15 Year-Old BackPage Prostitute Sentenced To 9-years In Prison

First topic message reminder :

15 Year-Old BackPage Prostitute Sentenced To 9-years In Prison

GRAND RAPIDS, MI – A 15-year-old girl and mother of two toddlers was sentenced to prison for helping to rob prospective johns who responded to an Internet sex ad.

15-year-old prostitute sentenced to 9-years prison for robbing a trick with a toy gun

Latesha Clay was sentenced Monday, Jan. 11, to nine years in prison for robbing two men who responded to an ad on Backpage.com. The ad offered sex with a teen.

The victims were robbed after they showed up at a room at Motel 6, 4855 28th St. SE.

Clay wept during the hearing, with family behind her filling many seats in the gallery.

Also charged are Trayvin Donnell Lewis, 18, and Monee Duepre Atkinson, 17.

Police say Latesha Clay met the men at the door, and invited them inside after taking their payment. Lewis then threatened them with what turned out to be an Airsoft pistol with the orange tip removed. Police say the older defendants forced one of the victims to drive to an automated-teller machine and withdraw $300.

Clay’s mother and grandmother wrote the judge, seeking leniency.
Johnson said of her client: “She’s wholeheartedly sorry.”

Kent County Circuit Judge George “Jay” Quist sentenced Clay at the low end of sentencing guidelines but said she deserved a significant prison sentence because of the seriousness of the crime, with a gun pointed at the head or neck of one of the men.

Clay pleaded guilty to two counts of armed robbery and two counts of unlawful imprisonment.

http://rawnews.me/064d0e2ffd15


What the actual fuck??? This girl is just a girl, with two toddlers at only FIFTEEN years old and a prostitute. The men who got her pregnant, the ones who replied  to her as for "sex with a teen"......and she's being sent to jail???
HOW exactly is that going to help her or help rehabilitate her???

Is it me, or does anyone else think this sentence is just ridiculous??

that is bullshit

there is no way she should get jail, she is a minor herself.
a few hundred dollars and she gets 9 years!! heaps of bankers and service providers steal thousands of times that every day and get nothing.

In a lot of ways she is preventing crime
these guys that got robbed will surely think twice before trying to pay a teen for sex in the future

Miffs2 wrote:What are you basing your comments about social services etc on?

What are you basing your comment that 'the father/s of her children should be prosecuted' on...?

Miffs2 wrote:


I can't imagine why the fathers of her children weren't prosecuted 

Syl wrote:

sassy wrote:


Absolutely spot on Syl.

I think Quill is using his courtroom tactics in trying to confuse the issue .

Why?

This isn't about the father of the two children, this is about armed robbery and demanding money with menaces. She lured men to a motel and then threatened them so they would give her money. I don't see that her background and the choices she made have any significance.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12129521/Dragons-Den-star-found-not-guilty-of-child-sex-offences.html

What a travesty of justice...man  has sex with a six stone four foot something 13 year old.....and gets away with it....bloody paedophile.

That case is the exception to the rule btw.....his millions and friendship with Cameron must have had NOTHING to do with it.

Oh without a doubt.

Raggamuffin wrote:This isn't about the father of the two children, this is about armed robbery and demanding money with menaces. She lured men to a motel and then threatened them so they would give her money. I don't see that her background and the choices she made have any significance.

Well at the very least she needs the help of social services, not prison.
How is prison going to help?

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:This isn't about the father of the two children, this is about armed robbery and demanding money with menaces. She lured men to a motel and then threatened them so they would give her money. I don't see that her background and the choices she made have any significance.

Well at the very least she needs the help of social services, not prison.
How is prison going to help?

Help who? The men who thought they would be shot if they didn't give her money? Let's not forget about them.

Well yes technically they're victims but let's face it, they're also paedophiles so being shot is an apt result I'd say.

eddie wrote:Well yes technically they're victims but let's face it, they're also paedophiles so being shot is an apt result I'd say.

She put herself forward as bait in order to rob people, and she knew what she was doing. Are we to excuse her because of her age?

It's unclear what the victims thought they were getting into. "Sex with a teen" doesn't necessarily mean someone underage. Of course it's sleazy, but that's some men for you (and women).

