Yet another of those cases where you can’t fail to wonder what sentence would have been handed down if the paedophile were a man rather than a woman, and the victim a young girl. It would certainly been a damned sight longer prison sentence than this:
From the article:
Judge Robert Juckes QC said: ‘I make no secret of the fact your case has given me cause for much consideration. I have come to the conclusion that due to the concern and embarrassment caused to both you and your family that you will not be offending again, let alone committing sexual offences… That does not stop the fact though that you had full sexual intercourse with a child when he was eight to 10 years old – by his evidence it was upwards of fifty times.
Nowhere in the article is there any apparent concern for the boy, no recognition of the possibility of long-term damage to his development, as there certainly would be if the victim had been a young girl. It’s been known for at least 30 years that the majority of convicted (male) rapists were sexually assaulted as children by one or more women, usually their own mothers.
