A summary and link to a more detailed review of sentencing http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/findings/sentencing_report_wda84994.html

Ludwig I have considered the points you have raised, no one has yet pointed to any credible evidence to cast doubt on the conviction. Rather its been allegations of a conspiracy or trying to pass of the proven abuses as trivial.

Court processes without physical evidence are difficult, especially after such a long period but I have the impression that has been accounted for. Harris's offenses were less severe than that of others and he got a lighter sentence than he would have received if convicted of worse offenses. In my view not harsh enough for the impact that child sexual abuse often has on the victims.

I don't consider the offenses trivial, I do think his victims will have paid a far higher price for Harris's choices than any penalty Harris will pay.

R0bert

<< Ludwig, I'm of the view that Harris senetence is not at the high end of the scale for the offences he has been convicted of. >>

Agreed R0bert.

I feel inclined to accept the judge’s sentence. I don’t feel happy about some parts of it (eg, six months for simply quickly squeezing ‘B’s left buttock). But there are several concurrent sentences (for 6 out of the 12 offences) which more or less make up for that.

I also note at this point that I have been accused of trying to mitigate Harris’ offences, as though that is an inexplicable and unforgivable thing to do. However the judge did this himself, as is evident on page 5 of his remarks: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sentencing-remarks-mr-j-sweeney-r-v-harris1.pdf

<< Harris was sentenced based on the rules at the time the offences occurred so he may have got off lighter than similar offences committed today. >>

Yes, that is as I understand it.

<< Ludwig I have considered the points you have raised >>

Thanks for that, R0bert.

<< Court processes without physical evidence are difficult, especially after such a long period… >>

Indeed. So we need to be mindful that the scope and severity of the offences and the impact that they had on the victims is all rather uncertain. There is plenty of possibility that it could have all been a fair bit worse or a fair bit less significant than what the court has determined and the jury and judge have accepted.

continued

<< Harris's offenses were less severe than that of others and he got a lighter sentence than he would have received if convicted of worse offenses. >>

Yes, but he has also copped it enormously in ways beyond the official jail sentence. And this is where I really feel that it has all been highly over-the-top, given the ‘low severity’ of his activities/offences.

<< I don't consider the offenses trivial. >>

Agreed, even pertaining to ‘B’.

<< I do think his victims will have paid a far higher price for Harris's choices than any penalty Harris will pay. >>

I’m not so sure about that.

Hey this is good R0bert: I don’t think we are too far apart really in our overall views. And I am very pleased that I can have a good discussion with you about this highly emotive subject. Cheers.

rolf lives..in the real_world
where money..can buy..anything/ESPECIALLY;IN_PRISon*

its time..you lot..grew MORE WISE
BEFORE BOTH GOVT/2\partieS..SEND YOu broke
they bought off..the mEDIA/PRESSTITUTES

“The banking system,..s it now stands is a dis­grace..to civilised communities...It places in the hands of a small..""

UNELECTED/UNEPRESENTATIVE/UNCARING/committee,

<<....the Bankers’ Association,..a power greater than that of Government—without\its responsibility =*to the country.”

Gilmour Brown,..Victorian State\Commission on Banking,1895.>>



TORYISM.

In 1893, during the Australian banks’ smash,..the Governments of the various States rushed eagerly...to the assistance of the afflicted corporations*.

In Queensland,..the Government,..of which a majority were bank directors,*..substituted a State Note Issue..for the discredited notes of the private banks..>>

.[now;forbidden]/by;fed-CONSTITUTION

<<>.The new issues threw the responsibility of redemption upon the Government,..and relieved the banks..from the necessity of keeping a corresponding/amount..[of gold.

In Victoria the Government\guaranteed the private note issues.

The “Argus”..urged the Government to go further...It said (May 16, 1893) that the Government should issue notes..upon the security, of deposit receipts...In its issue of June 9..it stated that banks should be allowed Government notes...to meet liabilities.

It buttressed its arguments..with the statement that the Bank of England issued &#poUNDS..;16,000,000 in notes..outside any gold basis.

When the Federal Labor party came into power in 1910,..the Govern­ment, under Mr. Fisher,...introduced the Australian Notes Bill, This was an application to all Australia of the Queensland note scheme, as originated by the Tory Government of that State in 1893.

But the adoption of the Queensland Tory expedient of ‘93—the expedient whereby legal tender currency,..is given to private banks for the temporary use of gold that flows through the channels of trade..back to the banks—that was no part of the Labor programme...It could not be,..it cannot be,..else between Tory policy and Labor policy there is no difference.

The only justification was that of emergency—the emergency existed The Labor Party of 1910..was confronted with an empty Treasury..and it half a million deficit...It needed to raise money quickly...Instead of interest it paid the price,,*to the banks in a Government guaranteed*..note,..legal tender..*for all their obligations.

http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/anstey%27s%20kingdom%20of%20shylock.html

money talk$$$
moneY..GETS ITS PRIVILEGE
to some,,.money..IS A TOOL/ALL WE NEED..;DO..IS USE/THE POWER*..TO HEAL;..EMPOWER/THE LITTLE GUY*..via govt controling..its own currency/THEMSELVES;AND/Their..mates..[not justscREW-US].

The argument that ones standing in society, ones wealth, ones community service etc should be a consideration when determining a sentence in a criminal matter is simply ridiculous. ALL are, and should be, equal under the law. Loss of earning, public embarrassment, doing good works, having nice songs, etc etc, should be meaningless before the law, in any criminal matter. Its not a parking fine, now is it?

Paul 1405, "Loss of earning, public embarrassment, doing good works, having nice songs, etc etc, should be meaningless before the law, in any criminal matter"

You are talking about sentencing. What about indigenous (Aus) who have been found guilty of rape of children but escaped with a smack over the knuckles? Or does the prevailing Political Correctness excuse some?

<Queensland's Attorney-General Kerry Shine says he will appeal sentences handed down against nine males who gang-raped a 10-year-old girl in 2005.

Cairns-based District Court judge Sarah Bradley did not record convictions against six teenage attackers and gave three others aged 17, 18 and 26 suspended sentences over the incident at the indigenous Aurukun community on Cape York.

The girl had "probably agreed" to have sex with the youths, Judge Bradley said during her sentencing remarks, The Australian newspaper reported.

Mr Shine met with Director of Public Prosecutions Leanne Clare for urgent advice on Monday, and determined the October sentences would be appealed, even though the deadline had passed.

"I am truly horrified by the circumstances of these offences," he told reporters in Brisbane.

"The law should be consistent in its application, whether it be in Aurukun or Clayfield.">

and,

<(Premier)Ms Bligh and Mr Shine did not join others in calling for the sacking of Ms Clare and Judge Bradley.>

Ms Bligh for those who prefer to forget, was the Premier of Queensland at the time. No comment on which government was presiding at the time and most likely made the judicial and other senior bureaucrat appointments, but doubtless some may not bring more than 'gender' to their role.