Are you sure? I thought it could have been as high as 13 years?
Adam Johnson found guilty of one count of sexual activity with a child | Sentenced to six years
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
- Status
@Stack @sullydnl
In a legal sense, she was indeed a victim of what Johnson did. But in my opinion - based on the Whatsapp messages and other bits of evidence, I believe that the victim here was aware of the situation and knew what she was doing/getting into, just as well as if she were a year older (and therefore of legal age to consent.)
Legally, the victim is indeed not able to make a sound judgement or decision in instances such as these, but this does not inherently make the experience traumatic for her.
I think we can boil this down to a couple of fairly straightforward questions;
1) Do you feel that Johnson's actions directly caused the victim a significant amount of pain or hurt?
2) Do you think the victim would have been better off if this entire incident had never made it to the media and public eye?
My answers are 'no' to question one and 'yes' to question two. None of this is an attempt to absolve Johnson of any blame, but rather I am thinking purely about the victim's situation here. It raises a potentially interesting legal/moral discussion in itself in that if (hypothetically) there was a choice between protecting the victim and punishing the offender, which do you/should you pursue?
In a legal sense, she was indeed a victim of what Johnson did. But in my opinion - based on the Whatsapp messages and other bits of evidence, I believe that the victim here was aware of the situation and knew what she was doing/getting into, just as well as if she were a year older (and therefore of legal age to consent.)
Legally, the victim is indeed not able to make a sound judgement or decision in instances such as these, but this does not inherently make the experience traumatic for her.
I think we can boil this down to a couple of fairly straightforward questions;
1) Do you feel that Johnson's actions directly caused the victim a significant amount of pain or hurt?
2) Do you think the victim would have been better off if this entire incident had never made it to the media and public eye?
My answers are 'no' to question one and 'yes' to question two. None of this is an attempt to absolve Johnson of any blame, but rather I am thinking purely about the victim's situation here. It raises a potentially interesting legal/moral discussion in itself in that if (hypothetically) there was a choice between protecting the victim and punishing the offender, which do you/should you pursue?
What he did was so wrong but we need equality. This woman was in a position of trust, so makes it argubely worse.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/schoolboy-groomed-teaching-assistant-we-6536549
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/schoolboy-groomed-teaching-assistant-we-6536549
Anyone who has teenage daughters or has dealt with teenagers know there is a difference in knowing exactly what is going on and having the life skills to make a personal judgement on whether or not a situation is right or not.
This whole argument that a 15 year old "knew exactly what was going on" is awful. It completely misses the point of one of the reasons that society deems a person to be a child, a minor or an adult.
Newspaper has no reason to lie, oookkk...
Why did the judge never mention because of his behavior in court was part of the reason for the length of his sentence? Isn't he supposed to be being taught a lesson? Wont that be a valuable one for him?
Last edited:
When you're a star, you have to bear the consequences in terms of media treatment.
Sorry Walrus, I have to disagree with you on point 1.
The problem here is that she has suffered because of his actions.
1. You are contradicting the victim's own words.
2. I agree with you.
But isn't this always a dilemma when the prosecution process is going to expose the victim to more trauma, as in most cases of rape?
Equality would be nice, she should have groomed me.
So you're saying overall it'd have probably been better for her if she had kept quiet and have the rumours around school etc continue, people slagging her off with no action being able to be enforced on those who spread her name on social media as it isn't a legal issue and Adam Johnson being free to cheat on his girlfriend with other young women.
It's a court trial. People reporting on court trials can't just make shit up that happened during them.
Agreeing to meet to get a signed jersey. Then the scumbag suggested he wanted something "in return" for it. Ugh.
To answer your questions:
1. Yes, she has suffered directly because of his actions.
2. Yes, she would have been better off if this had not been made public. Unfortunately that was always unlikely due to Johnson's celebrity status, a fact the judge considered during sentencing. Unless you meant she should never have reported it in the first place, in which case society would have been worse off given Johnson would have been free to re-offend.
I'd be interested to know how you think a girl who didn't know what she was doing would have responded to Johnson's 100 messages per week. What do you think a more "innocent" girl would have said in this scenario?
If there isn't much difference between a 15 yo being able to make this decision as a 16 yo would then say would a 14 yo be able to make the same decision as a 15 yo?
This line of reasoning just does not work.
This is why grooming is such a crime..the victim being happy with the situation should have no bearing on the matter
Last edited:
I dont even know what point you are trying to make. A newspaper are reporting their opinion on him.
