Posted on 04/15/2010 12:39:59 AM PDT by BlackVeil
A man who took photographs of a naked girl at Brisbane's South Bank had only recently been released from jail for raping two young children, a court has been told.
Graeme Paul Hancock, 25, was arrested on June 14, 2009, accused of using his mobile phone to take photos of a four-year-old girl playing naked in the shallows of the popular inner-city beach, the Brisbane District Court was told on Thursday.
Prosecutor Mathew Thompson told the court Hancock had only been released from jail four months earlier after serving five years for a string of child sex offences, including the rape of two young children. ...He breached his supervision order by committing this latest offence, and upon his arrest was returned immediately to jail, where he has spent the last 10 months. ...Judge Milton Griffin said he took into account the 10 months Hancock had already spent behind bars when sentencing him to 18 months' jail.
He ordered Hancock be eligible for parole in September.
(Excerpt) Read more at au.news.yahoo.com ...
That is absolutely INSANE!!! Only FIVE years for raping two young girls? I cannot even imagine what the parents must feel like.
I honestly cannot believe the short sentences — those girls will have to live with the effect of this man’s crimes for the rest of their lives!!! And, he was freed after only 5 years, and now he’s only in till September?
I’ll tell you right now that if he was convicted of raping two young girls the chances are very high that he is actually guilty of many more crimes of this nature... And he clearly has shown no sign of learning ANYTHING from his prison sentence — and what is this going to teach him? NOTHING except be more careful next time...
Throw him in one of the crocodile pits at Steve Erwins park. Justice will be served.
Five years for raping young children? Australia needs a Second Amendment - American parents have an option for solving that kind of mistake. I'll make one allowance for the judge's decision. I would have considered the 10 months in jail as well and only sentenced the pervert to 99 years and 2 months in prison instead of a full 100 years.
He got a five year sentence the first time around because he was a ‘young offender.’. The normal sentence would have been much more. No real excuse in the current case, although considering he took a photo in a public place, I’m surprised they found anything to charge him with at all.
“He ordered Hancock be eligible for parole in September.”
That judge is making a very, very, very big mistake. The criminal on this case can no more refrain from preying on children than a tiger can stop himself from eating meat.
Mom must not have been too concerned about letting her 4-yr little girl old romp naked in public.
Maybe mom should get 18 months.
Which is worse? Taking private images or allowing a live show?
Of course he should still have been in jail for the rapes.
My first thought too. Who lets a 4 year old child be naked in public? Too many perverts in the world who would get a sexual charge just seeing that.
No, she almost certainly wasn't.
Maybe it's a cultural difference, but in Australia, in summer, especially at beaches and places like that, it is quite normal for children under school age to go around naked.
Maybe that's not all that sensible in this day and age, but if it changes, it means we've let the existence of pedophiles change our society and rob our children of a little bit more innocence.
If that's the only way we can keep them safe, then maybe that does need to happen. But this little girl wasn't harmed. She doesn't even know what happened. And we're talking about kids of an age that the parents should always be there watching them - and if that isn't happening, a bathing suit won't provide a shred of protection.
It’s time for a new, one strike law: one sexual assault on a child and you get hanged. No exceptions.
My point is that if the secret image of a naked child is illegal, then public child nudity in the flesh should be even more illegal.
>>>>”He got a five year sentence the first time around because he was a ‘young offender.’.”
I’m unsure what you mean by a “young offender”? The article says he is 25 yrs old now, served a 5 yr sentence for raping two young children, and was released four months ago. So, that means he was at least 18 yrs old when he raped the two children.
When a person is legally considered old enough to vote and to buy alcohol (legal age in Australia is 18), then he should certainly be treated as a mature adult when committing a serious crime such as rape & be given the “normal sentence”.
5 yrs for rape, especially for not one but Two young children is entirely inadequate.
I agree with BlackVeil and believe our courts and judges can be rather lenient. There are certain offenses where offenders when found guilty must feel the full force of law. Rape, most definitely, is one of them, and, imo, regardless of the age of the offender.
What I mean is what the law means by the term.
When a person is legally considered old enough to vote and to buy alcohol (legal age in Australia is 18), then he should certainly be treated as a mature adult when committing a serious crime such as rape & be given the “normal sentence”.
That's a perfectly valid viewpoint, but it's not the viewpoint that guides sentencing. It differs between different states, but generally speaking in most states of Australia, if an offender is under the age or 21 or 22, there are provisions in law for them to be treated as a young offender. This was decided based on research that shows that the parts of the brain associated with full adult judgement are normally not developed until the early to mid twenties, and also on the fact that a very high proportion of those who offend under that age never reoffend. They do grow out of it. Whether it's a good idea or not is an open question. But it is what the law says and it is what the law does.
