Here we go again. Apparently jails aren't full enough yet.
As in the case two weeks ago, there was consensual sex, and the father had nothing better to do than snoop on his offspring, who might have been months, days or seconds away from the age of consent.
Passing sentence Judge Peter Jacobs told her: "If this was a 35-year-old man and a 15-year-old girl no one would raise an eyebrow if he was sent to prison."
I would. And I don't understand the reasoning. Did she deserve 15 months in jail for reasons of gender equality?
The court heard there was no victim impact statement as he had been a willing party.
So this is a victimless crime? Why are victimless crimes punished so harshly in this country? Is there a rational explanation for this?
"His parents have been very upset," Mrs Tucker added.
So it is really the parents who are the victims. Just let the implications sink in for a moment.
No comments:
Post a Comment