Thousands of sex offenders receive cautions.
"Almost 8,000 sex offenders have received a police caution rather than being charged in the past five years, it emerged today".
I am staggered by this amount. And, it would appear that it could be much higher because "Only one force, West Yorkshire police, failed to provide figures, saying it would be too expensive to search for the facts". A pathetic excuse if ever I heard one!
One would have thought that we were talking about minor offences here, and not serious crimes including 230 rapes and almost 2,000 offences involving children.
"Cautions would be given in circumstances where the victim of a rape did not turn up to give evidence in court or, for example, the case involved a 16-year-old boy having consensual sex with a 15-year-old". I did not realise that a 15 year old girl could give consent for sex at least until she was 16 years of age...
"A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Justice said "very few" of the cautions were for raping children". Oh that's alright then is it? Like fuck it is!
UPDATE: How can a rapist only be cautioned?
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
Well at least they are right on the ball with speed traps. Their conviction rate with these devices are exemplary.
ReplyDeleteRon: It's amazing how the police can be up to scratch on the little things like earning money from speed cameras and yet in something as serious as this...
ReplyDeleteWell, hang on a minute. If the complainant doesn't turn up to give evidence, I'd say that a caution (which means he's admitted it) is a bit of a result for the CPS and the police. If the matter went to trial, it would be a bit difficult to get a conviction if he said it was consensual and she wasn't available to go into the witness box to say it wasn't.
ReplyDeleteAs to the 15-year-old and her 16-year-old boyfriend, you're perfectly correct that she can't consent to sex. They can, however, have consensual sex (otherwise the charge would have been rape). Obviously one doesn't know the details, but I strongly suspect that, had he not agreed to accept a caution, the CPS probably wouldn't have bothered taking the matter to trial: take a look at their guidelines in such cases
not saussure: I have updated the post with a link to clarify matters a bit. Thanks for the link. It's not the difficult cases which concern me, but the cautions for raping children which are not so easily explained away. I suppose a caution is better than no penalty at all.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your link, JHL, to the BBC article that points out many of these cautions for rape may well involve a 13-year-old girl and her 14-year-old boyfriend, where the only possible charge is rape, even though she may well have been a perfectly willing participant. In those circumstances, I don't see that bringing the matter to court is necessarily the best way of resolving the case.
ReplyDeleteCertainly, in my experience, the CPS are very keen to prosecute in rape cases; they're possibly sometimes even over-keen, in that they bring charges when, despite there certainly being reasonable suspicion, there's no realistic chance of a conviction. As you'll know, 'I think he probably did it' isn't anywhere close to the degree of confidence a jury needs before it can properly convict.
To my mind, when they give a caution in a rape case, it'll either be because there are very good reasons for not prosecuting (two children messing about, for example) or there's no chance whatsoever of the case even getting past half-time.
I saw your post after reading the original BBC item.
ReplyDeleteI've read the weasel words with various degrees of empathy (16-year-old boy having consensual sex with 15-year-old girl) and disbelief (if a case can't proceed because a witness fails to show then surely the case is dismissed).
But overall I remain gobsmacked and horrified: more than 350 of these cases involved a victim aged under 13, while more than 230 were for rape.
For what other offence where the maximum penalty is life imprisonment would a caution be considered?
Mind you given the 5% conviction rate for rape perhaps the most surprising thing is that 230 people admitted it when their lawyer must have telling them there was a reasonable prospect that the case would either not proceed or that they'd get off. Of course, there'd be the publicity - still 230?
not saussure: Doctors and nurses will never be the same again. I think there needs to be a distinction between young love and rape. The latter for me is really non consensual and usually forced or through drink and/or drugs.
ReplyDeleteStatutory "Rape" of children on children i.e. teenagers under 16 having sex with one another because they want to and don't know or case about the law clearly should not be an offense leading to imprisonment or addition to the sex offenders register or whatever.
ReplyDeleteOur law is a bit of an ass on this and it would be scandalous IMO if these people were being banged up or added to the SFR.
Please find out and reveal the extent of cases within these statistics which are not of this type. Until then I'll not be losing sleep over prodigious kids having sex with one another.
Ooops, "care" not "case" and SOR not SFR ... btw Dale has just dropped one of his biggest bollocks yet as far as I can see. Over a libel case. I've blogged it.
ReplyDeleteDale has taken down his post. But reposted some DT coverage which is also a bit confused.
ReplyDelete