The judge never said his behavior in court was a reason for his sentence length.
It was because of that that I inserted the word "directly". My belief is that it is the fallout from the event, the publicity, shaming - perhaps even the thought of having got her idol put behind bars - have all contributed to what has undoubtedly now been an ordeal for her. Of course you can argue that by cause-and-effect this all stems from Johnson's actions - which is true, however the point I was/am attempting to make is whether it were those actions themselves or the consequences of them (i.e. this entire case) that have caused the suffering.
It likely is a dilemma in many cases, although I think the severity/trauma caused by the original incident is a big influence. In a rape case for example, the victim has likely gone through a very painful ordeal and may believe it is "worth it" to put the offender behind bars. I wont pretend to have a deep understanding of the state of mind of a rape victim however.
Going back to this case (and likely other ones of a similar nature) I do think it is hard to judge the integrity of testimonies given after the trial has commenced. This is by no means me saying that she is lying, but rather than I suspect there was a substantial amount of pressure from family, parents etc who will have wanted to see justice served. If you go back to the original Whatsapp messages and texts submitted as evidence, I do not think it paints a picture of trauma or abuse. And I find myself more compelled to go with the earlier evidence due to the reasons stated previously.
Better for her, yes. Rumours are rumours and you will get them at any school with 15 year old girls. My understanding of the case is that the rumours, slagging off and other abuse mostly originated (or at the very least, massively intensified) once the incident was put in the media and public eye.
Whether or not Johnson cheats on his girlfriend is really of no bearing to this particular point (the wellbeing of the victim).
@Walrus
Sorry if I'm wrong but you seem to ignore the concept of "abuse of the state of weakness" especially in a scenario where you have someone whose age is 15 VS someone aged 28 yo
Sorry if I'm wrong but you seem to ignore the concept of "abuse of the state of weakness" especially in a scenario where you have someone whose age is 15 VS someone aged 28 yo
Christ. It's like a gathering of morons.
it was never going to be that. It's about comparison, sentencing is done like that and this one was high.
Understood
I think the thing that bothers me in this thread is just how many people seem to think that if a 15 year old "knows exactly what they are doing" that in some way should lessen the severity of the sentence. I find the lack of understanding that a 15 year old may think they know exactly what they are doing but in reality a lack of life experience means they dont have the tools to determine the rights and wrongs, short term or long term. The lack of understanding in here of why society deems a person to be a child, a minor or an adult and especially the need to protect the vulnerable from external dangers as well as themselves is unsettling.
I understand what you are getting at. Girl's idol starts messaging her and flirting with her - I can sympathise with the situation for her that she was probably struggling to wrap her head around the prospect of fulfilling that teenage dream of shagging your idol/celebrity etc. Johnson of course should have known better, and abusing his celebrity status to get any woman is a bit pathetic. To do it with a teenager is disturbing. To do it with a pregnant girlfriend at home is undoubtedly reprehensible.
When it comes back to 'innocence' though, I dont really buy it. It has been a few weeks since I saw the Whatsapp messages but when he says "just wanted to get your jeans off" she replies with something like "next time haha". I highly doubt she thinks that all he has planned is a pyjama party. Again, not blaming her, but to me that doesnt exactly cry trauma and abuse.
On the bolded bit - in a legal sense sure, but talking purely about the victims wellbeing I would say it does have a significant influence. Otherwise you are essentially saying that grooming is on an equal or similar footing to rape - which in my opinion it is not.
Moreover, the moral prejudice can't be fully estimated at this point in time.
Nobody can say " Oh. I have the feeling she is quite happy and mature. I don't think she is traumatized".
I am not psychiatrist but it is not an easy thing to assess the mental health of a teenager in period of puberty.
Nobody can say " Oh. I have the feeling she is quite happy and mature. I don't think she is traumatized".
I am not psychiatrist but it is not an easy thing to assess the mental health of a teenager in period of puberty.
Last edited:
Grooming has to be dealt with severely since it's so so dangerous. A pervert will only groom for one reason, there is no way to argue otherwise
You are right, and I am equally as unqualified to make a professional judgement of the victims state of mind as a result of
a) the original incident and
b) the media/trial fallout
I am - like everyone else - just going with what I have seen from this trial and my own opinions. I am not defending Johnson in the slightest for his actions though, but rather just attempting to delve purely into the victim's side of things - i.e the trauma, abuse, suffering and so forth that has been caused, since I find it an interesting legal dilemma when the court case itself (and surrounding media circus) potentially causes the victim more harm than the original crime.
