Youth rapists should lose court anonymity and be named

ONCE again, the ugliness of juvenile crime has hit the headlines, this time in the shape of victims of rape.

And once again, the perpetrators cannot be named because of their age. These three monsters, at 13, 14 or 15 years of age were fully aware of what they were doing or about to do.

We have just learned that the offenders have escaped custodial sentencing. Youth rehabilitation orders hardly cover the seriousness of the offences against these girls of similar age to the offenders

How long must we prevail with this limp excuse for the most heinous of crimes?

If it’s not rape, it’s stabbings – schoolboy on schoolboy; if it’s not stabbings it’s extreme cases of anti-social behaviour.

I think it’s about time that the anonymity law for some underage crimes were scrapped and the offenders should be named and shamed regardless of age.

At the ages 13, 14 and 15, (and in the case of young Jamie Bulger’s torture and subsequent murder, only 10) they were all well aware of what they doing, or about to do.

At this age you know rape and murder is wrong.

These archaic laws were imposed when youngsters were committing what we used to refer to in the 60s as ‘petty crimes’ which included burglary, theft, unruly behaviour etc, (none of which were ‘petty’ should you have been on the receiving end of these).

Rape and murder are not mistakes that can be wrapped up in the adage ‘boys will be boys’ – and it is mostly boys who are the perpetrators, although not exclusively.

These serious crimes should not come under the umbrella of youthful mistakes.

If ‘under-the-cosh’ Prime Minister Keir Starmer wants to show some political clout, he could do worse than address this issue and ban this out-of-date law.

W Martin

Holgate,

York

—

Rape sentencing is a ‘wake-up call to us all’

THE recent court case in Hampshire, where two youths who carried out multiple rapes were given community sentences, must act as a wake up call to us all.

The judge’s rationale for not giving them a custodial sentence was that he did not want to criminalise them unnecessarily.

I’m afraid that, by carrying out multiple rapes and placing videos of their actions on you tube, they had already criminalised themselves. It is essential that the appeal court reviews this sentence, otherwise it will reinforce the message that misogynists like Andrew Tate have been spreading: that violence against women and girls is acceptable for male gratification. It certainly isn’t in the sort of civilised society I want to live in. and the legal system must impose sentences which deter contrary views.

Tony Fisher,

(Liberal Democrat councillor for Strensall ward)

West End,

Strensall,

York

—

Rather be a judge than a coalminer…

A SKETCH by Peter Cook once stated that he would rather be a judge than a coalminer because, when you become too stupid and silly to work, the mine gets rid of you.

Where the exact opposite can be said of a judge.

This certainly seems to be the case in Southampton where a number of vicious, scheming, predatory teenaged boys have basically got away with rape because a judge thinks that perpetrators with ADHD or a lower than average IQ or stress cannot be held responsible for their (planned) actions and therefore should not receive a custodial sentence!

Unbelievable.

I pray their victims can live a life in the future with at least some semblance of normality. Though I doubt it.

Nigel Cummings,

Charlton Street,

York

What do you think?

Feel strongly about an issue? Write us a letter. Please write no more than 250 words and you must provide your full name, address and mobile number. Send your views by email to: letters@thepress.co.uk

Write a comment

Join the debate and leave a comment in our comments section below this article – we may use your comments for a follow up article.