If somebody commits a criminal offence between about the age of 17 and 21, how they are sentenced will depend a lot on how it is decided to treat them. They may be given no consideration because of their age, or a great deal.
And he was released at 24 after serving five years which means he was sentenced at 19. Considering how long it can take a serious case to reach the courts, he may well only have been 17 when the crime was committed - and if there was a delay between the crime being committed and it being detected, he might have been even younger. There's a lot of reasons he may have been treated as a young offender.
If he hadn't been, he'd have faced a minimum sentence of at least 15 years on each count. I think that's still too lenient for child rape, but it's a great deal different than the sentence he received.
Well, it isn’t.
Nor, normally, would be taking the photograph. It turns out Hancock is back in prison for breaching a supervision order - in other words, he’s violated his parole which specifically sets limits on how he, personally, can interact with children. If not for that, it’s unlikely that taking the photograph would have been illegal.
They didn’t know he was violating parol when they searched and arrested him.
He was arrested for taking and possessing the pictures.
Once they learned about the parol, that just became the simpler route to prosecute rather than a straight porn charge.
>>>”..because he was a ‘young offender.”<<<
>>>”What I mean is what the law means by the term.”<<<
As far as I am aware, and in an attempt to further clarify, the Australian law means the following:
The age of criminal responsibility in Australia is set at 10 yrs old, and Doli incapax 10 to under 14 (Commonwealth, ACT, NT, all States).
Age to appear in Adult Court is set at 18 in NT and all States (except Queensland which is 17). South Australia has the Youth Offenders Act of 1993.
Rape is a criminal act/offence or is it not in Australia?
>>>”This was decided based on research that shows that the parts of the brain associated with full adult judgement are normally not developed until the early to mid twenties, and also on the fact that a very high proportion of those who offend under that age never reoffend.”<<<
As a qualified psychologist, I have worked with our legal people. I’ve also worked with both rape victims and offenders - therefore, I’d be very interested if could you link me to the research you mention.
>>>”If somebody commits a criminal offence between about the age of 17 and 21, how they are sentenced will depend a lot on how it is decided to treat them. They may be given no consideration because of their age, or a great deal.”<<<
I’d say regardless of the mentioned age group - circumstances being another consideration (though not in a young child’s rape case, when passing a judgment and sentence) - you’re correct.
It is precisely “how the decision is made” which can be problematic and inadequate.
>>>”And he was released at 24 after serving five years which means he was sentenced at 19. Considering how long it can take a serious case to reach the courts, he may well only have been 17 when the crime was committed - and if there was a delay between the crime being committed and it being detected, he might have been even younger. There’s a lot of reasons he may have been treated as a young offender.”<<<
This is pure speculation & conjecture. Unless you’ve more specific information for this case.
The bottom line is that rape is a heinous crime, which not only physically harms and violates a person, but can well leave deep psychological scars, particularly when younger children are victims – children, unlike adults, do not have the same internal defense mechanisms to cope with such a traumatic experience. It is shameful that our justice system and judges often do not take a more balanced view of the impact & longer term ramifications of rape cases i.e. victim and offender.
The age of criminal responsibility in Australia is set at 10 yrs old, and Doli incapax 10 to under 14 (Commonwealth, ACT, NT, all States).
Correct.
Age to appear in Adult Court is set at 18 in NT and all States (except Queensland which is 17). South Australia has the Youth Offenders Act of 1993.
Not quite. 18 year olds can appear in Children's Court in some states (including my own state of Victoria), provided the offence was committed before the age of 18. If an offence is committed over the age of 18, they will not appear in Children's Court.
Rape is a criminal act/offence or is it not in Australia?
Absolutely it is.
But this doesn't tell the whole story.
Even when a case is heard in an adult court, there are still circumstances in which the age of an offender is taken into account in sentencing.
Check out: Issues Paper 19 (2001) - Sentencing: Young offenders by the Law Reform Commission of New South Wales for details of one example of when this is relevant.
Offenders who are aged between 10 and 17 at the time they commit an offence, and who are under 21 when charged, are sentenced under a separate system to adults.
For Victoria Suspended Sentences in Victoria Information Paper provides another couple of example:
Youth Training Centre and Youth Residential Centre Orders: A sentence requiring a young offender (< 21 yrs) to be detained in a Youth Training Centre (if 15yrs or >) or Youth Residential Centre (if < 15yrs). Maximum term is 3 yrs (Supreme or County Court) or 2 yrs (Magistrates’ Court).
and
The Magistrates’ Court also has the power to defer sentencing a young offender aged 17 or over, but under 25 years, and adjourn the proceedings for up to six months to enable the offender to demonstrate their rehabilitation.
