Stuart Hall, 15 months.

[titaniumbean]

The defence's argument for mitigation seemed to centre around the fact that he'd only abused a dozen or so children, compared to Savile's 1,300+. 

That's hardly a defence.

As you say, it isn't a defence. It is a reason why the sentence he should receive should be lower than someone whose offences (in number, type or both) were worse.

I meant it was used by the defence as an argument for a lessening of his sentence.  His sentence isn't greater than someone who has carried out fewer offences, because his sentences run concurrently.  Comparing him to Savile in order to reduce his sentence is ridiculous imo.  It's like saying Peter Sutcliffe only killed 13 women so he can't be compared to Harold Shipman.

surely you can only imprison pol pot, everyone else pales in comparison.

[nirvana]

All the facts are contained in

http://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-stuart-hall

Gives the background, mitigation and policy behind the sentencing rather than wild speculation.

First time I've read through a complete summing up like that.

Disturbing as these things are, and whilst I have no principled objection to quite extreme punishments (castration, death penalty for example), I found it easy to follow and easy to see why the judge concluded/sentenced as he did.

[RED-DOG]

All the facts are contained in

http://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-stuart-hall

Gives the background, mitigation and policy behind the sentencing rather than wild speculation.

First time I've read through a complete summing up like that.

Disturbing as these things are, and whilst I have no principled objection to quite extreme punishments (castration, death penalty for example), I found it easy to follow and easy to see why the judge concluded/sentenced as he did.

Me too.

I wonder if the fact that 15 months probably represents most of his remaining life is taken into account?

[horseplayer]

i am probably naive but reading that report and that the "minor offences" are not enough to be charged shocked and saddened me

[The Camel]

Why was the rape charge allowed to "lay on file"?

Does that mean they didn't think he would get convicted or something else?

[MintTrav]

The defence's argument for mitigation seemed to centre around the fact that he'd only abused a dozen or so children, compared to Savile's 1,300+. 

That's hardly a defence.

As you say, it isn't a defence. It is a reason why the sentence he should receive should be lower than someone whose offences (in number, type or both) were worse.

I meant it was used by the defence as an argument for a lessening of his sentence.  His sentence isn't greater than someone who has carried out fewer offences, because his sentences run concurrently.  Comparing him to Savile in order to reduce his sentence is ridiculous imo.  It's like saying Peter Sutcliffe only killed 13 women so he can't be compared to Harold Shipman.

Well, Sutcliffe and Shipman both killed people, whereas Hall's offences weren't as serious as Savile's. Not just the number, but the type. His lawyer was doing his job in pointing out that, with all the publicity in the last year, some people might tar them both with the same brush.

[titaniumbean]

seems like it's a case of well the 70s gonna 70s and it was all pretty rife.

def should be put down rather than a 6 week jolly getting looked after in prison.

[kinboshi]

The defence's argument for mitigation seemed to centre around the fact that he'd only abused a dozen or so children, compared to Savile's 1,300+. 

That's hardly a defence.

As you say, it isn't a defence. It is a reason why the sentence he should receive should be lower than someone whose offences (in number, type or both) were worse.

I meant it was used by the defence as an argument for a lessening of his sentence.  His sentence isn't greater than someone who has carried out fewer offences, because his sentences run concurrently.  Comparing him to Savile in order to reduce his sentence is ridiculous imo.  It's like saying Peter Sutcliffe only killed 13 women so he can't be compared to Harold Shipman.

Well, Sutcliffe and Shipman both killed people, whereas Hall's offences weren't as serious as Savile's. Not just the number, but the type. His lawyer was doing his job in pointing out that, with all the publicity in the last year, some people might tar them both with the same brush.

His offences were pretty much identical to some of Savile's.

[Claw75]

All the facts are contained in

http://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-stuart-hall

Gives the background, mitigation and policy behind the sentencing rather than wild speculation.

First time I've read through a complete summing up like that.

Disturbing as these things are, and whilst I have no principled objection to quite extreme punishments (castration, death penalty for example), I found it easy to follow and easy to see why the judge concluded/sentenced as he did.

Me too.

And me (although I do have a principled objection to the more extreme punishments mentioned)

[MintTrav]

The defence's argument for mitigation seemed to centre around the fact that he'd only abused a dozen or so children, compared to Savile's 1,300+. 

That's hardly a defence.

As you say, it isn't a defence. It is a reason why the sentence he should receive should be lower than someone whose offences (in number, type or both) were worse.

I meant it was used by the defence as an argument for a lessening of his sentence.  His sentence isn't greater than someone who has carried out fewer offences, because his sentences run concurrently.  Comparing him to Savile in order to reduce his sentence is ridiculous imo.  It's like saying Peter Sutcliffe only killed 13 women so he can't be compared to Harold Shipman.

Well, Sutcliffe and Shipman both killed people, whereas Hall's offences weren't as serious as Savile's. Not just the number, but the type. His lawyer was doing his job in pointing out that, with all the publicity in the last year, some people might tar them both with the same brush.

His offences were pretty much identical to some of Savile's.

Some, definitely. But I thought Savile had others that were a lot more serious.

[horseplayer]

how can touching a girl who is underage even through clothing ever be deemed minor?

[Claw75]

how can touching a girl who is underage even through clothing ever be deemed minor?

because it is, when compared to other types of abuse that sadly occur all too often.  Yes it's wrong, it's not nice to think about but unlikely, imo, to cause any lasting ill effect to the victim, where as less 'minor' offences most definitely could be the cause of serious long term issues.

[Waz1892]

how can touching a girl who is underage even through clothing ever be deemed minor?

because it is, when compared to other types of abuse that sadly occur all too often.  Yes it's wrong, it's not nice to think about but unlikely, imo, to cause any lasting ill effect to the victim, where as less 'minor' offences most definitely could be the cause of serious long term issues.

Acknowledge this is your opinion, to which you have full rights too of course, but really? Are you actually saying that?

so in essence... "its ok sweetheart, he didnt really touch you did he, it was just your tee-shirt/skirt?

[gouty]

The more I think about it, the angrier it makes me. His defence barrister said " merely 13 girls unlike Saviles 1300"!

So that's 13 lives he could of totally tilted unless they had really good support in place. 15 months. The recurrent sentences sends out a really freaky message too. 15 months for " inserting his finger into a 13 year olds vagina" ( who was drunk). All the same sentences and lesser run at the same time. It's just not right.

Is it correct that he has to be sentenced in according to the law 25 years ago?

[Claw75]

how can touching a girl who is underage even through clothing ever be deemed minor?

because it is, when compared to other types of abuse that sadly occur all too often. Yes it's wrong, it's not nice to think about but unlikely, imo, to cause any lasting ill effect to the victim, where as less 'minor' offences most definitely could be the cause of serious long term issues.

Acknowledge this is your opinion, to which you have full rights too of course, but really? Are you actually saying that?

so in essence... "its ok sweetheart, he didnt really touch you did he, it was just your tee-shirt/skirt?

no I'm not saying anything of the kind Waz - that's a big leap you've made there.

what he did was wrong and he deserves to go to prison for it.  that does not mean that those particular offences were not, comparatively, minor ones.