Gary Glitter verdict

Remove all ads!

Gary Glitter sex abuse verdict

3 years? I was speechless.
The entire world knows he's guilty as hell, but 3 years is a pathetic sentence. Anyone know the rules on him being let back into our country?

 

We don't have a choice Shell unless we revoke his citizenship and make him perona non grata, but that's almost unheard of and difficult to do. I agree 3 years is pathetic, of which he may only serve 8 months before he's deported back to the UK. On the positive side it's unlikely (as a convicted felon) he will be allowed to keep his passport, which means he can be kept under observation here, and not allowed anywhere else.

 

Doesn't that kind of defeat the point though?

We don't want him

 

I know we don't want him Shell, but somebody has to watch him; and the Sun will do that..

@Beren not in Vietnam seemingly

 

Exactly, it depends on Vietnamese law. If the standard sentence for this in Vietnam is three years, then it's a fair sentence. Just like we disagree when someone gets executed for drug possession, it's also fair to disagree with this. The only difference is that here we're disagreeing the other way - that the sentence was too light instead of too harsh. When you go to a foreign country - unless you have some kind of diplomatic status that gives you immunity - you are subject to that country's rules and laws, and any consequences for illegal actions you take will be dictated by their laws with what they view as the appropriate punishment.

The only way I can judge whether or not it was a justifiable sentence would be to compare what other sex offenders get. For example, if the typical sentence in Vietnam is 10 years, and he only got three, then yeah, I think the sentence was light. But if that's the standard sentence, then it was completely justifiable.

 

@Aldeth It's my understanding that a standard sentence and what he was expected to get is usually 7+ years.

 

if he returns to the UK he'll probably be arrested for possession here

 

Well, then those expressing outrage are justified. If the typical sentence was 7 years at a minimum, then we could reasonably expect him to get 7 years. Unless there was some type of mitigating circumstances at work (although I cannot imagine what exactly could mitigate his actions), then you cannot justify giving him a sentence of less than half of what is normally given.

 

Money is always a mitigating circumstance.

 

Yes, but it usually mitigates the trial completely. If it was ONLY about money, I don't think he would even have been found guilty. Like OJ.

 

Bear in mind that Glitter was "only" on trial for sexual abuse charges. Possession of child pornography is an offence in most places, and I'm sure that if he gets done for that, the sentencing judgement will contain lots of words like "unrepentant", "recidivist" and "has not learned". I'm also hoping that the presiding judge in that case goes with the "punitive" aspect of sentencing, and coming from me (a person who doesn't believe in the value of such sentencing), that should tell you what I think of this case.

That said, unless an appeal on the grounds of excessive lenience is allowed or successful, Glitter can't be tried for the same actions again. Here's hoping that such an appeal is forthcoming. Due process can be a real bitch sometimes, but the rule of law must be applied.

I also find it strange that Vietnamese law includes capital punishment for a variety of drug-related offences, but is so lenient about the sexual abuse of children (assuming Glitter's is not an abnormal sentence).