Here we go again. Another suspended sentence for a female sex offender. The article refers to the victim, curiously, as ‘pre-teen’. Does this mean she was 12 at the time of the assaults? 10? 8? We’ll never know. From the article:
Robert Sadd, prosecuting, told her sentencing hearing that Holl had no previous convictions. Duncan O’Donnell, defending, said she had been ‘vulnerable and immature’. He said smitten Holl was ‘ashamed’ of her actions.
Ah yes, the time-honoured ‘vulnerable and immature’ defence. Once again we see more sympathy shown towards a female sex offenders than her victim. Oddly, I can’t recall the ‘vulnerable and immature’ defence being employed for male sex offenders. Back to the article:
Sentencing Holl, Judge Rupert Overbury said she was vulnerable. But he told her: ‘It’s plain to me, as it was to the probation service, you certainly did have the intention of going further than kissing.’
Judge Overbury said Holl had carried out the attacks for her own ‘sexual satisfaction’. Messages between the two indicated Holl was thinking of living with the girl and taking her to Florida, the court heard. She groomed the child and gave her cigarettes and alcohol, the case heard.
What a world we live in, where the justice system will act leniently towards you when you commit a crime, solely on the basis of you having the ‘correct’ genitalia.
