 PM BST

I agree. If he didn't go to jail, the message would be "one rule for the famous, one for the rest of us".

He had to go to jail.

His sentence was about right on balance from a legal perspective (although we won't really know what it was he actually did. So it is difficult for us to say how fair it is or isn't.)

I love the fact he wore a jazzy tie and had a multi-coloured suitcase.

View original

or old, though I think there might be a case for high security old folks homes as opposed to prison.

There's an interesting argument that we don't really need as many prisons as we've got, for example women's prisons are actually a bit pointless.

Quote: sootyj @ 4th July 2014, 8:30 PM BST

As Jenny points out he didn't actually rape anyone. He did a bunch of vile other things for which he got a comparably stiff sentence.

View original

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't find any specific information about what it was he DID do - what bits did he touch, on whom, at what age?

My impression has been that it was largely over the clothing groping. Not acceptable by any means, but must be put into perspective.

Quote: Jennie @ 4th July 2014, 8:31 PM BST

The loss of his reputation is greater than any prison sentence.

View original

Not sure that's really fair.

Though I do believe custodial sentences should be reserved for the dangerous, flight risks, or the persistently antisocial.

Curfews and community service for the rest.

Quote: sootyj @ 4th July 2014, 8:31 PM BST

There's an interesting argument that we don't really need as many prisons as we've got, for example women's prisons are actually a bit pointless.

View original

Prison is a tricky thing, because we haven't actually worked out what we want prisons to be for. Rehabilitation? Deterrent? Safety of the public? Punishment?

Quote: Jennie @ 4th July 2014, 8:32 PM BST

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't find any specific information about what it was he DID do - what bits did he touch, on whom, at what age?

My impression has been that it was largely over the clothing groping. Not acceptable by any means, but must be put into perspective.

View original

He hugged one of the girls in her towel and there is a question of whether he had consensual sex with one of the girls before or after she was 16.

Quote: Jennie @ 4th July 2014, 8:34 PM BST

Prison is a tricky thing, because we haven't actually worked out what we want prisons to be for. Rehabilitation? Deterrent? Safety of the public? Punishment?

View original

If one accepts prisoners are still members of the public who deserve to be protected from crime. Then it fails all of this tests massively.

Quote: sootyj @ 4th July 2014, 8:34 PM BST

Not sure that's really fair.

Though I do believe custodial sentences should be reserved for the dangerous, flight risks, or the persistently antisocial.

Curfews and community service for the rest.

View original

Disagree with you there. I think there is a moral point as well - a marker to say "this is unacceptable in our society and you must lose your liberty as a result."

You can lose your liberty without being locked up at massive cost.