Tommy Monk wrote:She is not a child... she is well above the age of criminal responsibility... and is an armed robber!!!


And not just a random act on the spur of the moment in desperation... it was completely premeditated!!!



She had money to put up the ad and buy a gun... and time to sit back and wait for victims...



And I repeat... if the ad itself was not illegal... then anyone responding was not doing anything illegal either!

It was a toy gun...probably bought for a few dollars.
It doesn't make it right because obviously the perverts looking for sex with a minor thought it was real.. but don't lets pretend she had a loaded magnum aimed at them.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

I think Quill is using his courtroom tactics in trying to confuse the issue .

Why?

Why? because you cited a man who was 40 when he was charged and found guilty of the the murder of a young girl...the young girl in this topic has no connection with his case.
Yes, they were both abused as children, and if Davis (the man you mentioned) had been helped when he was a child the girl he killed when he was an adult would possibly still be alive.

You said "By the time they turn into animals it's just not worth feeling sorry for them"......people don't just "turn into animals" there are obvious signs for many years in most cases....as there was in the case you mentioned.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:She is not a child... she is well above the age of criminal responsibility... and is an armed robber!!!


And not just a random act on the spur of the moment in desperation... it was completely premeditated!!!



She had money to put up the ad and buy a gun... and time to sit back and wait for victims...



And I repeat... if the ad itself was not illegal... then anyone responding was not doing anything illegal either!

It was a toy gun...probably bought for a few dollars.
It doesn't make it right because obviously the perverts looking for sex with a minor thought it was real.. but don't lets pretend she had a loaded magnum aimed at them.

It's still armed robbery Syl - the men believed the gun was real.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

It was a toy gun...probably bought for a few dollars.
It doesn't make it right because obviously the perverts looking for sex with a minor thought it was real.. but don't lets pretend she had a loaded magnum aimed at them.

It's still armed robbery Syl - the men believed the gun was real.

I know I said that.
You and I always see cases where youngsters are involved in a different way, but what do you think of the sentence she has been given?

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

What a travesty of justice...man  has sex with a six stone four foot something 13 year old.....and gets away with it....bloody paedophile.

That case is the exception to the rule btw.....his millions and friendship with Cameron must have had NOTHING to do with it.

Oh without a doubt.

I agree... he says that he thought she was 16 but then also admits paying her!


Isn't it illegal to pay 16 year old for sex!?

eddie wrote:Well yes technically they're victims but let's face it, they're also paedophiles so being shot is an apt result I'd say.

How are they pedophiles!?


They responded to a legal advert... the age of 15 was not specified.


Teen means 18/19 or just an adult who looks like a teen.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:She is not a child... she is well above the age of criminal responsibility... and is an armed robber!!!


And not just a random act on the spur of the moment in desperation... it was completely premeditated!!!



She had money to put up the ad and buy a gun... and time to sit back and wait for victims...



And I repeat... if the ad itself was not illegal... then anyone responding was not doing anything illegal either!

It was a toy gun...probably bought for a few dollars.
It doesn't make it right because obviously the perverts looking for sex with a minor thought it was real.. but don't lets pretend she had a loaded magnum aimed at them.

Irrelevant... it was still armed robbery.


If you go into a bank with a toy gun or even with nothing at all but say you have a gun or whatever other weapon/bomb etc.. and try to rob it... are you excused because you didn't actually have a real weapon or if you are 15!?


Of course not!!!


So don't be Sylly!

Oh very droll..

