Thursday, September 28, 2006
Crime - Two approaches compare and contrast.
The local "news"paper reports here on an unusual story where a child victim of sexual abuse has decided to blackmail her abuser.
There is some dispute over exactly what happened, but a 67 year old man had sexual contact with a girl he knew to be 14. She rather than report the matter to the authorities decided to, shall we say, "sort the compensation out herself" and threatened to tell the authorities if he didn't pay her money, nearly £2000.00p. It was the abuser who ended up going to the police.
Let's look at in order, the sexual contact happened first, what sentence does he get? "John Howard, for the defence, (of the girl) told the court: "In my respectful submission, Mr Hagan has been lucky in the extreme that police took the view that he should have been cautioned for sexual abuse of a girl who he knew to be 14 at the time."" So Hagan the abuser (and the informant) gets a caution, in other words virtually nothing.
What of the blackmailer? Well she gets a 12 month supervision order with a warning that if she breaches the order she'll be back for a different sentence, the next stage up I believe is custody. Additionally: "Bench chair Helen McBride said there would be no compensation, as it may exacerbate the situation."
Now clearly this is a sorry tale, with few if any redeeming features. There's perhaps not much to choose between the two offenders, but one gets off and one gets punished why the difference? Perhaps there is a clue in the article: ""There are two different versions on motivation, but there is no dispute that the girl admits she has demanded money, rather than disclose those facts to other people.""
Yes indeed, she dealt with the matter herself rather than go to the "authorities" whereas Hagan the abuser was an informant. Well done Comrade Hagan, perhaps in addition to letting him off he should have been given an award from the public purse for his help in catching this vicious 14 year old blackmailer, in addition to (naturally) compensating him for the £2000.00p he has already paid out.
There is some dispute over exactly what happened, but a 67 year old man had sexual contact with a girl he knew to be 14. She rather than report the matter to the authorities decided to, shall we say, "sort the compensation out herself" and threatened to tell the authorities if he didn't pay her money, nearly £2000.00p. It was the abuser who ended up going to the police.
Let's look at in order, the sexual contact happened first, what sentence does he get? "John Howard, for the defence, (of the girl) told the court: "In my respectful submission, Mr Hagan has been lucky in the extreme that police took the view that he should have been cautioned for sexual abuse of a girl who he knew to be 14 at the time."" So Hagan the abuser (and the informant) gets a caution, in other words virtually nothing.
What of the blackmailer? Well she gets a 12 month supervision order with a warning that if she breaches the order she'll be back for a different sentence, the next stage up I believe is custody. Additionally: "Bench chair Helen McBride said there would be no compensation, as it may exacerbate the situation."
Now clearly this is a sorry tale, with few if any redeeming features. There's perhaps not much to choose between the two offenders, but one gets off and one gets punished why the difference? Perhaps there is a clue in the article: ""There are two different versions on motivation, but there is no dispute that the girl admits she has demanded money, rather than disclose those facts to other people.""
Yes indeed, she dealt with the matter herself rather than go to the "authorities" whereas Hagan the abuser was an informant. Well done Comrade Hagan, perhaps in addition to letting him off he should have been given an award from the public purse for his help in catching this vicious 14 year old blackmailer, in addition to (naturally) compensating him for the £2000.00p he has already paid out.
