I still suspect quite strongly that not enough consideration has been given in this case to what the likely sentence would have been in the early 1980s, when the crimes were committed.
I accept that since then we have established new evidence regarding the long term psychological effects of sexual abuse etc. but I don't believe for one moment that a teacher in her 20s at that time would have expected to be punished so severely for this.
The law does allow in historical cases for 'fair warning' to be considered, in that the perpetrator of a crime should have had it made fairly clear what punishment they might expect before they commit the crime - and I don't believe female teachers were being given such heavy sentences for similar crimes back then. As I said in my earlier post, I suggest that most of them probably didn't even make it to a court of law, but were instead handled internally at the schools or colleges. I agree that this was not the correct course of action back in those days, but if it was predominantly what happened, then that must be taken into consideration by today's courts.
I keep coming back to it, but I'm uncomfortable by the insistence that, regardless of how they feel, everyone who this happens to is regarded as a 'victim'. I know it's meant to protect them by showing that they are not responsible for the decisions an older person makes about them, but I think in some cases it's disempowering, unhelpful and simply fills the person with shame when they look back at the past.. "You didn't know your own mind," we tell them "Actually you should think of yourself as a victim." And I say that as someone who feels strongly about 'abuse of power' relationships. There's something off about it.
Completely agree. I also feel strongly about abuses of power, but this type of retroactive psychological conditioning is also an abuse of power in my opinion. Telling someone that they are a victim and should feel ashamed or disgusted by something, regardless of their own thoughts, opinions, or feelings on the matter, is creepy and disturbing to me. Trying to negate another person's free will is exactly what abusers do. Just because the police, or social services, or whoever, believe they're being protective or doing it "for the person's own good" doesn't make it any better. After all, many abusers believe the same thing.
And yes, I get that the idea is to stop people from feeling responsible for an older person's actions, but it's entirely possible to do that without trying to convince someone they don't/didn't possess a mind of their own.
The law does allow in historical cases for 'fair warning' to be considered, in that the perpetrator of a crime should have had it made fairly clear what punishment they might expect before they commit the crime - and I don't believe female teachers were being given such heavy sentences for similar crimes back then. As I said in my earlier post, I suggest that most of them probably didn't even make it to a court of law, but were instead handled internally at the schools or colleges. I agree that this was not the correct course of action back in those days, but if it was predominantly what happened, then that must be taken into consideration by today's courts.
Unfortunately (IMO), judges seem to be encouraged only to pay heed to what the maximum sentence was at the time of the crime and otherwise, to sentence people on today's guidelines. I have also noticed that in at least one of these historical sex abuse cases, where the maximum sentence 30 years ago was very much less than now, the judge seems to have got round it by making more of the sentences consecutive that otherwise would be expected. There is much elbow room where consecutive sentences are concerned.
So as I have said before, I have mixed feelings about such cases, justice for the victims versus a fair trial and correct sentence if convicted, for the defendant. It's a tricky one.
Sounds harsh to me. The boys presumably enjoyed it at the time, or did she put a gun to their heads? Then she became successful and well-known and they decided they wanted their 15 minutes too.
That's how it seems to me because I can't see the point of putting this woman away for eight years.
Unfortunately (IMO), judges seem to be encouraged only to pay heed to what the maximum sentence was at the time of the crime and otherwise, to sentence people on today's guidelines. I have also noticed that in at least one of these historical sex abuse cases, where the maximum sentence 30 years ago was very much less than now, the judge seems to have got round it by making more of the sentences consecutive that otherwise would be expected. There is much elbow room where consecutive sentences are concerned.
So as I have said before, I have mixed feelings about such cases, justice for the victims versus a fair trial and correct sentence if convicted, for the defendant. It's a tricky one.
In these historical cases, the judge is supposed to consider the gravity of the crime in the eyes of society today, and how fair warned the perpetrator was at the time of the offence. In either of those conditions, I don't believe the sentence here is correct.
Comments
I accept that since then we have established new evidence regarding the long term psychological effects of sexual abuse etc. but I don't believe for one moment that a teacher in her 20s at that time would have expected to be punished so severely for this.
The law does allow in historical cases for 'fair warning' to be considered, in that the perpetrator of a crime should have had it made fairly clear what punishment they might expect before they commit the crime - and I don't believe female teachers were being given such heavy sentences for similar crimes back then. As I said in my earlier post, I suggest that most of them probably didn't even make it to a court of law, but were instead handled internally at the schools or colleges. I agree that this was not the correct course of action back in those days, but if it was predominantly what happened, then that must be taken into consideration by today's courts.
Completely agree. I also feel strongly about abuses of power, but this type of retroactive psychological conditioning is also an abuse of power in my opinion. Telling someone that they are a victim and should feel ashamed or disgusted by something, regardless of their own thoughts, opinions, or feelings on the matter, is creepy and disturbing to me. Trying to negate another person's free will is exactly what abusers do. Just because the police, or social services, or whoever, believe they're being protective or doing it "for the person's own good" doesn't make it any better. After all, many abusers believe the same thing.
And yes, I get that the idea is to stop people from feeling responsible for an older person's actions, but it's entirely possible to do that without trying to convince someone they don't/didn't possess a mind of their own.
Unfortunately (IMO), judges seem to be encouraged only to pay heed to what the maximum sentence was at the time of the crime and otherwise, to sentence people on today's guidelines. I have also noticed that in at least one of these historical sex abuse cases, where the maximum sentence 30 years ago was very much less than now, the judge seems to have got round it by making more of the sentences consecutive that otherwise would be expected. There is much elbow room where consecutive sentences are concerned.
So as I have said before, I have mixed feelings about such cases, justice for the victims versus a fair trial and correct sentence if convicted, for the defendant. It's a tricky one.
Vile!
In these historical cases, the judge is supposed to consider the gravity of the crime in the eyes of society today, and how fair warned the perpetrator was at the time of the offence. In either of those conditions, I don't believe the sentence here is correct.