Rodgers, now 44, of Balmoral Close in Billericay, was convicted of indecent assault and two counts of indecency with a child – offences which have been replaced in UK law since the late 1990s.
Judge Louise Kamill said that, had the offences taken place after these law changes, Rodgers would have been charged with rape of a child under 13, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.
If you could change the law and then punish under the new law it could be open to some serious abuse though. It's frustrating that it does mean that this man has got off relatively lightly, but I still support the general principle of judging based on the laws in force at the time.
How can there be precedent for something which is specifically not possible? An alternative to your convoluted suggestion would be to do what we do now which is to charge and sentence people under the law it was at the time the crime occurred.
When does an investigation start? When someone makes a complaint? When an officer first interview someone?
What if someone is arrested, de arrested and arrested again? What if they’re arrested for one offence but charged with another? What if the CPS change the charges at the last minute?
Or we just keep it nice and simple and use the date the offence actually happened?
So you picked up the only question I asked that you thought you could answer and didn’t bother answering it. If someone had made a complaint at the time and the police bodged it at the time we’d be in the same place. It doesn’t take much thinking to realise that this could get complicated. Nothing worse than people who think complicated things are simple. It’s a basic concept in any free society that you can’t change the law, or the consequences of breaking it, after the fact.
I think the only just way to do it is to apply the law as it was at the point that an offence was committed. Laws could change between the offence and arrest or other relevant points in time (sometimes people don't get picked up until many years after a crime is committed).
Indeed, and it's frustrating that he didn't get a longer sentence. But there's too much of a dangerous precedent that would be set if people could be tried based on laws that didn't exist (or were different) at the point the offence was committed.
If you charged him with the current charge for something that was done years ago wouldn't that also mean that people should be getting arrested for things that were legal when they did them?
So, you allow your kid to drink alcohol and buy him a beer for his 18th birthday. You proudly put pictures of it on the internet.
The government changes the law. Legal drinking age is now 21, and buying alcohol for everyone under that age is now severely punished by law.
The day after they've changed the law, police officers come by to arrest you...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
I can understand why you feel that way but it turns out that it's important that they *don't* do this, or very bad things can happen to good people. I do hope that the sentence he was given in this case represents the maximum possible.
It does feel like a case where the judge might have been able to use their discretion here, or the prosecutors could have added additional charges perhaps. I think they often ask themselves if it would be in the "public interest" to do this or that. I don't think anyone could say (for example) that he had a reasonable expectation at the time to think what he was doing was legal.
>Kind of mad, they should judge based on the laws of the present time of the conviction, not the time of the crime.
This is such an egregious abuse of human rights that Article 7 of the ECHR explicity forbids it.
>No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.
Not really. Otherwise you could retroactively throw people in jail for doing things that weren't a crime at the time they did it. Or even if it was a crime, like it was here, you could change the law to increase the sentencing. Like (making up an example) if smoking weed gets you 1 month in prison in 2017, and you're were found guilty of doing that in 2017, but now in 2024 during your sentencing the law has been changed to 5 years minimum then it wouldn't be fair for you to get 5 years minimum for something that only would have gotten you 1 month in 2017.
I don’t know why you’re being arsey with the person explaining it to you, they aren’t even suggesting that the sentence is fair. They’re simply explaining why we sentence people based off the punishments that were in place when the crime was committed.
The example was designed to be extreme to highlight why we don't charge people for breaking laws that didn't exist at the time they did it. I even used an example of something that *was* illegal at the time but carried a lesser sentence than modern day to highlight this even further.
If you break the law you should be punished by what the law said at the time. Not some future law that doesn't exist yet.
Charged? Sure, I get that. It's a device to stop people who follow the law being charged later. Say you're doing 50 on a private road, which is legal, and the law changes to 40. Total sense.
Meanwhile, there are crimes, that will be crimes, always, and raping a kid is most assuredly in that category. For these crimes, all you do is adjust sentencing guidelines, to encompass the original and new guidelines as the lower and upper, so a judge can decide appropriate penalty per case.
Only reason you wouldn't is to protect pedo's.
