I understand what you are saying. I'm not going to pretend I'm "appalled" by Johnsons conduct, but I do think he should go to prison. Laws are there for a reason. But my issue is with the length of the sentence. When we use terms like "groomed" is it really any different to what people do all the time when trying to get girls to have sex with them? The only difference is the age of the girl and for that reason Johnson should rightly go to jail. I just think 6 years is a very long time for what he did, especially compared with other cases involving older people and teenagers under the age of consent. But I'm definitely not saying Johnson doesn't deserve to be in prison because loads of people have sex at that age. My point is purely with the harshness of the sentence.
Adam Johnson found guilty of one count of sexual activity with a child | Sentenced to six years
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
- Status
I understand what you are saying. I'm not going to pretend I'm "appalled" by Johnsons conduct, but I do think he should go to prison. Laws are there for a reason. But my issue is with the length of the sentence. When we use terms like "groomed" is it really any different to what people do all the time when trying to get girls to have sex with them? The only difference is the age of the girl and for that reason Johnson should rightly go to jail. I just think 6 years is a very long time for what he did, especially compared with other cases involving older people and teenagers under the age of consent. But I'm definitely not saying Johnson doesn't deserve to be in prison because loads of people have sex at that age. My point is purely with the harshness of the sentence.
Indeed. I was just adding a bit of context to what I thought were reasonable points on the whole.
Personally (and I imagine like most of us) I don't think he's some sick twisted monster beyond redemption, nor an innocent who is only being criminalised by some silly number. More specifically (and I don't claim to know if I'm in the majority here) I think he's a manipulative abusive person who showed no regard for the law or the well-being of the girl and could well continue to be a threat without rehabilitation - thus I don't find the sentence desperately harsh (though I am sure it is disproportionate to some other cases as all sentences will be).
No need for condescension. The word rape is apparently only used for children under the age of 13. Between 13 and 16 it is called 'sexual activity with a child'.
It's not really a twisted world in the sense that teenagers have sex.
I'm not defending his actions, i just find it slightly bizarre that anyone reckons 6 years is a fair punishment for consensual interactions.
In my lifetime, I've seen utter monsters like Myra Hindley sneaked out for day trips to public parks where children were playing, as a prelude to her eventual parole; all this regardless of 'mob' opinion, all this decided by greater minds with far greater qualifications than my own. Apparently 'they know best' - better than the public they hold in contempt - even when totally out of their depth and played for fools by artful criminals. Sure, Johnson is not Hindley and her kind but I tell you what: he and his kind won't be living in the decision-makers' neighbourhoods on release. Oh no, he'll be living closer to 'the mob' and their children...as per bloody usual.
Erm...
It can now be reported that Adam Johnson was arrested for possessing extreme pornography - bestiality - on his laptop last year
From Josh Halliday on Twitter.
From Josh Halliday on Twitter.
Rules are rules.
Also: It can also now be reported that Adam Johnson browsed a website called “Nice Young Teens”, which featured explicit images but not unlawful
EDIT: It can also be reported that Adam Johnson was taking medication used to treat sexually-transmitted infections when he was arrested last year
EDIT: It can also be reported that Adam Johnson was taking medication used to treat sexually-transmitted infections when he was arrested last year
All coming out now.
Sounds like the weight of sentencing has something to with Johnson being a sexual deviant and a sex addict which makes him a legitimate danger to young girls. I imagine the sentence reflects the amount of time the judge perceives he needs to be rehabilitated through therapy.
Ouch, that's creepy.
Wouldn't be surprised if that's from his end. Makes sense for the appeal and receiving psychological treatment rather than spending time in jail.
He also got longer 'cos he didn't plead guilty - despite the overwhelming amount of evidence showing he was.
What a dirty cnut.
It's good to know we've got so many legal experts on here who are qualified to assess the severity of the sentence in relation to other cases and declare it as clearly/definitely harsh.
I haven't seen a post where anyone has said it is 'clearly' or 'definitely' harsh. Just that against other cases it appears to be
I'd say you don't need to be a legal expert to justify having an opinion on sentencing.
If your point is just about the comparisons, then I'm with you there, mind. Simply naming other cases of an adult and someone under age isn't a comparison.
She did confess to all charges. That's a major difference.
He confessed to some of the charges rather lately. That's another massive difference because his victim was looked upon as a liar.
There are probably quite a few more.
Yea, it's the bringing up of other cases as if they're all the same just because they carry the same charge, mostly.
The variables in these things are numerous and wide ranging.
I'm not legal expert, but to me the sentence is about right given the stupidity of the act of doing something like that, being a multi millionaire, in your home fecking city.
The more that is revealed about Johnson the more the sentence make sense.
Which is still silly as criminal law takes into account all the information available and determines the sentence according to this info. It takes into account a lot of subjective information. People on this board don't have all the information except what's reported in the newspapers, so the comparisons are just lazy and not very useful. Imo.
No. not the same.
That was rhetorical.
Alluding to the mindset of the judiciary in this case and the fact that they may have wanted to make an example of Johnson.
I said that it's fairness was debatable.
The fecker played for City. I thought that was punishment enough.
It suggests he has a sexual interest in teenage girls, beyond this particular one. Not that many would've doubted such but it's potentially relevant to risk of re-offending.
I know
young man watches porn shocker
Guy in his 20's gets an STI
Mind you I concede the bestiality one is a bit extreme.
Maybe this is why they thought he needed 6 years
The relevance presumably being that he was potentially at risk of infecting his victim.
People need to understand how sentences are arrived at. They're not just pulled out of the air by judges.
In short, an offence has a "tariff" i.e. a range as a starting point. The judge determines where the offence falls within the tariff, then can add or subtract time for aggravating or mitigating factors. In Johnson's case it would appear there were few or no mitigating factors and a number of aggravating factors, hence the (by some) perceived harshness of the sentence.
In short, an offence has a "tariff" i.e. a range as a starting point. The judge determines where the offence falls within the tariff, then can add or subtract time for aggravating or mitigating factors. In Johnson's case it would appear there were few or no mitigating factors and a number of aggravating factors, hence the (by some) perceived harshness of the sentence.
There are two separate issues though. Whether the judge was harsh and whether the framework the judge made their decision within is harsh. You don't need to blame the judge, thinking they pulled the sentence out of the air, to be uncomfortable with the severity of the sentence.
(Not that I am, in case anyone sees this comment, having not seen my many prior comments, and thinks I'm saying something I'm not).
You'd need to argue that one with Parliament then
Indeed.You'd need to argue that one with Parliament then
I know
young man watches porn shocker
Guy in his 20's gets an STI
Mind you I concede the bestiality one is a bit extreme.
Maybe this is why they thought he needed 6 years
Judge has apparently said he won't be tried for this so presumably the sentence was based purely on his actions with the girl?
He has been revealed to be a rather stupid young man with absolutely no moral code, at least as far as personal relationships are involved. He obviously has a problem in that regard.
Re bestiality: the sheep in question refused to give evidence
Or FunkadelicYou'd need to argue that one with Parliament then
John Terry has caps all over the his little museum, but it doesnt look like there are loads of them. Seems as if you get them for the first, 10th, 20th etc. I imagine for something like a World Cup you get one for each game.
Nice room and all but where's the Sunday's all-white-everything-even-the-big-pointy-hood-with-cut-out-eyes-holes outfit?
True but I would've thought having sex with the child over 50 times would perhaps counter balance that, clearly she hadn't shown any remorse either.
- Status