Woman, 43, who kidnapped a teenage girl and drove her to a flat where she was raped is spared jail after judge says it would be 'unfair' to send her to prison

A woman who kidnapped a teenage girl before she was raped in a flat has avoided jail after a judge said it would be 'unfair' to send her to prison.

Helen Thompson, 43, of Rugby, Warwickshire, had denied taking part in the terrifying kidnapping but was convicted by a jury earlier this year.

A court heard the victim was bundled into the boot of a car before being driven to a property by Thompson where she was raped.

Peter Livingston Jones, 55, and Raymond Dickens, 53, were previously jailed for a total of 38 years for their involvement in the case.

The twisted pair would befriend teenagers aged 17 and 18 before raping them in order to 'exercise control' and forcing them to work as prostitutes.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6055645/Woman-43-kidnapped-teenage-girl-drove-flat-raped-spared-jail.html

Why should she avoid jail...?


And why did the other two get 38 years jail, when moslem child rapists get a fraction of that as a jail sentence...?

She kidnapped the girl knowing she was getting raped, so why hasn't she been charged?

I don't get our judges

magica wrote:She kidnapped the girl knowing she was getting raped, so why hasn't she been charged?

I don't get our judges

Sometimes, My Learned Friends in the legal profession may well be "learned"...but they not infrequently demonstrate all the intelligence and common sense of the average village idiot.

Too many sumptious dinners and copious amounts of vintage port in the Judges' Lodgings before presiding on the bench, I reckon......

Why would it be 'unfair' to jail her for her crimes...?


Is it because SHE is a WOMAN...?


???

Tommy Monk wrote:Why should she avoid jail...?

I don't see anything about her avoiding jail. Of course, she could be convicted on rape.

Did she go to jail... or did she avoid going to jail...?

She "was convicted by a jury earlier this year." The OP doesn't mention sentencing.

Says in the thread title that she didn't go to jail because the judge said it would be 'unfair to send her to prison'...!


Well...?

Tommy Monk wrote:Says in the thread title that she didn't go to jail because the judge said it would be 'unfair to send her to prison'...!

Well...?

The Judge said:

Daily Mail wrote:'Your part in all of this was a limited one, in that on one occasion Peter Jones bundled that young woman into the boot of a car which you then drove to his flat.

'That was the extent of your involvement.

'I don't mean to belittle it, because what happened to her at that flat was truly terrible, and you could of course have said no.

'But there is no suggestion this wouldn't have happened if you had not helped him.

'Someone else would have done so, because he had considerable power in that community at that time."

This is a 'but-for' test, used in civil cases to find causation: ie, but-for your actions, the plaintiff would not have been injured.  Same test, only the finding is in the negative in this case.

The Judge is saying that the defendant escapes prison because of the absence of a showing that 'but-for' her participation the victim wouldn't have been raped.  I don't think that this is a proper use of that test.

In criminal law, any participation in the crime makes one guilty. It doesn't matter how much participation.  Of course, this is sentencing, so the Court has much greater latitude.  But, watch and see if the prosecutor doesn't appeal this.

I agree with you, tommy.  Any participation, regardless of weight, should qualify one for prison.

US law is much less forgiving. For example, we have felony-murder laws. Eg, hypothetical: bank robber goes into bank to hold it up; cops show up and engage in gun battle; innocent by-stander is killed by cop in shoot-out.

Because the robber was engaged in a felony, he is charged with, and convicted of murder. Haha...no 'but-for' about it. But screwed nontheless.