Teens accused of luring robbery victims
5:16 p.m. EDT August 26, 2015


Monee Duepre Atkinson and Trayvin Donnell Lewis(Photo: Kent County Correctional Facility)
CASCADE TOWNSHIP, Mich. (WZZM) -- Three teens face charges after they lured people to a hotel room in order to rob them, according to the Kent County Sheriff Department.
Investigators responded to the area of 28th St. and Patterson early Monday morning on the report of an armed robbery at a nearby hotel. When deputies arrived to meet the victim, he said he had arranged through Backpage.com to meet someone at the Motel 6 at 4855 28th Street SE. He said he was invited into a hotel room by two teenage girls. As he walked in, he said another individual who had been hiding around a corner emerged, pointed a gun at him, and demanded his money and his cell phone. The assailant and one of the girls then forced the victim to drive them to an ATM, where they forced him to withdraw $300 and give it to them. The victim then drove them back to the Motel 6, dropped them off, and drove away to call police.
Deputies identified the girls as 17-year-old Monee Duepre Atkinson and a 15-year-old friend. They say the assailant is 18-year-old Trayvin Donnell Lewis. All three are from Grand Rapids and are said to be cooperative with the investigation. Deputies also said the weapon involved was an airsoft pistol.
Lewis and Atkinson have been arraigned on two counts of armed robbery, two counts of unlawful imprisonment, and conspiracy to commit armed robbery. Lewis also faces a count of being in possession of a firearm while committing a felony. Lewis and Atkinson are each held on $500,000 bond. The 15-year-old has also been charged, but deputies aren't releasing her name because of her age.
Investigators say they've identified and contacted several more victims, and believe there are many more still they haven't yet identified. Additional victims, and anyone with information on the case, should call the Kent County Sheriff Department at 616-632-6357 or Silent Observer at 616-774-2345.

Not that I doubt the validity of anything from 'RAW STORY'...but, they do push the sensational without including much factual data to their headlines - rather like the 'National Enquirer' type of stories.

Teen mother who lured robbers with Internet sex ad learns her sentence
WLNS Web Staff Published: January 11, 2016, 5:51 pm  

 GRAND RAPIDS, MI (WLNS) – A 15-year-old mother has been sentenced to nine years behind bars for robbing people who responded to an Internet ad offering sex with a teen.
Latesha Clay, 15 robbed two men who showed up at a hotel to have sex with a teen in response to an ad on Backpage.com.
Prior to being sentenced, Clay pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawful imprisonment and two counts of armed robbery.
An MLive story on October 15, 2015 said Clay was tried as an adult.
There were two additional teens involved, Monee Duepre Atkinson, 17 and Trayvin Donnell Lewis, 18.
Monee Duepre Atkinson, 17 and Trayvin Donnell Lewis,18
Both are charged, but have not been sentenced at this time.

Once she plead {basically throwing herself on the mercy of the Michigan court system} her charges for kidnapping/armed robbery - charged as an adult due to the seriousness of these crimes...she was pretty dam lucky.  And with good behavior she might be out in 4-5 years at the most --- if she behaves while incarcerated.

I am not without empathy for her utter lack of social skills and her horrid choice of friends and method of making money; but when do we start making any human pay for those wayward stupid choices that they willfully make? 
Armed Robbery - Kidnapping --- WTF?  
Despite the enticement for prostitution of a minor by the young man; who appears to be the 'PIMP' in this entire scheme~~~ 

Now as far as this 15yr old and her baby making history; as any of our Social Service topics have been discussed before...the CPS {child protective services} budget has been cut steadily by the Republicans for - ever and this state of Michigan has one of the highest rates of babies having babies/rape and molestation and understaffed agencies to handle all of the social ills. 

But not every child momma - becomes a kidnapper/armed robber/hooker to make ends meet; so that to me - falls right back onto the immediate family --- who was benefitting from her ill gotten gains?  

Where were the 'weeping family' members before the court appearance?  UGHHHHH

Syl wrote:Oh very droll..

Funny though!

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's still armed robbery Syl - the men believed the gun was real.

I know I said that.
You and I always see cases where youngsters are involved in a different way, but what do you think of the sentence she has been given?

It might seem harsh, but as it was armed robbery it seems fair. People need to check the law before they start indulging in that kind of behaviour.

It seems that the girl learned nothing after the first time she got pregnant.

Wouldn't this be a perfect topic for our 'Criminal Thread'? 
It does seem that we're having a perfectly good adult discussion about this social issue and her adjudicated case 

eddie wrote:Well yes technically they're victims but let's face it, they're also paedophiles so being shot is an apt result I'd say.

Scuz for coming in late, but...the status of one's victim is another subject. Raggs is right, the girl's status and crimes are at issue. Her age is relevant, however.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Why?

