Without Mitigating In Any Way...

[Jackdaw33]

...the seriousness of his offences, isn't this sentence bloody stupid?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38367103

[anneasquith]

Why ?

[Jackdaw33]

I'm not going to spell it out for you, it's bleeding obvious why.

[pixie374]

Sounds ok to me- there is no point trying to guess someone's life expectancy first. I imagine the sentencing guidelines don't take age into account.

[SlackAlice]

He's had a trial, been found guilty and must now got to jail, end of story.

Simple as that

[chelle7272]

No. His age shouldn't make a difference to the appropriate punishment. Let him die there, so what.

[RandyMarsh]

I don't think so, he could live past it.

[sunny-dave]

He could live another ten years - would you rather he spent it in a comfortable home, or a rather less comfortable prison?

[anneasquith]

No it is not. How long he lives is irrelevant, he has een convicted and serving time in prison .

[EDDIE51]

You don't suggest that he should be let off because of his age do you?
When that 97 year old was deemed to unfit to stand trial there was an outcry on AB, demanding that he be tried and jailed despite his age.
Now a 100 year old abuser has been tried convicted and jailed there are more complaints. The same rule applies here as when people on here think a sentence is too lenient. The Judge DOES NOT make up the sentence off the top of his/her head. The sentence MUST follow the guidelines.
If this man had shown remorse and pleaded guilty he would possibly have got away with a suspended sentence. ( which would probably have caused another rant on here)
In reality this man will be in a vulnerable prisoners unit due to his age.
Life there will not be much different to being in a care home. He will get 3 fresh cooked meals a day and have constant supervision.

[EDDIE51]

In fact with the recent reports of abuse in care homes he may well be better off in jail!

[woofgang]

I am really puzzled by the OP. What possible reason can there be not to jail a self confessed abuser?

[Prudie]

Well a sentence of 13 years does seem stupid yes but there is no alternative. He probably won't even realise what's going on. The main shame is it wasn't given when he could have understood his crimes.

[andy-hughes]

I also fail to see any stupidity in the sentence.

Sentences are laid down for offenses.

They don't take into account the likelihood of the criminal living to see out his or her term in prison, that would be a nonsense.

Can you explain why you think it is stupid Jacdaw33?

[EDDIE51]

some information on older prisoners here
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/368177/needs-older-prisoners-spcr-survey.pdf
Prisons in the UK are having to make a lot of arrangements for elderly prisoners now. The % of over 60s in jail went up by 125% between 2004 and 2014 while the % of under 20s dropped by 25% ( see tables in my link)

[woofgang]

oh the brevity of the sentence? well its likely to be the rest of his natural...as for dementia, he must have been adjudged fit to plead which argues that he can remember what he did and knows its a bad thing.

[Prudie]

There's no point in being PC about it. He's not going to live till 114. Life would have been more sensible.

[Jackdaw33]

I am really puzzled by the OP.

He's 101. With good behaviour he'll be out when he's 107. That's what I mean by silly, it's just not practical and it will cost a fortune to keep him in a prison hospital wing.

[woofgang]

can you give a life sentence for paedophilia?

[pixie374]

A life sentence would be longer?

[EDDIE51]

You can't give a 'life' sentence for child abuse no matter how much some on AB would like to!