Skip to content

Community: Real Life

The injustice of justice


Rebekah

Rebekah has just finished her second year studying Multimedia Journalism at Bournemouth University. She is a self confessed 'shoe-a-holic', who enjoys days on the beach, BBQs with her housemates and the odd glass of wine.

Rebekah can't understand why sex offenders are getting off so lightly. More cases are being reported, yet the conviction rate is dropping.

The UK justice system believes a person is innocent until proven guilty, but when it comes to sex offenders it feels as if they get off far too easily. Our Government determines how criminals are punished for their wrong doings, but what I want to know is how does the word 'punishment' describe rapists walking free, or child abusers receiving only minimal terms? When I look at it like that I have only one conclusion, the reality of the UK justice system is that it serves no justice at all.

OK, so we might have a falling rate of burglaries, but the amount of sexual crimes being reported has risen 17% in the last year. What's even more worrying is the fact that more and more rapes are being reported each month yet the conviction rate is dropping. I know what you're thinking, have they published the figures correctly? Alarmingly, yes! Only one in five people report their attack to the police, and from that only 14% of these people actually make it to a court room.

It makes me furious to think that not even a quarter of the people who report a rape get the chance to have their rapists tried in a court of law. This is because the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has to believe there's a 50% chance they will win the case before taking it on.

Recently Alan Webster was found guilty of raping a 12-week old baby. Initially he was told he would serve a minimum of six years, but this has now been increased to just eight years - the same as the national average sentence for convicted rapists. Tanya French, who was also charged with sexual offences on the baby, escaped an increase in her original five-year custodial sentence. Yet someone who robbed a fast food outlet a few years ago received life in prison. Granted, he had a history of offences and threatened to use a gun, undoubtedly a traumatic experience for the workers in the restaurant, but the reality is he got away with £240 and no one was hurt.

"Are sex offenders being allowed to walk the streets because the Government is more interested in keeping the population of our prisons down?"

So how does the UK justify its criminal system? It doesn't. In fact the Sentencing Guidelines Council has just announced that sentences of rapists that know their victims, also know as 'acquaintance rapists', will be reduced. These days if you know the person who attacked you it means it's less of a crime.

In 2004 police gave out 40 cautions to admitted rapists, something that is only meant to be done in exceptional cases. Is it just me or is rape being treated like a kid stealing a sweet out of the 'pick n mix' selection in Woollies? I can't believe they actually allow sex offenders to walk out of a police station with just a warning.

A man who had previously been convicted of possessing child pornography later went on to rape a six year old girl. Kevin Hazelwood not only raped this girl, but did it continuously over a three year period, while he was on probation for his last offence. He only received a minimum sentence of five years and seven months in prison. Are sex offenders being allowed to walk the streets because the Government is more interested in keeping the population of our prisons down?

It appears we live in a society where the Government just isn't doing anything about this; latest figures reveal that only 5.3% of cases result in a conviction. It has even been suggested that the defendant in a rape case should be treated with the same sensitivity as the victim, meaning that their name and picture wouldn't be allowed in the press. I just don't think it's being taken seriously enough. Recently Craig Sweeney, a previously convicted paedophile, abducted and sexually assaulted a three year-old girl. He was only jailed for a minimum of five years, despite his record and the judge deeming him a "very high risk to the harm of others".

An Amnesty International survey found that a third of the UK population believe if the victim was drunk at the time they were assaulted, or if they were wearing revealing clothing, then it's partly their own fault. I struggle to understand how if you're drunk it makes it your own doing; what part of "no" isn't clear?

Angry? Submit a rant


Bookmark with:What are these?

Also on TheSite.org