It came as no great surprise to me that the Jury took little time to convict Forrest of child abduction, even though a significant element of his defence was that the victim was potentially suicidal at the time and he took her to France because he feared for her safety if he had not. Of course a minor cannot legally give consent to such a thing, nor sexual activity with an adult, and therefore Forrest was sentenced to five and a half years imprisonment both for abduction and several counts of sexual activity with a minor.
Now given that Forrest breached his position of trust as a school teacher, and almost certainly used his privileged position in order to 'groom' the victim, I don't think many probation officers will be surprised at the length of sentence that was handed down. Others however, both on blogsites and twitter, seem to feel very differently indeed. Amazingly Frank Chalk, the former teacher and author of a hugely popular blog, just had this to say:-
So 30 year old Maths teacher Jeremy Forrest got five and a half years. Whilst we probably agree that what he did was wrong, should he really spend more time in prison than a mugger, a burglar who attacked a woman in her own home, or a robber who almost killed his victim?
Blimey - just 'probably agree that what he did was wrong'. Where is Frank's moral compass pointing exactly? Comparing the sentence with other serious but completely dissimilar offences is another matter entirely and not at all helpful I would suggest. But Frank is not the only one to raise doubts about whether Forrest has done anything wrong at all.
For some time I've been reading a very popular blog by John Ward. He writes what appear to be extremely well-informed pieces on a range of topics that could be broadly termed as providing evidence of conspiracies. One of these concerns historic sexual abuse of children in care by members of the British Establishment. In particular he feels that the recent spate of historic sex offence prosecutions involving geriatric celebrities is a deliberate distraction in order to protect members of the Establishment from a similar fate.
He is also highly suspicious of the appearance of a number of what might be termed 'apologists' for sex offending and I happen to share this view and have referred to it previously. So it is with considerable dismay that I read his recent somewhat hysterical piece on the Forrest case that serves to effectively give support to the apologist agenda (I have removed a photo and reference to the victims name so as not to be in breach of a Court Order):-
"How utterly predictable the Establishment of our nation is. Let me present my evidence for seeing it this way: but let me at the outset once more repeat that I do not condone what Mr Forrest did, because he betrayed a position of trust. I said at the time, “Fire the bugger”. But to give him a five and a half year sentence while child-buggerers walk free? It’s beyond belief.
He is 30, she is 15. That’s roughly the same age difference between my estranged wife and I.
Ms X has developed an obvious bust, hips and all the stance of a woman. To accuse Forrest of unlawful sexual intercourse with a child – on the basis of this shot alone – is ridiculous.
The Court – and the Judge – openly admit that Ms X gave her full and enthusiastic consent to their escape abroad. So I need someone – anyone – to explain for me please: how can you abduct a mature teenager who is a willing accomplice to flight? Isn’t this like rape with consent?
Now get this: Judge Lawson banned him from working or volunteering with children and unsupervised contact with children forever. Utterly astonishing."
"Now, I think Jeremy Forrest should repent the sin of being a teacher in a position of responsibility, while letting his sexual urges get the better of him. But the way the word is used in the article, the imputation is clear: he must be an incorrigible abuser of children. Bollocks. And, is he guilty – two key words here – of child abduction? Absolute crap – no he isn’t. Neither word can be legally proved – indeed, in a case like this they should have been ruled inadmissable."
Now probation officers would straight away spot the cognitive distortions contained in these quotes and that are so typically employed by many of our sex offending clients in order to try and justify their actions. But alarmingly many commentators on the article are completely supportive of the hypothesis that Forrest hadn't really done much wrong, so I was moved to add my dissenting voice:-John – This is the first comment I’ve been tempted to make publicly, although I’ve been an avid reader for some time.
May I respectfully say that you are in danger of conflating two separate issues and in the process are in danger of appearing to be an apologist for sex offending – a situation I know you would wish to avoid.
