On the 13th of February 2018 an Adelaide man walked free from court after being found guilty of sexually assaulting his sex year old niece. This fact that he walked free is itself completely unacceptable in modern society.
The Defendant has been drinking heavily on the night of the abuse during his birthday celebration. During the night the man entered his six year old Nieces bedroom under the pretence he had belongings in the room. He was found guilty of removing her pants and licking her around the vagina.
The defendant maintained he did not have any memory of the incident due to his level of intoxication.
During the trial the Judge openly stated:
“the defendant’s offence here does not arise from a deviant sexual interest in this child or in any child. Rather, the offence arises from the defendant’s propensity, at least at that time, to engage in binge drinking, and when significantly intoxicated to engage in unpredictable, inappropriate or bizarre behaviour.”
Entering a six year old girls bedroom under the cover of night, removing her pants and preforming felatio on her does not arise form deviant sexual interest in children? It only happened because of binge drinking. How is alcohol responsible for this situation? Yes the man was intoxicated but that is not an excuse or a defence.
Personally I have always maintained over my own life; Alcohol does not change who you are. Alcohol does not change what you are. Alcohol just assists people in removing the metaphorical mask they wear and allows their true nature to show. It should never be used as an excuse for disgusting behaviour no matter the crime.
The sentence was originally set at 27 months, but the judge once again like every other case I have covered found ‘good reason’ to suspend the sentence.
Alcohol abuse should never be a valid reason to suspend a prison sentence , especially one involving aggravated sexual assault of a small child.
Why was his sentence suspended?
- Sexually assaulting a child is ‘Our of character”
- The crime was not pre-meditated (although it clearly was)
- The psychologist reports states that no treatment is required to treat sexual deviant behaviour only treatment related to the binge drinking.
Lets looks these closer using common sense.
Raping a child was out of character: Should punishment only be determined necessary if committing a crime of this calibre is within the accused character? I’m going to mark this one as a fail.
The crime was not pre-meditated: I personally believe this makes the crime all the worse. Since he did not meticulously plan his crime it must mean he acted on an uncontrollable impulse. How can he be trusted in public, who knows when the next opportunity to abuse a child may present another uncontrollable whim.
No treatment is required to treat sexual deviant behaviour: This man abused a six year old girl who was also his sisters child. How many times do you have to abuse a child before treatment is recommended?
The judges reason for releasing the man from his 27 month prison sentence all should have been reason to extend his sentence.