Quote

A man who sexually assaulted a four-year-old girl and claimed he thought she was 18 has been jailed.

Conrad Pritchard, 22, attacked the child at a house in Salford after drinking in a pub.

Pritchard denied sexual assault at Manchester Crown Court but was convicted and sentenced to 32 months.

Det Con Paul Davies, of Greater Manchester Police, said Pritchard, of Isaac Close, Salford, targeted the girl to "satisfy his appalling urges".

Pritchard had been out drinking with three others on 25 June before heading to the home of one of the group members.

He went upstairs and the child's mother heard her daughter crying in distress. She found Pritchard lying beside the girl, naked from the waist down.

Police said he fled and on his arrest, told officers he thought she was the 18-year-old babysitter.

DC Davies said Pritchard's attempt "to justify what happened by claiming that he thought a four-year-old girl was actually 18 is absurd."

Quote (duffman316 @ Jan 27 2018 06:18pm)

she told me she was 18 officer :o ! - quote from the man who sexually assaulted a 4 year old child and got 4 years in prison

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-42830582

Quote (dro94 @ Jan 27 2018 12:25pm)

Wonder if he only got 32 months because the 4 year old wouldn't be able to articulate what happened, so they couldn't charge him for rape

Quote (Skinned @ Jan 27 2018 06:49pm)

Four year old likely didn't resist or explicitly say no and the (American) Right widely doesn't respect the precedent set up in State v Rusk that is completely valid in American Jurisprudence. Not sure about your laws.

Quote (dro94 @ Jan 27 2018 10:25am)

Wonder if he only got 32 months because the 4 year old wouldn't be able to articulate what happened, so they couldn't charge him for rape

Quote (Skinned @ Jan 27 2018 10:49am)

Four year old likely didn't resist or explicitly say no and the (American) Right widely doesn't respect the precedent set up in State v Rusk that is completely valid in American Jurisprudence. Not sure about your laws.

Quote (ofthevoid @ Jan 27 2018 07:55pm)

No. Read the article, if i had to deduce why he got such a light sentence it probably has to do with the fact that he was drunk. I'm not defending the guy but i'v seen drunk people do some marvelously stupid things in my life. I don't how drunk he was exactly but lets play devils advocate for a minute. Drunk fuck stumbles into a dark room and takes his pants off and gets in bed with the little girl. If he was drunk enough maybe he really did think she was the babysitter i don't know. I mean look at the guys face, 4 years in prison with other inmates knowing what he did? I rather do 10 for murder than 4 for child rape.



Lol even something like this that has nothing to do with politics you find a way to throw a jab in, grow up, there's no us against them in the real world.

Quote (ofthevoid @ 27 Jan 2018 14:55)

Lol even something like this that has nothing to do with politics you find a way to throw a jab in, grow up, there's no us against them in the real world.

Quote (dro94 @ Jan 27 2018 12:10pm)

I disagree as my understanding of the law is that being drunk wouldn't have an effect on the sentencing, due to rape being a crime of basic intent meaning intoxication cannot be used as a reliable defence by claiming he didn't have mens rea.

If you read the article you might have deduced that 32 months isn't 4 years!

Quote (ofthevoid @ Jan 27 2018 08:36pm)

Lel cheeky lad, i was going off by what Duff posted about how long the sentencing was.

It absolutely has an effect on the sentencing, there's a reason why someone committing murder when they're drunk or stoned out of their mind usually gets a lighter sentence compared to someone that planned some heinous crime. There's degrees of crimes and there's a reason why all criminal justice systems differentiate between things like premeditated crime vs crime of passion, etc.You really think this idiot planned on getting drunk and then raping a kid? Really? Do you think someone rationally decided to get high on pcp and eat another persons face? Proving mens rea in some of these cases is next to impossible.

Quote (dro94 @ 27 Jan 2018 20:16)

I was being nice when I said 'my understanding of the law is', the distinction between basic and specific intent is summarised here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intoxication_in_English_law

My view is that if you'd rape a child when you're drunk then you're at best a paedophile and worst a child rapist when sober, so are deserving of maximum punishment. Strange that I'm the one defending a harsh sentence because I thought conservatives were the ones that want people sentenced to death for child rape.