This is the headline to this article from Sky News
Teen Child Rapist Who Struck Again Named
Here is an extract from the article;
A teenager who was jailed for sexually assaulting a nine-year-old girl while already on bail after raping a 10-year-old girl has been named.
Why in god's name was he on bail for rape, of a 10 year old, in the first place?
What were they thinking letting a sex attacker, of young girls, out on the streets again.
Didn't they think he might attack someone else. Don't they think rape is a serious crime any more?
Another extract from the article;
On Monday, Heaton was ordered to serve a minimum of five years behind bars at Liverpool Crown Court for the "truly chilling" ordeal he subjected on his victims.
After two sex attacks, one of them a rape, they give him five, yes that's right 5 years.
He should be in jail for at the very least 15 - 20 years, before he is even up for parole.
What if he is still a danger to the public after the five years, will they still let him out?
They probably would because it will be against his (in) human rights.
This is a another extract from the article;
His identity has now been revealed after Judge David Harris QC ended a legal delay, which had been placed to ensure security could be installed to protect the boy from his prison inmates.
'Protect the boy from his prison inmates'.
The victims may not of got proper justice, but from what i have heard there is nothing like justice given out by fellow prisoners to sick twisted monsters like this scum.
2 comments:
Tom Watson, defending, told the court the "vulnerable" youth - who he said had a long history of pyschological problems, acknowledged his "atrocious and appalling" crimes. Passing sentence, Judge Harris said Heaton's psychological development was "skewed by severe physical and emotional abuse".
The first attack was when the attacker was just a child himself - 16. From the defence argument, it's clear that the fault was that of bad parenting - again. Until someone in power understands that parenting is at the root of most of the crime issues in the UK today, we'll not see an improvement anytime soon.
Are you saying that because he came from a bad home he became a child rapist?
Are you saying that all children of bad parenting will turn out as child rapists or criminals?
No, and I think you know that. But the phrase 'bad parenting' covers a multitude of sins, many of which will irrevocably damage a child's development. The law (and, as a father, I) understands that sixteen is not mature; it's still a highly susceptible time in anyone's life and the actions he took - although appalling - were certainly down to his upbringing, the precise details of which we don't know but I can imagine were little short of horrendous.
We won't stop this sort of criminality until we address the issue of dreadful parenting. And who's the more guilty? The child who commits a crime or the adults who brought him up to relive that it's acceptable?
Post a Comment