What value should the criminal justice system place on rehabilitation?
By Amy Manning
Content Warning: Discussion of Sexual Violence
Three teenage boys raped and filmed the assaults of two teenage girls. The events occurred a few months apart, and the victims didn’t know each other. The boys walked away with essentially no more than a slap on the wrist, whilst the girls walked away with a lifetime of trauma. How is it that a criminal justice system places the rehabilitation and reintegration of the perpetrators above the justice for the victims? The three mandates of the criminal justice system are to protect the public, rehabilitate offenders, and grant victims a sense of justice, but surely in this case only one of these mandates, at best, is being fulfilled?
The guidelines for children and young people under 18 state that custodial sentences are only given out in some circumstances. Life sentences can be given in the cases of murder, and sometimes for other serious offences such as rape or armed robbery. Between the three boys, left unnamed as they are children, two of them were only sentenced to a 3-year rehabilitation order, and the other boy was given only an 18-month rehabilitation order. Judge Nicholas Rowland said, “I should avoid criminalising these children unnecessarily […] and support their reintegration into society”, as due to their young age, “none of [them] need to go to prison today.” Whilst these boys were young, only 13 and 14 at the time, they were aware of the severity of their crimes. The sentencing they received not only doesn’t do justice to the victims, but also sends out the message that horrendous crimes such as these can be committed with very little punishment. Police and Crime Commissioner Donna Jones expressed her concern, highlighting that the sentences “offer little comfort to their victims” and that “these boys felt they could carry out such terrifying acts and share them online and not go to prison”. It cannot be denied that the future of the perpetrators has been prioritised over the justice and security of the victims.
The Criminal Justice Act of 2003 states the five main purposes of sentencing: punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, protection of the public, and reparation. Whilst punishment and rehabilitation sit on the same level, of equal importance, it is complex and sometimes difficult to balance the two. Whilst the importance of rehabilitation cannot be denied for a functioning and fair society, this case is perhaps an example of too much emphasis on rehabilitation, and not enough on punishment. Surely, with the rising cases of young people committing sexual abuse, the punishment should be more severe in order to deter others from doing the same. However, this case has simply reinforced the idea that you can just get away with it.
This case has simply reinforced the idea that you can just get away with it
However, despite this case in particular causing public outrage, the perpetrators were still children, which ultimately means that rehabilitation and reintegration into society is the end goal. The Sentencing Council for England and Wales highlight that even in very serious cases, custody should be a last resort, and rehabilitation should be a priority for children.
A point should also be raised to the cause of these crimes, not just how the justice system deals with the consequences. Cases of sexual assaults on children by other children are on the rise, largely due to the availability of violent pornography and misogynistic content via the internet. Surely, attention should be drawn to preventing these heinous crimes, as this would be in the best interest of the public – one of the mandates of the justice system? I cannot help but see that this case simply exaggerates the deep-rooted misogyny in the justice system. Three boys rape two girls, record it, upload it to the internet, and laugh about it. The girls are left filled with fear and a lifetime of trauma. Judge Rowland commended the boys on their good conduct in court, a sickening comment to make in light of their actions.
One victim spoke out, saying the sentencing “almost made it seem as if what the boys did was not OK, but it was OK in the eyes of the law because they were still children”. And another said, “What was the point in putting me through that.” The boys left court with praise for their conduct and hope for their futures, whilst the girls left feeling as though they had not got the justice they deserved.
Rehabilitation is important, especially in the case of such young children. However, this should not come at the price of the victim being granted no sense of justice. Sentencing should also serve as a deterrent, a warning to others. Unfortunately, the message from this case is clear: young boys can get away with rape scot-free.
Image credit: Lonpicman/CC BY-SA 3.0