Why? because you cited a man who was 40 when he was charged and found guilty of the  the murder of a young girl...the young girl in this topic has no connection with his case.
Yes, they were both abused as children, and if Davis (the man you mentioned) had been helped when he was a child the girl he killed when he was an adult would possibly still be alive.

Yes...I want to respect your position.  But that kind of all-inclusive judgement will come at Heaven's gate.  For now, we have to draw some lines.

Age is relevant to another matter.  The parallel between this girl and Davis is they were both engaged in serious, life-threatening crimes.  He killed Polly with his hands.  She put a gun to a man's head. BTW, it was not a toy gun, it was an air gun. It has a projectile propelled by compressed air rather than exploding gas (firearm). The fact that it was an air gun rather than a firearm is not legally significant, nor is it factually all that distinguishable: she could have down serious damage to the brain had it gone off into the temple...or suppose he had a heart attack?

Syl wrote:You said "By the time they turn into animals it's just not worth feeling sorry for them"......people don't just "turn into animals" there are obvious signs for many years in most cases....as there was in the case you mentioned.  

I certainly know the 'cause-effect' of social development.  I'm a liberal, remember?  Lol.  But unless you invent a machine that zaps a person and turns back the clock to a stage in moral development that can be rehabilitated, this girl is gone.  Historically, I can shake my head and lament with the best of them, but you can't change history as much as you may think it's a shame.

This girl, at her age, has made some choices.  One hopes that in prison she will receive some rehabilitative help.  But at this point, she's beyond anger-management classes.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Why? because you cited a man who was 40 when he was charged and found guilty of the  the murder of a young girl...the young girl in this topic has no connection with his case.
Yes, they were both abused as children, and if Davis (the man you mentioned) had been helped when he was a child the girl he killed when he was an adult would possibly still be alive.

Yes...I want to respect your position.  But that kind of all-inclusive judgement will come at Heaven's gate.  For now, we have to draw some lines.

Age is relevant to another matter.  The parallel between this girl and Davis is they were both engaged in serious, life-threatening crimes.  He killed Polly with his hands.  She put a gun to a man's head.  BTW, it was not a toy gun, it was an air gun.  It has a projectile propelled by compressed air rather than exploding gas (firearm).  The fact that it was an air gun rather than a firearm is not legally significant, nor is it factually all that distinguishable: she could have down serious damage to the brain had it gone off into the temple...or suppose he had a heart attack?

Syl wrote:You said "By the time they turn into animals it's just not worth feeling sorry for them"......people don't just "turn into animals" there are obvious signs for many years in most cases....as there was in the case you mentioned.  

I certainly know the 'cause-effect' of social development.  I'm a liberal, remember?  Lol.  But unless you invent a machine that zaps a person and turns back the clock to a stage in moral development that can be rehabilitated, this girl is gone.  Historically, I can shake my head and lament with the best of them, but you can't change history as much as you may think it's a shame.

This girl, at her age, has made some choices.  One hopes that in prison she will receive some rehabilitative help.  But at this point, she's beyond anger-management classes.

It was described as a toy gun in court...my son and grandson often go to Airsoft and the worst they have suffered is a few bruises....and yes they have been hit by the ammo quite a lot.....but I take your point that it is still a weapon.

Your second point I don't agree with. The girl is 15...she is not 'gone'. She obviously needs help and lots of counselling, she has obviously had no role models or guidance, so we are where we are.....but a 9 year prison sentence, where no doubt she will emerge as a hardened criminal ready to do serious damage in society, is not the way forwards imo.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I know I said that.
You and I always see cases where youngsters are involved in a different way, but what do you think of the sentence she has been given?

It might seem harsh, but as it was armed robbery it seems fair. People need to check the law before they start indulging in that kind of behaviour.

It seems that the girl learned nothing after the first time she got pregnant.

It is harsh...she is a kid and should be in a facility where she is helped not given up on.
As for the pregnancies...she would have been 13 possibly younger....and we don't know the circumstances, she could have been raped for all we know.

4EVER2 wrote:Wouldn't this be a perfect topic for our 'Criminal Thread'? 
It does seem that we're having a perfectly good adult discussion about this social issue and her adjudicated case 

  

Age, as an excuse, only goes so far. She was determined to be appropriately tried as an adult. That is where, in the procedure, that you should take issue.

