There was that case with the two ten year old boys who raped an eight year old girl. It was reported to varying degrees. Before the trial began, the comment section of these articles were full of people wanting to bring back hanging. Then when the girl "admitted she was lying" (as falsely reported in every major news outlet) the comment sections were full of people saying how outrageous it is that this case was even brought to trial. Then when they were found guilty of attempted rape and sentenced to something like 9 months, the comment section was again baying for blood.
It shows two things: the easily-manipulated nature of the sheep-like masses and the outright lies told by the mainstream press. That girl never said she was lying. She was asked a bunch of leading questions by a really shit barrister and she always gave the answer that the barrister was leading her to.
You weren't actually raped. Were you?
The boys didn't show you their penis. Did they?
She'd give the answer that she wanted and then say "were you?" or something like this. You can't ask leading questions of an adult. How this was allowed with a child, I have no idea. The judge stopped her several times and told her to stop asking leading questions but she just continued and the judge took no further action.
They were going to throw the case out. But then they asked for a transcript of her evidence. So I did the transcript and put full stops after each one of these so-called "questions" even though the style guide requires question marks after everything the barrister says. Then when they read the transcript, everyone agreed that these were insanely leading questions and to effectively disregard all of that testimony elicited from that shit barrister.
But read the news and they all talk about how the girl was lying. The only people who came close to reporting accurately were the Daily Mail. At least in this particular piece:
The Guardian repeatedly published stories about how the girl was lying. It's flaggrantly false. The BBC also published numerous stories claiming that the girl was lying but the Guardian seemed to really revel in this lie. What's the agenda?
For what it's worth, these boys took that girl out to a park and raped her. There's no question in my mind about that. They double-penetrated her. The only reason that they were found guilty of attempted rape and not actual rape was because there was medical evidence which suggested that it wasn't physically possible to penetrate a girl that young. But that whole "the girl was lying" thing that media told...not a single juror or anyone else who actually heard the case was influenced by that. They all saw that the barrister was clearly asking leading questions and the girl was just giving the answers that the barrister wanted.
Those boys got a three year supervision order. So effectively nothing. No prizes for guessing the race of the lead boy.
Where was I? Got up to take a dump. Oh, yeah. Very difficult to get convictions.
I mean...I had a case where a girl was raped by her cousin and she had him on tape all but admitting to it. It was something like:
Are you sorry for what you you did to me?
I can't take it back. I wish I could change what happened, but I can't.
It went on like this. Wasn't enough proof for the jury.
And four years is nothing to sneeze at. Murderers get 15 years maximum. I don't know if it's an actual statute but I've never seen a murderer get more than 15 years.
Although, I don't think they're actually released after 15 years. I think after 15 years they're eligible for parole. I could be wrong about all of this.
So to get a molestation conviction with a five year old as the main witness is an accomplishment. And four years...good character...it's in line with what I'd expect. Speedy trial too. I'm thinking he pled guilty.