As a probation officer I have some experience of these matters and in my view Forrest was dealt with fairly by the criminal justice system. The sentence is wholly unexceptional for such offences committed by someone in a position of trust where minors are concerned. It was also the result of a ‘plea bargain’ in relation to the fresh matters only put to him today, so his barrister will know he was fairly treated.
You and others may not agree with our current age of consent, but seeing as it is 16, in law there is and in my view, never can be any possibility of a minor ‘giving consent’ to anything sexual with an adult. It has to be that way in order to both protect the interests of minors and to ensure responsibility remains completely and unambiguously with the adult and perpetrator.
Judgements about appearance and possible levels of maturity of the minor are completely irrelevant in a case like this. Forrest was always going to get a lengthy custodial sentence because he breached his professional duty and the trust placed in him not to engage in any inappropriate relationship between pupil and teacher. It was his duty to rebuff and not encourage any advances from his pupils – simple as – or suffer the considerable consequences – which he has. Any report prepared by myself would have seen absolutely no possibility of any alternative to a lengthy custodial sentence, particularly as I agree with the prosecution case that he effectively ‘groomed’ the victim. (By the way, he’ll only serve half.)
I feel I must be even more blunt. To continue with your hypothesis, which has all the hallmarks I’m afraid of supporting the ‘apologist’ agenda, is in my view going to seriously detract from your main aim of keeping up the pressure regarding organised paedophile rings both historic and current. I think we all want to see those responsible, particularly from the Establishment, brought to justice, but this distraction really isn’t going to help.
Cheers,
What Forrest did was wrong. However I have difficulty understanding his five and a half year sentence when the broadcaster Stuart Hall is given fifteen months for numerous offences over a prolonged period and with much younger victims.
ReplyDeleteHall and Forrest were convicted of different offences, breaching different laws with different sentencing practices. There are different circumstances in the offence and the individual perpetrator, one was found guilty while the other entered a plea. Detailed explanations of the sentencing decisions are on line, a gut feeling might be that one is worse than the other but objectively comparing the two makes no sense.
DeleteI take on board your comments which are good ones and rightly point out that there is many differences between offences, and governed by different sentencing policy.
DeleteMy comment was made subjectively it is after all an emotive subject. I didn't intend to compare the offences. In fact i think one is far worse then the other. Sentencing policy aside Hall should have got far longer then Forrest. I accept its subjective but it remains my oppinion.
Cheers.
On refelection I'd like to clarify my comment posted above. I dont have a problem with Forrests five and a half years but I do have major difficulty with Halls fifteen months. And he made public announcements claiming innocence. My personal view is that Halls crimes were far more horrific then Forrests and that shoud be reflected in sentencing.
ReplyDeleteMy grandmother was 14 when she married her husband who was 28. They loved each other deeply until her untimely passing as a victim of cancer 20 years later.
ReplyDeleteSome other countries are even more permissive.
My point is that the law may be the law, but life is far more nouanced.
The law is an ass - it's rigid, not nuanced. You can have the law with justice and without it. Maybe the UK should be more permissive. What's seems permissive today, is tomorrow's norm.
DeleteI am not aware of any 'evidence'' coming to light that 'evidences' he attempted to 'groom' other girls. I know some newspapers picked up on a piece in the Sun. I am not aware of any complaints being made to the police about his conduct towards other schoolgirls. The fact is that cases like this one, unlike the Hall case, do not fit into the standard sex offender stereotype. Now, someone may say, 'Oh yes it does – he groomed and sexually abused...' But from the post-trial reactions from his sister and the victim's father, there appears an acceptance that the relationship will continue during his imprisonment and on release. We don't normally have to contemplate the possibility of the sex offender marrying the victim, but in this case we do and for that reason the stereotypes and sex offending nomenclature don't ring true. As for sentencing, too long which is true of most sentences, as sentence length is getting ridiculous in the UK!
ReplyDeleteWhat's most interesting about this is risk assessment.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I've read their is some supporting evidence for emotional congruence with children and arousal to a 14 year old child. I suspect several other Sarn domains as well. Men who go for adolescents often resemble dv perpetrators or rapists of adults more than preferential paedophiles. If they continue a relationship she will mature and may naturally be driven to explore her independence and autonomy which may well cause profound difficulties as power differentials emerge.
