Thank you for allowing space in your paper to express my outrage at the far too lenient sentence given to an admitted and convicted paedophile.
A five year old boy was sexually assaulted by an adult male, a person whom the judge says clearly knew right from wrong.
The judge said that the seriousness of this crime is perhaps lessened by the fact that it occurred just once. So if you only rape once or murder once or commit an act of terrorism once, your crime is mitigated and you deserve a more lenient punishment?
This act of abuse will stay with this child forever. It will not unfortunately be a one time memory; it could and may cause lasting damage. Why doesn’t the crown get a psychiatrist, a psychologist and parents of sexually-abused children to give scholarly and detailed reports on behalf of the victim in the same way that the defence did for the judge to take into account when sentencing admitted child offenders?
How unfortunate that the judge felt obliged to take into account that the offender spared the victim from a trial; wouldn’t it have been far better for the criminal to have spared this child from his sexual abuse and being mentally scarred for life?
What a good thing the paedophile wasn’t a person in a position of trust like a teacher or stepfather because the defence lawyer thought that the absence of such a relationship made the abuse somehow less. I’m sure that the victim’s mother would disagree.
This unnamed paedophile should get 10 years not two. Even if this criminal’s guilty plea lessens his sentence by a third, this still leaves seven years he could serve… and should serve.