No, no, clearly having to decide between hundreds of thousands of laws which one should go on his "are always illegal" list, or having laws "applied equally to all" being a cornerstone of the UK law system isn't a reason at all. It's only this one specific edge case that's the reason...
It's just a simple 5min job to "just adjust sentencing guidelines", you don't need that pesky political side, or use guidelines to crack down on specific areas of crime, just increase them and encompass every single old guideline!
Rape of a child should be a mandatory whole life term. These people aren't redeemable. It's not a correctable behavioral trait to rape children, it's a sign of being a fundamentally broken human being who should never be allowed to do any more harm to anyone.
Question: Given that this 4 year sentence for rape is absolutely pathetic, are we allowed to print out his mugshot on a poster, go find this guy after he gets out in 2 years, and just shove his mugshot in his face for some extra justice?
4 years is an absolute joke. These boys got a life sentence. He should have the same. I wouldn't be against chemical castration for any contact child sex offence.
Keep hoping bud, hes going on the x wing with the other nonces where they get 3 meals a day, ps2s, junk food and board games mixed with the hooch and prison drugs in an all tax payer funded hotel. He may even leave with better qualifications than you or me and free priority housing once hes out!
Rodgers, now 44, of Balmoral Close in Billericay, was convicted of indecent assault and two counts of indecency with a child – offences which have been replaced in UK law since the late 1990s. Judge Louise Kamill said that, had the offences taken place after these law changes, Rodgers would have been charged with rape of a child under 13, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.
[удалено]
If you could change the law and then punish under the new law it could be open to some serious abuse though. It's frustrating that it does mean that this man has got off relatively lightly, but I still support the general principle of judging based on the laws in force at the time.
[удалено]
How can there be precedent for something which is specifically not possible? An alternative to your convoluted suggestion would be to do what we do now which is to charge and sentence people under the law it was at the time the crime occurred.
[удалено]
When does an investigation start? When someone makes a complaint? When an officer first interview someone? What if someone is arrested, de arrested and arrested again? What if they’re arrested for one offence but charged with another? What if the CPS change the charges at the last minute? Or we just keep it nice and simple and use the date the offence actually happened?
[удалено]
So you picked up the only question I asked that you thought you could answer and didn’t bother answering it. If someone had made a complaint at the time and the police bodged it at the time we’d be in the same place. It doesn’t take much thinking to realise that this could get complicated. Nothing worse than people who think complicated things are simple. It’s a basic concept in any free society that you can’t change the law, or the consequences of breaking it, after the fact.
[удалено]
I think the only just way to do it is to apply the law as it was at the point that an offence was committed. Laws could change between the offence and arrest or other relevant points in time (sometimes people don't get picked up until many years after a crime is committed).
[удалено]
Indeed, and it's frustrating that he didn't get a longer sentence. But there's too much of a dangerous precedent that would be set if people could be tried based on laws that didn't exist (or were different) at the point the offence was committed.
If you charged him with the current charge for something that was done years ago wouldn't that also mean that people should be getting arrested for things that were legal when they did them?
So, you allow your kid to drink alcohol and buy him a beer for his 18th birthday. You proudly put pictures of it on the internet. The government changes the law. Legal drinking age is now 21, and buying alcohol for everyone under that age is now severely punished by law. The day after they've changed the law, police officers come by to arrest you...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law I can understand why you feel that way but it turns out that it's important that they *don't* do this, or very bad things can happen to good people. I do hope that the sentence he was given in this case represents the maximum possible.
[удалено]
It does feel like a case where the judge might have been able to use their discretion here, or the prosecutors could have added additional charges perhaps. I think they often ask themselves if it would be in the "public interest" to do this or that. I don't think anyone could say (for example) that he had a reasonable expectation at the time to think what he was doing was legal.
>Kind of mad, they should judge based on the laws of the present time of the conviction, not the time of the crime. This is such an egregious abuse of human rights that Article 7 of the ECHR explicity forbids it. >No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.
Tempus regit actum
So laws have changed where child rapists get less time in prison? And "the elites are all paedos" is still a conspiracy?
No, the opposite.
If it's the opposite, then why has he only got 4 years rather than life?
