Ched Evans + Adam Johnson court cases

[The Bear]

Basing a judgement on the actual individuals involved rather than purely their birth certificates is wrong? Ok.

 

[Johnny75]

Yet if it had happened 12 months later the law would be perfectly fine with it all. She wouldn't be a child or a victim and he wouldn't have been grooming her. The age difference would have been frowned upon but that's it. When in reality those 12 months could have made no difference to her actual maturity on the issue.

I just find it all very arbitrary and rigid when in real life it's much more complex, with both sides contributing to what happened.

Sorry if this is at odds with other people's views but I tend to look at all sides of an issue and try and understand what happened and why, not just rigidly quote the law and an arbitrary age of consent, which is different all over the world.

You do realise you sound like you're making an excuse for adults grooming children?

If you genuinely don't know how people mature I think you need to read around that first and foremost. Whether you think the age is arbitrary or not there will be a legal, moral and scientific reason (health) behind it.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

He is guilty because that is the law; much as there are parts of the world where I'd get prosecuted for having a few beers. Everyone knows what the law is and if you transgress then there can be no cause for complaint, furthermore I would be astonished if the age of consent dropped below 16 in my lifetime.

 

[Alan]

Murderers shouldn't be jailed, either. I mean, their victims obviously were just as guilty for making them so angry.

 

[So Long Architect]

Basing a judgement on the actual individuals involved rather than purely their birth certificates is wrong? Ok.

The mitigating factors you want are already taken into account where necessary, as has been pointed out before on this thread. If he reasonably thought she was over 16 then he'd have been treated more leniently. But he new full well how old she was, (only just over 14 when he began his relationship with her) and made a decision to continue on knowing it was against the law.

15 year old girls are not known for making the most sensible of decisions, hence we have laws to protect them when they act stupidly.

Your argument is essentially "she was asking for it, therefore it's OK".

He deserves everything he gets and more.

 

[Penk Wolf]

I sort of get the point Bear is making. I guess a better example would be if she had been 15 years and 364 days when the offense happened. Would she have been more mature the next day?

 

[Alan]

I sort of get the point Bear is making. I guess a better example would be if she had been 15 years and 364 days when the offense happened. Would she have been more mature the next day?

No, but if you want to go down that route then you have to put the age of consent somewhere around 25 years, which is generally accepted as the average age at which the human brain reaches peak development.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

I sort of get the point Bear is making. I guess a better example would be if she had been 15 years and 364 days when the offense happened. Would she have been more mature the next day?

The law has to be arbitrary to an extent, there have to be cut off points. I don't know what the drink drive limit is, realistically there is no difference between being 0.01% on the right side as opposed to 0.01% on the wrong side, clearly the sensible course of action is not to put yourself in a position whereby you might get in trouble. Johnson deserves no defending whatsoever, I don't see that we desperately need to change our laws to liberate these apparently fully emotionally and sexually mature 15 year olds.

 

[visage]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...picion-possessing-7622875?ICID=FB_mirror_main

WTactualFuck?

 

[Parkins left foot]

Whatever the argument about age/maturity etc. the law is that activity with someone under 16 is illegal.

Johnson knew that (and even checked it) so knew what he was doing was against the law.

6 yrs is not an unreasonable sentance at all & he could have been looking at more. He also has to pay £50000 towards the prosecution costs of about £67000 so at least we are not having to pay for most of this which is right & proper given his previous earning power

 

[So Long Architect]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...picion-possessing-7622875?ICID=FB_mirror_main

WTactualFuck?

"Officers also found Johnson had visited a website called 'Nice Young Teens' which featured pornographic images but was not normal."

Eh?

 

[Penk Wolf]

The law has to be arbitrary to an extent, there have to be cut off points. I don't know what the drink drive limit is, realistically there is no difference between being 0.01% on the right side as opposed to 0.01% on the wrong side, clearly the sensible course of action is not to put yourself in a position whereby you might get in trouble. Johnson deserves no defending whatsoever, I don't see that we desperately need to change our laws to liberate these apparently fully emotionally and sexually mature 15 year olds.

I'm not defending him by the way, just trying to understand where his argument is coming from. I guess when you look at Rolf Harris's sentence of less than 6 years you could argue it was harsh, although I think it was more that Rolf's was too short.

As for the drink drive limit, when I was 18 I got a caution for a reading of 39 (Limit 35).

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Wasn't the Harris sentence governed by what laws were in place at the time he committed the offences?

I use the DD limit as an example - you probably think you could drive equally as competently on five pints as you could four. But you wouldn't push the line just because you could. Because you know the law.

 

[Kenny]

Wasn't the Harris sentence governed by what laws were in place at the time he committed the offences?

Yep. As they were historic crimes they had to use the sentencing from that era. They did the unusual thing of not putting them all together and make him serve them in one go though. Instead he serves them back to back.

 

[Kenny]

On the matter of Johnson having his England Caps removed by the FA........seems his defence team were talking bubbles. FA deny it

 

[The Bear]

I sort of get the point Bear is making. I guess a better example would be if she had been 15 years and 364 days when the offense happened. Would she have been more mature the next day?

Thank you for at least trying to understand!

I'm not suggesting that no offence has occurred or that he shouldn't receive sentencing. Just that the actual sentence should depend on the actions as well as the age, physical, sexual and emotional maturity of BOTH people involved.

He's still guilty. I'm arguing to what degree he is and the level of punishment he deserves. Personally I feel that 6 years is harsh based on the actions of both individuals involved. Others don't. More importantly the judge didn't. Ultimately he only has himself to blame if that's the verdict that comes in.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

What has condemned is him knowing the girl's age and continuing regardless. That is why it is grooming and why it is indefensible, whether you believe our Age Of Consent rules are appropriate or not.

 

[Kenny]

Thank you for at least trying to understand!

I'm not suggesting that no offence has occurred or that he shouldn't receive sentencing. Just that the actual sentence should depend on the actions as well as the age, physical, sexual and emotional maturity of BOTH people involved.

He's still guilty. I'm arguing to what degree he is and the level of punishment he deserves. Personally I feel that 6 years is harsh based on the actions of both individuals involved. Others don't. More importantly the judge didn't. Ultimately he only has himself to blame if that's the verdict that comes in.

When the judge said his actions were in Category 1 he probably thought he was getting 10 years so 6 is being lenient.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

As soon as he knows she is 15 that is the end of it. Her actions are irrelevant. She could be wearing a "come and get it" sign and still it wouldn't in any way be mitigating.

 

[Parkins left foot]

Thank you for at least trying to understand!

I'm not suggesting that no offence has occurred or that he shouldn't receive sentencing. Just that the actual sentence should depend on the actions as well as the age, physical, sexual and emotional maturity of BOTH people involved.

Problem with that Bear is who decides - then opens any decision to appeals because others don't agree with that view of the individuals

Paddy's post says it as clearly as it could be - Johnson knew the rules and thought he could get away with it