gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
on 12 Oct 00:56
nextcollapse
Conservatives when a criminal justice system is punishing someone they don’t like: “Blood for the blood god!”
Conservatives when someone’s held accountable for a hate crime: “What has happened to our humanity?!”
rumschlumpel@feddit.org
on 12 Oct 01:42
nextcollapse
“child, 13” - a 13yo is a teenager, not a child.
That article was a pain in the ass to read, horribly structured.
What she did: “The court heard the girl was taken to the protest outside the Potters International Hotel, which houses asylum seekers, by a parent of a friend. Police body-worn video showed the teenager briefly bang and kick at a door of the hotel while voices could be heard telling her to stop.”
Her sentence, a “12-month referral order”: “A referral order means you are required to attend a youth offender panel. The panel, you, your parents/carers and the victim (where appropriate) agree a contract aimed at repairing the harm that has been caused and addressing the causes of the offending behaviours.” (unlock.org.uk/advice/referral-order-18/)
The conviction seems to be on permanent record, though, which does seem a bit much for this considering her age.
Telodzrum@lemmy.world
on 12 Oct 02:08
nextcollapse
At 13, they are both basically and literally teenagers, which comes with the legal consequence of being liable for criminal actions.
MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown@fedia.io
on 12 Oct 03:45
nextcollapse
I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure “teenager” is not a legal distinction for which liability is determined. You are either an adult or not, and judges have leeway to funnel non-adults through an alternative justice system not available to adults.
I’ve never heard of that legal distinction, but I want you to go talk to any parent of a 13 year old and ask how they refer to a 13 year old and the vast majority will call those people a child and also call them a teenager. A ton of teachers will do the same thing.
At age 19 you are still a teenager but in the eyes of the law many times you are considered an adult.
So it is fair to call a 13 year old a child because basically they still are.
And if my daughter did something like this last year, I would absolutely want her to face legal repercussions. I love her, but that doesn’t mean I would find this to be in any way acceptable behavior, and at a level beyond what I as a parent could do.
I would, however, do my best to make sure she was put in a juvenile facility and given good mental healthcare.
gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
on 12 Oct 02:20
nextcollapse
If the Wikipedia page on expungement is accurate there is some sort of process where it will get sealed from public view after a certain amount of time has passed.
I do agree if this is a one off thing it shouldn’t haunt the rest of her life, especially given the fact that we’re talking about a thirteen year old who was a victim of (at best) extremely negligent caregiving.
rumschlumpel@feddit.org
on 12 Oct 02:32
nextcollapse
Good find! And yeah, the referral order sentence seems to be rather obviously aimed at rehabilitation instead of punishing, would be weird if that was combined with a lifelong criminal record that is visible to potential employers and the like.
Agree. Was too soft. She went in and charged to vandalize and attack asylum seekers. Maybe some exile will teach her some empathy on how those people were already feeling.
There is a point to be made that it should be recognised that children can be groomed into abhorrent behaviour - similarities with Shamima Begum spring to mind.
The Express is not the place to go for that though, as it is an appalling shitrag which is firmly on the side of the rioters.
BrundleFly2077@sh.itjust.works
on 12 Oct 07:28
nextcollapse
“Shitrag.” I just wanted to say it too. “Shitrag.”
threaded - newest
Daily Express - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Daily Express:
> MBFC: Right - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
> Wikipedia about this source
Search topics on Ground.News
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1958933/uk-riots-child-sentenced-no-future?int_source=nba
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
Conservatives when a criminal justice system is punishing someone they don’t like: “Blood for the blood god!”
Conservatives when someone’s held accountable for a hate crime: “What has happened to our humanity?!”
“child, 13” - a 13yo is a teenager, not a child.
That article was a pain in the ass to read, horribly structured.
What she did: “The court heard the girl was taken to the protest outside the Potters International Hotel, which houses asylum seekers, by a parent of a friend. Police body-worn video showed the teenager briefly bang and kick at a door of the hotel while voices could be heard telling her to stop.”
Her sentence, a “12-month referral order”: “A referral order means you are required to attend a youth offender panel. The panel, you, your parents/carers and the victim (where appropriate) agree a contract aimed at repairing the harm that has been caused and addressing the causes of the offending behaviours.” (unlock.org.uk/advice/referral-order-18/)
The conviction seems to be on permanent record, though, which does seem a bit much for this considering her age.
Teenagers are children, my dude.
Teenagers are minors, but not children, my guy.
At 13 they basically are still children
At 13, they are both basically and literally teenagers, which comes with the legal consequence of being liable for criminal actions.
I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure “teenager” is not a legal distinction for which liability is determined. You are either an adult or not, and judges have leeway to funnel non-adults through an alternative justice system not available to adults.
I’ve never heard of that legal distinction, but I want you to go talk to any parent of a 13 year old and ask how they refer to a 13 year old and the vast majority will call those people a child and also call them a teenager. A ton of teachers will do the same thing.
At age 19 you are still a teenager but in the eyes of the law many times you are considered an adult.
So it is fair to call a 13 year old a child because basically they still are.
I have a 14-year-old.
They’re children.
And if my daughter did something like this last year, I would absolutely want her to face legal repercussions. I love her, but that doesn’t mean I would find this to be in any way acceptable behavior, and at a level beyond what I as a parent could do.
I would, however, do my best to make sure she was put in a juvenile facility and given good mental healthcare.
If the Wikipedia page on expungement is accurate there is some sort of process where it will get sealed from public view after a certain amount of time has passed.
I do agree if this is a one off thing it shouldn’t haunt the rest of her life, especially given the fact that we’re talking about a thirteen year old who was a victim of (at best) extremely negligent caregiving.
Good find! And yeah, the referral order sentence seems to be rather obviously aimed at rehabilitation instead of punishing, would be weird if that was combined with a lifelong criminal record that is visible to potential employers and the like.
Like, who the fuck lets some guy take their child to a violent riot?
But a 22-year old is a child, also.
Yuck, Daily Express. One of the nastiest rags in the UK.
Agree. Was too soft. She went in and charged to vandalize and attack asylum seekers. Maybe some exile will teach her some empathy on how those people were already feeling.
The Daily Express is an utter shitrag, don’t give them clicks
There is a point to be made that it should be recognised that children can be groomed into abhorrent behaviour - similarities with Shamima Begum spring to mind.
The Express is not the place to go for that though, as it is an appalling shitrag which is firmly on the side of the rioters.
“Shitrag.” I just wanted to say it too. “Shitrag.”
😋
How can they be racists?! They’re middle-class!
Christ I hate The Express.