The decision to try her as an adult is where a court determined that she as 'gone' (as we have been discussing) and that we should no longer feel sympathy (or whatever we feel) because of her age. Those are not 'snap' decisions, wantonly passed down. The court takes into consideration the age of the accused, the nature of the crime and mental state of the accused. Somewhere in there, the court was to have considered her tractability to rehabilitation.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes...I want to respect your position.  But that kind of all-inclusive judgement will come at Heaven's gate.  For now, we have to draw some lines.

Age is relevant to another matter.  The parallel between this girl and Davis is they were both engaged in serious, life-threatening crimes.  He killed Polly with his hands.  She put a gun to a man's head.  BTW, it was not a toy gun, it was an air gun.  It has a projectile propelled by compressed air rather than exploding gas (firearm).  The fact that it was an air gun rather than a firearm is not legally significant, nor is it factually all that distinguishable: she could have down serious damage to the brain had it gone off into the temple...or suppose he had a heart attack?



I certainly know the 'cause-effect' of social development.  I'm a liberal, remember?  Lol.  But unless you invent a machine that zaps a person and turns back the clock to a stage in moral development that can be rehabilitated, this girl is gone.  Historically, I can shake my head and lament with the best of them, but you can't change history as much as you may think it's a shame.

This girl, at her age, has made some choices.  One hopes that in prison she will receive some rehabilitative help.  But at this point, she's beyond anger-management classes.

It was described as a toy gun in court...my son and grandson often go to Airsoft and the worst they have suffered is a few bruises....and yes they have been hit by the ammo quite a lot.....but I take your point that it is still a weapon.

Your second point I don't agree with. The girl is 15...she is not 'gone'. She obviously needs help and lots of counselling, she has obviously had no role models or guidance, so we are where we are.....but a 9 year prison sentence, where no doubt she will emerge as a hardened criminal ready to do serious damage in society, is not the way forwards imo.

Described as a toy gun in court...?

Who by...?

The defence team by any chance?


It doesn't matter as far as the criminal act of robbery is concerned...


It was not a 'toy robbery'... it was a real robbery, of real victims, of real money, and inflicting real fear, with what appeared to be a real firearm!!!


Air guns and gas powered guns ARE classed as firearms!



Why is it that some people here seem to have the idea that criminals should be treated completely differently depending on whether they are male or female!?


When it is a male criminal... we hear... "nasty bastard" and "should throw away the key" etc...


But when it is a female criminal... committing the same sort of heinous crimes... we hear... "oh the poor girl" and "she must be the real victim in life to have done such a thing" and "prison is wrong for her, she needs help and counselling" etc...!?



It was only a few weeks ago when this case was being discussed...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3527842/Teenage-girls-battered-vulnerable-woman-death-home-paused-selfies-jailed-15-years.html


And the same people here were saying the same thing about those two evil murdering bastards needing 'help and counselling' rather than prison... but only because they were girls too!!!


Next they will be trying to tell us that myra hindly was just a naughty girl who needed 'help and counselling"...

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It might seem harsh, but as it was armed robbery it seems fair. People need to check the law before they start indulging in that kind of behaviour.

It seems that the girl learned nothing after the first time she got pregnant.

It is harsh...she is a kid and should be in a facility where she is helped not given up on.
As for the pregnancies...she would have been 13 possibly younger....and we don't know the circumstances, she could have been raped for all we know.

She could have raped a younger boy for all we know...


Is irrelevant to the actual crime of armed robbery that she committed.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:

It is harsh...she is a kid and should be in a facility where she is helped not given up on.
As for the pregnancies...she would have been 13 possibly younger....and we don't know the circumstances, she could have been raped for all we know.

She could have raped a younger boy for all we know...


Is irrelevant to the actual crime of armed robbery that she committed.

Who's being Sylly now?

Tommy Monk wrote:





Why is it that some people here seem to have the idea that criminals should be treated completely differently depending on whether they are male or female!?


When it is a male criminal... we hear... "nasty bastard" and "should throw away the key" etc...