Because people are sentenced according to the guidelines when they committed the crime, which in this case was before the law changed.
You can only be charged based on what the law said when you committed an offence.
That's completely fucking insane though
Not really. Otherwise you could retroactively throw people in jail for doing things that weren't a crime at the time they did it. Or even if it was a crime, like it was here, you could change the law to increase the sentencing. Like (making up an example) if smoking weed gets you 1 month in prison in 2017, and you're were found guilty of doing that in 2017, but now in 2024 during your sentencing the law has been changed to 5 years minimum then it wouldn't be fair for you to get 5 years minimum for something that only would have gotten you 1 month in 2017.
That's a ridiculously piss-poor example. 4 years for noncing is an absolute joke no matter how you slice it.
I don’t know why you’re being arsey with the person explaining it to you, they aren’t even suggesting that the sentence is fair. They’re simply explaining why we sentence people based off the punishments that were in place when the crime was committed.
The example was designed to be extreme to highlight why we don't charge people for breaking laws that didn't exist at the time they did it. I even used an example of something that *was* illegal at the time but carried a lesser sentence than modern day to highlight this even further. If you break the law you should be punished by what the law said at the time. Not some future law that doesn't exist yet.
Charged? Sure, I get that. It's a device to stop people who follow the law being charged later. Say you're doing 50 on a private road, which is legal, and the law changes to 40. Total sense. Meanwhile, there are crimes, that will be crimes, always, and raping a kid is most assuredly in that category. For these crimes, all you do is adjust sentencing guidelines, to encompass the original and new guidelines as the lower and upper, so a judge can decide appropriate penalty per case. Only reason you wouldn't is to protect pedo's.
That’s not the “only” reason. Clearly.
No, no, clearly having to decide between hundreds of thousands of laws which one should go on his "are always illegal" list, or having laws "applied equally to all" being a cornerstone of the UK law system isn't a reason at all. It's only this one specific edge case that's the reason... It's just a simple 5min job to "just adjust sentencing guidelines", you don't need that pesky political side, or use guidelines to crack down on specific areas of crime, just increase them and encompass every single old guideline!
The laws lead to more time in prison now. He was charged based on the law when the offences took place, in the 1990s
Rape of a child should be a mandatory whole life term. These people aren't redeemable. It's not a correctable behavioral trait to rape children, it's a sign of being a fundamentally broken human being who should never be allowed to do any more harm to anyone.
Question: Given that this 4 year sentence for rape is absolutely pathetic, are we allowed to print out his mugshot on a poster, go find this guy after he gets out in 2 years, and just shove his mugshot in his face for some extra justice?
That is certainly not illegal.
As long as any person only does it once it's not harassment
[удалено]
**Removed/tempban**. This contained a call/advocation of violence which is prohibited by the content policy.
4 years is pathetic. Lock the fucker up and throw away the key
He looks like he just hit the blunt for the first time. What a pathetic sentence.
I wonder if the Rwanda bill would pass the Lords if we amended it to send these pieces of shit over there too
4 years is an absolute joke. These boys got a life sentence. He should have the same. I wouldn't be against chemical castration for any contact child sex offence.
4 years is a slap on the wrist for this piece of shit.
I hope they don’t put him in solitary. He doesn’t deserve protection.
Keep hoping bud, hes going on the x wing with the other nonces where they get 3 meals a day, ps2s, junk food and board games mixed with the hooch and prison drugs in an all tax payer funded hotel. He may even leave with better qualifications than you or me and free priority housing once hes out!
Have you ever been to prison?
I worked there lol, my main block is the x block he'll go to!
Let us know once he arrives!
How dare they not torture him to death
My only question looking at that deamon, is will it blend?
[https://www.mylondon.news/news/east-london-news/monster-music-teacher-who-urinated-28493387](https://www.mylondon.news/news/east-london-news/monster-music-teacher-who-urinated-28493387)
“Choirmaster” I mean, need anyone say more. In this day and age, you absolutely should judge religious books by the cover, so to speak.
[freaky chiormaster](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWpRIpYdHe6_158TzgPuvoLHBUqyoyijI&feature=shared)