Child sex offenders will face longer sentences under plans to punish them for their intentions.
The sentencing council has proposed that offenders who are caught before committing a sex attack should face tougher jail terms depending on the severity of the crime they intended to commit.
This would mean longer sentences for offenders even if they were intercepted by police or in a sting operation before they could engage in any sexual activity.
Previous guidelines from 2013 had been interpreted in some cases to allow lower sentences where there was no physical assault or meant that the absence of actual harm to the child was treated as a mitigating factor.
However, Justice Minister Chris Philp said: “Vile predators who seek to sexually abuse children deserve punishments that reflect the true severity of their crimes, including the harm intended.”
And it seems to abolish the idea of free will as well. Will they go through with it? We dunno, because they’ve got free will, haven’t they? The only certainty that someone will do something is when they do.
And, of course, if we’ve not got free will then there’s no point in punishing crime, is there – it’s just the universe what made them dun it, innit?
And we know well which fucking minority this load of hysterical shite WONT be applied to.
The story thus far:
Paedo conversion therapy: GOOD
White to black conversion therapy: BAD
Black to white conversion therapy: GOOD
Gay conversion therapy: BAD
Trans conversion therapy: DOUBLE PLUS GOOD
Tory scum now after social credit tyranny want the law to be used to punish you for what they SAY you MIGHT do.
The same scum who–under Treason May at the height of Yewtree hysteria–had their costumed thugs put bogus links on adult porn sites. Links that were labelled as going to other adult porn but then took the punter to (claimed to be at any rate)kiddie sites. For which Plod tried to jail the punters AND attempted to fix the elec record to show that the bar/box the mugs clicked on had always shown “kiddie porn” as its content.
Fortunately for the innocent Plod’s computer grasp exceeded their computer reach and the scam was exposed.
If you are looking at kiddie porn on a regular basis–not clicked on a wrong link by accident or trickery during ordinary porn search–then let the law be done. But extra-legal venom aimed at looking for more whites they can fit up while largely ignoring the states imported RoP pals is just clickbait Tory vote sucking.
Hot air composed of liars superheated bad breath as usual with political scum and esp the Tories.
What ‘aaa’ said. In spades.
Where is the line drawn though? Bloke found in hotel room with child, both fully-clothed. His phone is full of text messages describing all the ways he wants to abuse the child. But when the police turn up, he says “I chickened out at the last minute, you can’t arrest me, no harm done.”
Even if he’s arrested with his knob out, without some kind of thoughtcrime laws, the worst he could be done for is indecent exposure.
We have laws on the statute books for attempted murder; why not “attempted noncing” too?
We do have laws about attempted murder. The thing being you’ve got to attempt it to be guilty of it. We’ve also laws about conspiracy to murder. Conspiracy to attempted murder. Those are all fine. It’s the we know you haven’t done anything as yet but still you’re nicked that worries.
Don’t I recall somebody writing in a book, maybe fiction maybe not, about Thoughtcrime?
AndrewM: “attempted” in the sense of tried to but failed.
Some of those stings I’ve seen look very close to entrapment, especially those involving self-appointed vigilantly groups.
The government can make laws. That’s what they do and they love their work.
But will juries convict? If, say, one in four people find this thought crime stuff offensive then usually the result will be not guilty. There’s a word for it.
If one in four are found guilty, while for identical thought crime three go free, the conviction must look unfair.
Even the dopiest barrister can remind the jury that condemning people for what they are, not what they do, is dangerous. It opens the door to all sorts of discrimination and persecution, as we saw in Central Europe a couple of generations ago.
@BiND: well, maybe, but if the police aren’t going to do it, someone else will…
And what’s so bad about entrapment anyway?
Andrew M–If a kiddie-porn phone bloke was found in a hotel room with a kid–depending on the connection–that is likely already grounds for action. A relative is bad enough but a kid he met and invited on the internet is far worse. Yes penalty of law but only for what happened not what some law dog thinks might have been next. Punishment for imaginary possibilities is NOT acceptable and is a slippery slope to more tyranny.
Be sure it wont be confined to paedos–and it wont be used against non-white paedos anyway. And if it were the group in question would get derisory 6 yr sentences of which they would serve 2 years in jails increasingly run by their own cult and then be back on the street.
This Tory clickbait will do no good and will enable much evil.
“if we’ve not got free will then there’s no point in punishing crime, is there – it’s just the universe what made them dun it, innit?”
That doesn’t follow. Punishing crime might make them stop, it just being the universe’s way of making them not do it.
slightly appropos… that PC recruit who was lied about once being a member of a proscribed org on his application and was sacked and prosecuted for lying and for fraud (for the sum of total salary paid) for such. They searched his computer,found images of drawings of under 18s (hentai) and convicted him of that to boot. I mean i definitely don’t want him to be a plod either but i’m a bit worried that the zealousness and imagination has traits of other regimes we don’t really want to go down. I may be wrong but plenty of plod lie on their applications and this doesn’t happen to them.
The discussions on repealing, or amending, the Criminal Attempts Act should be interesting, considering the number of shysters, sorry, solicitors and barristers there are in Parliament
that PC recruit who lied about once being a member of a proscribed org on his application. He was sacked and prosecuted for lying and for fraud (for the sum of total salary paid) for such. They searched his computer,found images of drawings (!) of under 18s (hentai) and convicted him of that to boot. I mean i definitely don’t want him to be a plod either but i’m a bit worried that the zealousness and imagination of the prosecution has traits of other regimes we don’t really want to go down. I may be wrong but plenty of plod lie on their applications and this doesn’t happen to them.
“And what’s so bad about entrapment anyway?”
Same problem as race hate crimes. When you can’t find enough real ones it’s all too easy to make some up. Just put a well developed fifteen year old in a bar in full makeup and nick guys when they try to pick her up. Shit like that.
That’s what “Trading Standards” have been doing for years regarding the sale of cigarettes and booze to “children”.
“And what’s so bad about entrapment anyway?”
I hope you never find out the hard way.
Convicted Criminal: Your honour, free will is an illusion. I had no choice but to commit this crime. Punishing me would serve no purpose.
Judge: If free will is an illusion, I have no choice but to send you down for four years. Next case.
We are talking about the same police that tried to charge an activist they didn’t like with sex crimes involving animals for a gif someone had emailed him involving the Kellogg’s Frosties mascot
Free will is an illusion but it does not follow that you don’t put criminals in jail – you jail them to protect society (indefinitely if incurable) and as a deterrent to others.
yep, i’m beginning to wonder whether the next scandal down the line will be over the smokey process of deciding who they choose to go after with their smorgesboard of options….or who they don’t.
When an act isn’t carried out, the pervert is being arrested for stating they will commit the crime, and then showing up at the location.
Once at the location, any number of things can happen. The perp can change his mind and leave, he can decide to do something even worse than what was planned, or he can simply sit on the sofa and have a peaceful chat with the child. No one knows.
Showing up at the location is bad enough, and the same punishment should apply regardless of what was written on the online chat–although that transcript would probably be used later in court to sway the jury toward conviction. The only exception is in cases where certain materials are brought to the scene of the crime (e.g., condoms, alcohol, etc.). That scenario would then show not only intent, but likelihood as well, and it would then make sense to implement a harsher punishment.
Regardless, the individual is registering as a sex offender and will be a pariah until the day they die.