But when it is a female criminal... committing the same sort of heinous crimes... we hear... "oh the poor girl" and "she must be the real victim in life to have done such a thing" and "prison is wrong for her, she needs help and counselling" etc...!?



It was only a few weeks ago when this case was being discussed...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3527842/Teenage-girls-battered-vulnerable-woman-death-home-paused-selfies-jailed-15-years.html


And the same people here were saying the same thing about those two evil murdering bastards needing 'help and counselling' rather than prison... but only because they were girls too!!!


Next they will be trying to tell us that myra hindly was just a naughty girl who needed 'help and counselling"...

Myra Hindly was a woman.
I don't think people are more sympathetic to underage girls more than underage boys...I'm not. A kid is a kid no matter which gender they are.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:
It was described as a toy gun in court...my son and grandson often go to Airsoft and the worst they have suffered is a few bruises....and yes they have been hit by the ammo quite a lot.....but I take your point that it is still a weapon.

Your second point I don't agree with. The girl is 15...she is not 'gone'. She obviously needs help and lots of counselling, she has obviously had no role models or guidance, so we are where we are.....but a 9 year prison sentence, where no doubt she will emerge as a hardened criminal ready to do serious damage in society, is not the way forwards imo.

Described as a toy gun in court...?

Who by...?

The defence team by any chance?


It doesn't matter as far as the criminal act of robbery is concerned...


It was not a 'toy robbery'... it was a real robbery, of real victims, of real money, and inflicting real fear, with what appeared to be a real firearm!!!


Air guns and gas powered guns ARE classed as firearms!



Why is it that some people here seem to have the idea that criminals should be treated completely differently depending on whether they are male or female!?


When it is a male criminal... we hear... "nasty bastard" and "should throw away the key" etc...


But when it is a female criminal... committing the same sort of heinous crimes... we hear... "oh the poor girl" and "she must be the real victim in life to have done such a thing" and "prison is wrong for her, she needs help and counselling" etc...!?



It was only a few weeks ago when this case was being discussed...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3527842/Teenage-girls-battered-vulnerable-woman-death-home-paused-selfies-jailed-15-years.html


And the same people here were saying the same thing about those two evil murdering bastards needing 'help and counselling' rather than prison... but only because they were girls too!!!


Next they will be trying to tell us that myra hindly was just a naughty girl who needed 'help and counselling"...

I agree, and I don't take her age into account because she's not a little kid, she knew what she was doing.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


She could have raped a younger boy for all we know...


Is irrelevant to the actual crime of armed robbery that she committed.

Who's being Sylly now?

You started it...


She could have had an "immaculate conception" for all we know...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:

Who's being Sylly now?

You started it...


She could have had an "immaculate conception" for all we know...

No....you started it....and going by the above post you're obviously continuing it

There is certainly a bias favoring women in criminal law. Women only began to be imprisoned in the US in the 1870's. Presently, in federal prisons, there are only 13,033 female inmates (6.7%), while there are 182, 642 male inmates (93.3%)

In any binomial analysis, that is way beyond any standard deviation.

Ruth Ellis the last woman to be hanged in the UK was certainly  shown no mercy.
There is no way she would be hung today even if the death penalty was reinstated.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Described as a toy gun in court...?

Who by...?

The defence team by any chance?


It doesn't matter as far as the criminal act of robbery is concerned...


It was not a 'toy robbery'... it was a real robbery, of real victims, of real money, and inflicting real fear, with what appeared to be a real firearm!!!


Air guns and gas powered guns ARE classed as firearms!



Why is it that some people here seem to have the idea that criminals should be treated completely differently depending on whether they are male or female!?


When it is a male criminal... we hear... "nasty bastard" and "should throw away the key" etc...


But when it is a female criminal... committing the same sort of heinous crimes... we hear... "oh the poor girl" and "she must be the real victim in life to have done such a thing" and "prison is wrong for her, she needs help and counselling" etc...!?



It was only a few weeks ago when this case was being discussed...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3527842/Teenage-girls-battered-vulnerable-woman-death-home-paused-selfies-jailed-15-years.html


And the same people here were saying the same thing about those two evil murdering bastards needing 'help and counselling' rather than prison... but only because they were girls too!!!


