101 year old paedophile jailed for 13 years

Did this vile person think for one minute his advancing years would make a difference to the sentence he received ? He deserves every minute he has been sentenced to in my opinion.

I'm glad most agree that this disgusting man should serve his sentence, even if it means dying in prison. As many have said he showed no remorse.

It's like those Nazis who went into hiding after the second world world and had committed terrible war crimes. They were hunted down and brought to justice even if it was many years later and they were in their 80s & 90s.

There is no statute of limitations.

Harsh? Probably, but I'm not feeling much sympathy to these people and I bet there are dozens of elderly football coaches shaking in their boots. This ever needs rooting out.

He pleaded not guilty , showing remorse doesn't go with a not guilty plea

Is he still capable of abusing children? If he is then prison is the best place for him. If he isn't, which seems to be a possibility given his age, then I think imprisoning him is a waste of limited prison space and even more limited prison resources. Could his freedoms not be limited in some other, less expensive, way?

I think we imprison too many people who are not really a threat to other people's safety. It is right that he has been tried for his crime. I'm not sure that the punishment given is the correct (correct as in most useful to society) one.

I see one or two others have expressed a view similar to mine.

I don't feel any sympathy for him, or anyone who commits such crimes, btw. Sympathy doesn't feature in my view at all, which is about the effectiveness and usefulness of punishments that society hands out.

Don't ever feel sympathy for paedophiles whatever their age. The older they are without convictions just means they have benn sly and manipulative enough to escape detection. Let him die in prison he has ruined children's lives. I have worked with paedophiles and non protecting mothers in the past they never change because they don't think they have done anything wrong.

I think the same thatbags, prisons are overcrowded plus this man has been named and shamed , prison may be a haven for him

Let him rot.

And how do we assess him to see if he's still a danger to children then?

A prison sentence is given for three reasons, to protect the public, punish the guilty and to aid reform.

What proportion each plays in an individual sentence will vary. In his case the main purpose of prison is to punish the guilty. By not pleading guilty, he effectively sexually assaulted the victims again by making them relive their past experiences with him.

Prison is the place for him. It will also warn any other undiscovered old paedophiles that, when caught, their age will be no protection from proper punishment for their crimes.

If his mobility is compromised by old age, his access to children would be thereby limited. That's the sort of initial assessment I was thinking of.

I understand why people want him in prison. What I don't understand is what good it will do in this case (if he isn't mobile enough to get at children), always presuming punishment is meant to prevent further similar faults. Prison doesn't seem to be very effective at that which suggests to me that a lot of the time it's a pointless punishment.

Obviously if he or any other similar person were still mobile enough to be a threat to kids, then he does need to be locked up. The point I and a few others were making is just questioning the purpose of restricting the free movement of someone at (extra) taxpayers' expense when their movement is restricted enough by old age.

Sending anyone to prison as a warning to others is wrong.

And also ineffective, just as hanging was ineffective at deterring the crimes that it was doled out for.

Electronic tagging would be another way of keeping tabs on the 101 year old.

Pointless punishment is not justice. A fair trial, conviction and effective prevention measures is justice. If locking someone up in prison is the only way to achieve prevention measures, as it sometimes is, then that's appropriate. I'm just not (yet) convinced it's appropriate in this case.

If anyone touched my grandsons I would gladly finish the perpetrator off and take the consequences. No softly softly treatment from me.

I'm sure most of us would feel the same, nankate. That's why we have a system that has obviated the need for lynch mobs (which were, and still are, often completely unjust).

Someone suggested up thread that prison might be the soft option in this case. I guess he'd be safe from lynchers there. Maybe that's why it's the sentence.

Being listened to and believed is probably the most important thing for the victims and would encourage other people to come forward.

Why don't they just cut his dinkle off and his hands off??

Because mutilation is against the law wot?

There is more to freedom, or the lack of it, than physical mobility. He walked in and out of court so could clearly move around freely indoors, he could choose what occupations to occupied his time with; watch tv or a film, cook something for himself, choose his food. If he is in a care home, free to walk the corridors, choose who he does or does not talk to, who he sees and when, whether he goes out to see friends and family, even with help. He made his own personal spending decisions, could buy whatever took his fancy, even if someone else buys it for him.

He will now have all his self autonomy taken away, decisions will be made as to when he gets up or goes to bed, when and what occupations he can follow. When he washes, changes his clothes, who he mixes with. He will be very aware that his whole life is now fully in the control of other people and his ability to make personal decisions has been removed.

Punishment is also inflicted as a form of deterrence to other people and to make an offender 'pay' for their crime by suffering pain and incoinvenience, not pain in the physical sense but the pain and problems of having their freedom severely restricted.

I've heard the same OP… but agree with you, getting older hasn't made the victims less a victim of his crimes, so being older shouldn't make him less guilty

Good post, monica. You have convinced me that prison is probably the right sentence for this man.

I don't think anyone has questioned his guiltiness, notanan. The discussion, at least as far as I'm concerned has been about what it's best to do once guilt is proven.

The value of deterrence is hard to prove; but I do agree that this man should be imprisoned because my intuitive reaction is that other perpetrato5rs might get the message that they are never beyond the law, no matter how many years have passed or how old they are.

If someone of 101 was found guilty of, say, armed robbery in years gone by, would anyone be questioning their imprisonment?