KABOOM! Does Everyone Upset About The “Affluenza” Sentence Feel Better Now?

Top: Morris. Bottom: Me.

Top: Morris. Bottom: Me.

Today we travel cross the pond for a head explosion-prompting episode. A charming young woman and mother named Loren Morris, now 21, began having sexual intercourse  with an 8-year-old boy five years ago, and continued for two years until he was ten years old, involving about 50 forced sexual acts.

The boy, now 14, was overheard bragging about his premature sex life at school, and that led to his molester’s arrest and trial. This week a judge today gave Morris a two-year prison sentence at Worcester Crown Court. She will be eligible for release on parole after only a year.

This case is relevant to a couple of recent Ethics Alarms controversies. Presumably Morris is being sentenced leniently on the basis of her horrific crime being committed while she was a juvenile, even though she is an adult now. As I asserted in the stateside case of the juvenile assault ripening into a murder, I think a juvenile whose crime is only discovered and proven after he or she enters adulthood should be tried and punished as an adult. In the “affluenza” case, the judge was extremely lenient on the theory that the boy who caused the vehicular homicide was not fully responsible for his actions, and his character and future value to society might be salvaged with counseling and treatment. Morris has had three years of majority to see the error of her ways, report her own crime and make certain that her victim received compensation and treatment. She didn’t. Her character is formed, and her crime, or the consequences of it, was ongoing. There is no valid argument for this degree of leniency. Morris’s lawyer, however, actually argued that at 21 she was too young to comprehend the full significance of her actions. Really? Then she’s a menace to society, and needs to be locked away for a long, long time.

The “reasoning” of the British judge is especially infuriating. He said, (and I’m not making this up; if you plan on raping a little boy, do it in Great Britain)…

 “I make no secret of the fact your case has given me cause for much consideration. I have come to the conclusion that due to the concern and embarrassment caused to both you and your family that you will not be offending again, let alone committing sexual offences.” Comment: What? I suppose the same could be said about Ariel Castro and Bernie Madoff: “After all this embarrassing publicity, I’m sure you won’t be locking up girls in your house and keeping them as sex slaves/ swindling thousands out of their life savings again….”

“I am also aware of the effect this will have on your baby.” Comment: Ah, yes, the mother defense. If the judge is so concerned about the child, perhaps he should consider finding it a mother that isn’t a child-rapist.

“I am pleased to hear your parents have started to build bridges with you.”  Comment: “and that your dog still likes you…” 

“That does not stop the fact though that you had full sexual intercourse with a child when he was eight to 10 years old – by his evidence it was upwards of fifty times.” Comment: No shit, Sherlock.

“It seems to me that I am bound to pass an immediate custodial sentence.” Comment: Yes, the judge is being apologetic about having to sentence a repeat child rapist. Hail Britannia!

“I take into account what has been said to me and the fact that you stopped the activity yourself. You realized it was wrong rather than being caught and forced to stop.” Comment. KABOOM. Jack the Ripper also stopped on his own.

“Therefore my sentence is one of two years. You will serve 12 months in prison before being released on licence.” Comment: You are an idiot. Two years of raping a little boy gets one year in jail. Heck, for a pedophile, it’s almost worth it!

Lest someone accuse me of gratuitous England-bashing, let me be clear: this is very pointed England-bashing. One of the more forced and irrational rationalizations I have heard, out of MSNBC and elsewhere, in defense of the U.S.’s weak, indeed, embarrassing response to Russia on the march, is that the United States has no moral standing in the world community to criticize another country for armed aggression, because we still permit the death penalty. That’s right: the United States still believes killing people is intolerable, and places the highest possible price on life. Good. In England,, the average murderer is back out on the streets in 14 years.When murder is treated so leniently by a culture’s criminal justice system, it is inevitable that child rapists will be coddled as well.