Next they will be trying to tell us that myra hindly was just a naughty girl who needed 'help and counselling"...

I agree, and I don't take her age into account because she's not a little kid, she knew what she was doing.

She knew exactly what she was doing... it was a completely cold and calculated plan that they hatched and enacted... and part of it was probably the thinking that any victims would be unlikely to report it to police too!

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


You started it...


She could have had an "immaculate conception" for all we know...

No....you started it....and going by the above post you're obviously continuing it

No you and others started it by making unsubstantiated claims that she was raped and/or that the father/s were adults who took advantage of her!!!

Original Quill wrote:There is certainly a bias favoring women in criminal law.  Women only began to be imprisoned in the US in the 1870's.  Presently, in federal prisons, there are only 13,033 female inmates (6.7%), while there are 182, 642 male inmates (93.3%)

In any binomial analysis, that is way beyond any standard deviation.

So are you saying that men are more predisposed to criminality?

Or that the justice system is unfairly dishing out prison sentences to men while being unfairly lenient to women?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:There is certainly a bias favoring women in criminal law.  Women only began to be imprisoned in the US in the 1870's.  Presently, in federal prisons, there are only 13,033 female inmates (6.7%), while there are 182, 642 male inmates (93.3%)

In any binomial analysis, that is way beyond any standard deviation.

So are you saying that men are more predisposed to criminality?

Or that the justice system is unfairly dishing out prison sentences to men while being unfairly lenient to women?

That's the big question. More likely, jurors are more in sympathy with women...it's way out there with caucasian women. Some say it's easier to see a male as a threat, deserving of incarceration, than a woman. Women are more judged in sexual terms.

Guilt is decided by jury on evidence


The award of sentencing is down to the judge.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:

No....you started it....and going by the above post you're obviously continuing it

No you and others started it by making unsubstantiated claims that she was raped and/or that the father/s were adults who took advantage of her!!!

Wow...talk about twisting words to suit your own agenda.

I answered Rags point that she didn't learn by her first pregnancy by saying..."We don't know the circumstances, she COULD have been raped for all we know" I have never mentioned her father either.

Not her father... the father/s of the children...

Tommy Monk wrote:Not her father... the father/s of the children...

Well the likelihood of the fathers of her children being over 12 years of age is high wouldn't you say?

And the likelyhood of her being a willing and consenting participant and the other being of similar age is undisputed...


Is there any evidence to the contrary?


Has she ever claimed otherwise?

4EVER2 wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:Wouldn't this be a perfect topic for our 'Criminal Thread'? 
It does seem that we're having a perfectly good adult discussion about this social issue and her adjudicated case 

  

Hint hint!
Moved to criminology

Tommy Monk wrote:And the likelyhood of her being a willing and consenting participant and the other being of similar age is undisputed...


Is there any evidence to the contrary?


Has she ever claimed otherwise?

As she would have been a 12 year old when she first became pregnant, she would have been in law unable to give consent to sexual intercourse

But talking to the man who cited the dragons den perverted paedophile who got away with having sex with a 4 ft something, six stone 13 year old....I'm not surprised we cant agree seeing as you have set the bar so low..

And if her sexual partner was of similar age... he would have been unable to give consent too...?


So it didnt hapoen because it couldn't have happened as neither would have been able to give consent!?


So therefore the person she had sex with MUST have been a man who raped and abused her against her will...!?


Because that is the ONLY way it could have happened...!?





And you think I'M the Sylly one here...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:And if her sexual partner was of similar age... he would have been unable to give consent too...?


So it didnt hapoen because it couldn't have happened as neither would have been able to give consent!?


So therefore the person she had sex with MUST have been a man who raped and abused her against her will...!?


Because that is the ONLY way it could have happened...!?





And you think I'M the Sylly one here...!?

I do...and if you read your own posts back I'm sure you will agree.

Is it possible for a 12/13 year old girl to have consensual sex with a 12/13 year old boy?


If you say no then you are a liar...


If you say yes then you have just contradicted your claim that the 'other' MUST have been a man...!!!



Most amusing!!!