If I had the time, I could probably pull out a fair few other references, but these two should be sufficient to demonstrate the basic principle that sentencing for young people who are nonetheless legally adults, isn't always the same as for other adults. The court process is basically the same - the sentencing process isn't always.
As a qualified psychologist, I have worked with our legal people. I’ve also worked with both rape victims and offenders - therefore, I’d be very interested if could you link me to the research you mention.
Research on brain development in young adults is pretty easy.
Blakemore, S. & Choudhury, S. 2006. Development of the adolescent brain: implications for executive function and social cognition. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 47:3 (2006), pp 296–312.
Herrman, J.W. 2005.The Teen Brain as a Work in Progress: Implications for Pediatric Nurses. Pediatric Nursing, 31 (2), 144-148.
Luciana, M., Conklin, H.M., Hooper, C.J. & Yarger, R.S. 2005. The development of nonverbal working memory and executive control processes in adolescents. Child Development, 76(3).
Steinberg, L. 2005. Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9 (2), 69-74.
I don't have easily accessible references on recidivism rates among young offenders. That's not my main area of interest (most of the kids I work with aren't offenders).
This is pure speculation & conjecture. Unless you’ve more specific information for this case.
It's informed speculation and conjecture. Hancock served his entire original sentence - he was not released early (in fact, he was held beyond his original release date under laws designed to protect the community). That means he received a maximum sentence of less than five years for at least two very serious offences, and a number of other minor offences. The only situation in which that would occur if he was treated as a young offender - a lower minimum would be possible under other circumstances, but not a lower maximum.
Also, significantly, this case should have attracted media attention with his name attached to it in 2004 when the original trial occurred. The fact that I can't find any reference to the case when I look in media archives makes it likely his name was suppressed. There are basically only two reasons that would have been done - to protect his victims (if identifying him would allow them to be potentially identified) or if he was being treated as a young offender who they hoped could be rehabilitated. If it was the first reason, they'd still be suppressing his identity.
Unfortunately, because I really wish I didn't, I've had to develop experience and knowledge about such matters.
The bottom line is that rape is a heinous crime, which not only physically harms and violates a person, but can well leave deep psychological scars, particularly when younger children are victims – children, unlike adults, do not have the same internal defense mechanisms to cope with such a traumatic experience. It is shameful that our justice system and judges often do not take a more balanced view of the impact & longer term ramifications of rape cases i.e. victim and offender.
I agree - rapists, in my view, should normally be hanged. And not just rapists. The penalties often imposed for sexual crimes often seem ridiculous. But knowing why they happened is important.
It's clear that whatever might have been hoped for in regards to rehabilitating Hancock hasn't worked. If he was treated as a young offender (as I am virtually certain he was) people need to be looking at why that decision was taken.
He was arrested because when questioned, he gave a false name and address. If he had given his real name, they would have arrested him for breach of his supervision order (it would have come up as soon as they called his name in). As it was, he was arrested for providing false information - the only question you must answer is what is your name.
Once they got him to the station, they identified him and established the existence of the supervision order.
Checking they did also charge him with indecent treatment of a child, but it’s hard to see how that charge would have stuck given he took a photo in a public place. He pleaded guilty, though, so it didn’t need to be tested.
Thanks for all the info.
In summary, key points I discern from our comments/exchange are:
- It is still unclear when, at exactly what age, “Hancock” actually committed “a string of child sex offences, including the rape of two young children.”
- I understood Hancock was not released early. Only what I gathered from the article and mentioned in post #13.
- Hancock’s age at the time of committing the child sex offences, and rapes are critical and what matters. Not, when his case reached the courts as it was suggested in post #14.
- I’m also unsure if Hancock’s was tried in an Adult or Juvenile Court.
- It’s also good to clarify and perhaps differentiate between “juvenile offender” vs. “young offender” (per age groups, and various acts and bills in different States).
- “Research on brain development in young adults is pretty easy.” – Yes, it is. I was specifically interested in the one to which you were referring in post # 14.
Back to a previous point in #13, it is quite ridiculous to base one set of laws on a so called research which supposedly “shows that the parts of the brain associated with full adult judgment are normally not developed until the early to mid twenties,” - yet, lawfully permit and expect the same person, prior to their early or mid 20’s, to purchase alcohol, drink responsibly w/out supervision, and make adult judgments on national matters such as Voting! I suppose there must have been another piece of research on the latter points. (not taking a potshot at you) :-)
My last points in this thread and for the topic are: it is one thing to defend our current laws, legal system/processes & those in charge of implementing them. But, often, the same as well as those affected by them would benefit from continuous revision & improvement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.