Now consider what would happen to a male who raped a little girl for two years in the United States….even if his parents did “build bridges” with him…

_____________________________

Pointer: Fark

Facts: Daily Mirror

 

19 Comments

Filed under Around the World, Gender and Sex, Kaboom!, Law & Law Enforcement

19 responses to “KABOOM! Does Everyone Upset About The “Affluenza” Sentence Feel Better Now?

  1. Wayne

    This truly sick woman has caused irretrievable harm to this young man and his family. Unfortunately she was a juvenile when she committed these acts so some judges tend to be more lenient in these cases. The judge is a moron and should be removed from office. Enough said.

  2. wyogranny

    It’s probably unethical of me to judge her character by her picture, but could you have heard the evidence and looked into that face and been able to conclude that she was concerned, embarrassed, worried about her baby, , realized her behavior was wrong, or was too young to comprehend the full significance of her actions?
    The only thing I see on her face is stupidity and moronic self-satisfaction which will not change no matter how old she gets.

  3. Humble Talent

    Whenever there’s a sexual assault case involving a female perpetrator and a male victim, I’m never surprised at the amount of hand wringing the legal system engages in. Could you imagine if the genders were reversed?

    Women are less likely to be charged, less likely to be convicted, and if convicted will be served less time then men, all other things equal.

    • Michael Ejercito

      Why is that?

      • Humble Talent

        Although the laws are generally worded in such a way to be gender neutral, a mix of culture and precedent often lead individual judges to interpret the laws to be lenient to women. It doesn’t help that in cases similar to this, radical feminists commonly muddy the water with campaigns like “don’t be that guy” that slanders 98% of men for the actions of 2%.

  4. Jack,

    Based on this assessment and the seemingly problematic one where the assault victim later died, the key that makes it appropriate to treat an adult AS an adult for discovered crimes committed while a juvenile is that the adult SHOULD have reached a point (what we as society consider no later than 18ish) where they realize the criminality of their behavior and SHOULD step forward to justice system with admission of guilt.

      • Then, if an adult, accused of a crime committed while a juvenile has no right to complain if tried as an adult, would the *new* adult, having just exited our community-determined stage of juvenility have a right to complain then if there was not some consideration given for the crime being committed as a juvenile?

        If they don’t, then we must assume they SHOULD realize the criminality of their behavior sooner, in which case the age of adulthood is too high.

  5. There’s little better ways of determining whether a nation has sunk into terminal decadency than to read of an event like this and then to examine both the professional and public reaction. Are the British barristers, Members of Parliament and the commonality protesting this in any significant way? If not, then it’s all over with Britain except for the cries of the innocent in their last travails.

  6. Beth

    I don’t believe in Jack’s bright-line rule of trying a person as an adult if the crime only is discovered once adulthood is reached, BUT here that shouldn’t be the test anyway. This girl/woman was 16 when she started raping this little boy? I don’t know British law, but here, she most likely would have been tried as an adult in the first instance — barring evidence of mental illness. 20 years minimum — with the bonus that her child would never see his/her mom until adulthood.

    • I don’t think Jack’s “rule” requires adult prosecution of juvenile crimes, if the accused is now an adult. I think his “rule” is more like the Naked Teacher Principle in that, an accused adult doesn’t have the right to complain if they are tried as an adult for juvenile crimes.

      • That’s a good comparison and analogy. I don’t object to a decision to prosecute as a juvenile in such situations; I think it’s defensible, even preferable in many cases.

      • Beth

        It’s not a good analogy because the naked teacher rule was an adult in both instances.

        • Except that’s not what is at issue. What is at issue is if someone has a right to complain.

          You asserted that Jack had a rule requiring adult treatment. I demonstrated that he did not have such a rule.

          Just as some people have errantly claimed the Naked Teacher Principle requires the firing of a teacher for past pornographic conduct, you are errantly claiming that Jack requires current adults be tried as adults for juvenile crimes…

          The analogy is quite valid.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s