There are plenty of cases where punishments are given to set an example (and deterrent) as a message to everyone. Making a statement. It just depends on the current political climate. Underage sex is high profile after the Saville, Rolf Harris etc cases. The Johnson case is a convenient seminal moment to set the tone for the future. It's like your average religious fundamentalist who gets caught downloading instructions on building a bomb and is sentenced to 10 years despite never actually taking any action to build one. Btw perhaps the problem is that those manslaughter, rape, even burglary cases should get higher sentences?Rather than Johnson getting less. Maybe we should build more prisons or actually evolve and think of methods of incarceration that actually rehabilitate.
What you say is of course correct re: the post Savile era. However, the 'justice' handed down by the judge should be determined by previous legal precedent. It's simply not his place to set a sentence for a high profile defendant to 'set a tone' and send a message out there. Put into context with other sex crimes the sentence handed down to Johnson in relation to what he actually did, is absolutely ludicrous.
Here's just 1 comparable. A bloke convicted of raping 2 women and indecently assaulting a 3rd - 8 years http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/nov/21/ukcrime.martinwainwright Johnson having a consensual grope with a 15 year old - 6 years Madness.
I have little doubt that the sentence will be reduced on appeal. However, I still strongly feel that Johnson has only himself to blame for the judge's reaction and his sentence. He has behaved like the arrogant tosspot that he is throughout. Including trying to discredit the girl's story, only pleading guilty after a lengthy period and almost certainly after strong legal advice. He then proceeded to openly treat the whole trial with arrogant contempt. He's not only an arrogant ****, he's an idiot too.
If the girl was my daughter i'd want him brutally arse ****ed by a swetty gorilla for every night of the six years.
That seems to be where he ****ed up, denying it all and trying to discredit the girl for a year before holding his hands up at the last minute and saying "only joking everybody, of course I did it, now can we get this over and done with quickly as I get bored easily." The judge probably loathed the moron by the time he got to sentencing!
He had sexual contact with a child who had only just had her with 15th birthday. He groomed her...that means he manipulated her into that relationship. He and his family and friends then lied for over a year...They put it out that she lied about her age, that she was at a over 18s club when it happened and he maintained he had done nothing wrong until a few minutes before the trial when he suddenly pleaded guilty. Because of the actions of a 28 yr old man a 15 yr old child has been sexual abused (he admitted grooming her so it was not consensual and as she was a child and he was nearly 30 it was not a relationship of equals).She was also verbally abused due his his lies and also abused on social media (again, because of his lies). He joked around in court and was heard to say that he was finding it all boring...The man is an vile child abusing **** who got what he deserved. His crime is not the same as as manslaughter, murder, rape but because some people who committed appalling crimes got off lightly doesn't mean this **** should too. The child is being treated for depression, has said she has been to dark places and has a massive part of her life tainted by his perverted actions. The idea that he has been punished for "consensual gropings" is plain wrong. No man should want any kind of sexual contact with a child...He knew her age...Therefore he is an abuser and has got what he deserved
I wouldn't argue about both his arrogance and complete lack of brain cells, and couldn't give a toss about the over privileged idiot tbh. However, I'm always uncomfortable when these high profile cases are used as this one has been, in terms of the sentencing. His profile or the media coverage should have no effect on the justice meted out, and that can't be said in this case imo. It's pandering to the baying crowd.
Way to miss the point. Put the emotive hyperbole to one side and compare his sentence with other sex crimes, it's out of kilter.
I think, as I inferred and Stan said, it was as much to do with his character and behaviour as his high profile. He openly showed his contempt, he got it thrown back at him! He's one of life's great wastes of space, whatever his profession.
I think that the other cases are examples of how sex crimes are not treated seriously enough by judges when sentencing them. Some men do not understand the concept that no means no...and if they did maybe sex abuse cases would stop increasing. Johnson decided he could ignore the law cos he fancied a girl he knew to be 15. Personally I have no ****ing idea how an adult finds a 15 yr old attractive...but he decided that cos he did he would simply do as he pleased. He showed no remorse, no understanding of the harm he did to her and happily spent a year lying so he could continue to get his massive salary while the we yr old child was lied about, abused, called all sorts of sexual lying abusive names. ..All of that could and should be considered when sentencing cos it added to her difficulties in coping with his criminal behaviour
His profile and that of the case itself definitely had an impact on the sentence, and therefore his profession did have a part to play Read what these charmers did and the sentences they received for it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-convicted-sexually-exploiting-children.html
I have not missed the point...because other criminals got off lightly doesn't mean this child abuser should. Maybe other abusers will now think twice before ruining some other child's life.
There was no suggestion that this case had any 'no means no' as part of it mate. Johnson is a despicable ****, no doubt about it, thought he could add this girl to his list, irrespective of her age, and he was rightly convicted. It's merely the 'justice' element of this case that concerns me.
So because their sentences were not strong enough Johnson should of got off lightly? Weird logic imo. You could take it one further and say that cos the police did **** all about Saville even though it was reported to them that Johnson should not have been charged. He got what his behaviour deserved
Got off lightly or got sentences that were in line with the tariff for the crime...... Thanks for just proving the point I was making btw. Later chaps.
The law clear states that an adult can not have consenting sex with a child (anyone under 16) You described it as consensual groping which is plainly wrong in my opinion and plays down the severity of him abusing a child. The law clearly states no...The ****ers even looked up the age of consent. ..but he decided that no did not mean no in his case and did what he did. Imo you logic is beyond floored. Judges have regularly played down the impact of sex crimes..now one has taken.it seriously you condemn the sentence by saying he should have given him a lighter sentence cos other abusers got off lightly. I fail to see any logic in your argument. ..sex offenders should be locked up for longer to protect society. They may need medical or psychiatric help or they may just need jail ... I ain't got an answer to what needs to happen...but others deserve protection from them. Hopefully other men with Johnsons out look on life will be scared off abusing children or will seek help after seeing how severely he was sentenced...and other kids will be saved from going through was the girl (in this case did)
Have no idea what point I proved for you Johnsons sentence is in line with the tariff set out...so I don't get that point either
He knew what he was doing and he knew that it was wrong. So he got 6 years, probably a lot more than he was expecting. Tough luck fella. Life's been very kind to him up to this point. He didn't appreciate how lucky he was, in fact he took it all for granted and thought he was untouchable. I remember seeing him on some football chat show during a major international tournament that he hadn't been selected for. General concesus at the time was that he should have been in the England squad. When he was asked why he hadn't been selected he gave some sneering answer about asking the manager. It turned out that he had been omitted as he had a bad attitude. I always thought he was a very good player and even said at one point that he'd be an adequate replacement for Giggs but he never made the most of his talent.
I understand that, I'm more upset about a bloke who has raped 2 women only getting 8 years. I think that's where we're going wrong, not with Johnson's sentence. Btw everyone needs to remember he'll only serve half his sentence. He'll serve 3 years. The guy who commits rape and got 8 years may very well be out in 4 years! The problem is the sentences mean little bcos we have a creaking prison system that forces us to let everyone out after serving half a term bcos we don't have enough space for the next batch.