So he might not be a paedophile but the ongoing potential for harm to this and other victims is real.
I think there needs to be great care taken when seeking to extrapolate to DV and rapists. There is a lot of pseudoscience in psychology especially abnormal psychology. Why not count the phrenological bumps on Forrest's skull. Risk assessment is a inexact science and an overblown one in probation – and in probation it's more classification than assessment anyway. I wonder what the discussion would be here if we were commenting on the imprisonment of homosexuals whose 'abnormal' behaviours was once thought to be amenable to aversion therapy by psychologists.
DeleteEveryone seems to have an anecdotal story about gran ma's and stuff. I think we should not loose sight of the fact that this victim was 14 when the 'relationship' commenced and whatever outward appearence may tell adult man, psychologists will tell you that the victim, particularly this victim as she is described as having been unhappy, emotional and psychological development was still in the process of development and maturing and this is why we don't let children have credit cards!!!!
ReplyDeleteWhat puzzles me is why Forrest waived his right under the terms of the extradition, not to be charged with any sexual offences (sex with a 15 year old is legal in France). If he hadn't, would he still have only got one year for abduction?
ReplyDeleteHello Jim B,
ReplyDeleteYou say:
"Comparing the sentence with other serious but completely dissimilar offences is another matter entirely and not at all helpful I would suggest. But Frank is not the only one to raise doubts about whether Forrest has done anything wrong at all."
I don't agree. No crime is identical to another, and jurisprudence is about quantifying 'wrongness' not just within a class of crime but between them, such that there is some rationale for punishment - however difficult 'comparing' crimes is. There is a genuine debate.
Whether such an approach is 'helpful' or not is immaterial, and I'm not sure what could possibly be 'helpful'. Your opposite is simply expressing the dismay that some hold at the apparent dissonance within sentencing - whether helpful or not. Does 'helpful' mean ;not agreeing with me'?
Nor should you set an aunt Sally up in order to knock it down: it's not being suggested by your opposites that Forrest did NOTHING wrong; rather that it's the degree of wrong-doing that's in question relative to other sex offenders'.
And you beg the question here:
"As a probation officer I have some experience of these matters and in my view Forrest was dealt with fairly by the criminal justice system. The sentence is wholly unexceptional for such offences committed by someone in a position of trust where minors are concerned."
The point of your opposite is not whether the sentence was consistent with those of other sex offenders' but whether is was RIGHT, reasonable, rational, or whatever. That is a question that no probation officer can answer: you can merely express an opinion, as we all can. Fairness is much more than consistency and your experience can only describe consistency.
Here you segue from an is to an ought here:
"Forrest was always going to get a lengthy custodial sentence because he breached his professional duty and the trust placed in him not to engage in any inappropriate relationship between pupil and teacher."
The question in hand is whether Forrest SHOULD be so sentenced, not that he was always bound to be because that's the way the system is.
And whether an opposing argument happens incidentally to support another (undesirable) agenda (apologists') you oppose is irrelevant. That is, if Forrest were, as many believe - rightly or wrongly - unduly harshly sentenced because that's where the argument leads us, it would hardly be right to censor the argument because it may play into the hands of - in this case - apologists. We could argue the same against probation officers on your premise: that they encourage crime by those who know how to manipulate and engage with probation in order to shorten a sentence that would otherwise be more discouraging of crime (by being longer)!
And this doesn't add anything to your argument:
"Any report prepared by myself would have seen absolutely no possibility of any alternative to a lengthy custodial sentence, particularly as I agree with the prosecution case that he effectively ‘groomed’ the victim. (By the way, he’ll only serve half.)"
I don't doubt that Forrest was wrong, but, like many, I do question the length of custodial sentence relative to those I consider have done more harm - and this is surely an apt debate in a democracy.
Best wishes.