I understand and agree, I am talking purely from a 'trauma' point of view at the moment when I say that whilst the victim may or may not (and legally, not) have had the experience or tools to make a sound, well-informed decision, that that doesnt inherently make the experience traumatic for her. Given that no intercourse took place, there was no risk of pregnancy and virtually no risk of STDs. As was stated earlier, one of the functions of the law is to protect 15 year olds and try to ensure that they are not put in a situation where they have a decision to make, so to speak. Clearly, the law failed to do that in this case (because Johnson is not a good human being), but the followup media circus has a distinct feel of "two wrongs make a right" and that the result of this will somehow make up (to the victim) for what originally happened.
My view of the victims innocence/"she knew what she was doing" is simply that it implies to me that the original crime itself did not cause her a great degree of trauma. I am not saying that it absolves Johnson, or that it is her fault for leading him on, or that she was in a position to make a well informed decision/sound judgement, but purely that the experience would not be traumatic or damaging to her.
As @Downcast said, it is not easy to assess the mental health of a teenager and there is undoubtedly a possibility that in 10 years she may have had some deep rooted mental issue resulting from what took place with Johnson, but this would be the case regardless of whether it went to trial or not I think.
I do not think grooming should be seen as on a par with violent crimes such as rape. I also think the age of the victim should be taken into account with regard to grooming.
I won't pretend that I completely understand how sentencing works, but I read the sentencing remarks and it seemed to me the judge justified why he didn't get a lesser sentence, and, given it could have been at least twice as many years, I didn't think it harsh. Obviously, we will see if Johnson gets anything from the appeals process.
But it's to ward off perverts even approaching underage children. Put off as many of them as they can and punish them so severely that the next paedophile thinks twice.
Ever see those stings when a pervert goes to meet his victim only to find a sting operation waiting for him / her? There is literally no victim but they are still prosecuted and brought up in front of the judge. Is there any credible way to explain why a grown man has approached an underage girl other than with bad intentions? Complete strangers too.
I think this misses the point completely.
No 15 year old girl can, as a child, consent to sexual activity. Whether the particular 15 year old is mature enough is irrelevant because that way lies arguments which the PIE and others historically made regarding children much, much younger.
The point is that many - if not most 15 year olds are not mature enough to make decisions like this and are easily manipulated by adults. Therefore, the law is there to protect all young people
The girls behaviour here arguably tells you exactly the issue - immature, a young kid who wants to grow up too fast. Kids should be protected from people who would take advantage of their naivety.
But - even if you accept the school of thought that she carries some of the blame (which I don't) then he still knew he was underage, still knew it was illegal and despite being able to have women of legal age at his beck and call on account of his profile and wealth he still did what he did.
Last edited:
Im shocked by that last point.
So when is it ok? Is 15 fine? What about 14? What about 12? A very slippery slope there.
The law is very clear - it's not much to ask for adults to behave like adults is it?
Every individual is different, and of course the law cannot be done on a case by case basis to prevent subjectivity.
I said the victims age should be taken into account, not that there is a specific cut off point I think it superior to others (you only need look around Europe to see how the age of consent varies from country to country).
Cases where the victim is prepubescent are in my opinion different to one's where the victim is in puberty and/or aware of the situation.
Every individual is different - that's why, in my opinion, it's best to take a cautious approach to ensure the well being of potential victims.
You say you don't advocate a "cut off point", yet then refer to pre-pubescent victims which is exactly that - and even worse, a cut off which is hardly capable of definition medically let alone socially. What does pre-pubescent mean? Where is the line? If the line is unclear does that not create a grey area for dangerous people to operate in?
My point is that those who seek to take advantage of Children - in this case a young girl still at school, should be punished substantially for that because as a society it is desirable that we protect children from harm.
The reality is the sentence he got firstly, would have been reduced if he'd admitted his guilt. Secondly, if he behaves he might serve half of it. I obviously recognise there are varying levels of offending but I fail to see how less than he got (given the time he'll actually serve) is a realistic deterrent for dangerous people intent on doing harm to the underage.
When I said "cut off point" I meant a specific age (hence my mention of how the age of consent varies from country to country). Pre-pubescent means pre-puberty. Puberty is not a specific age but effectively the process of a child developing into an adult, which normally starts in the early teens. Without wanting to generalise, a pre-pubescent child is likely to have no sexual drive and little understanding or interest in things of a sexual nature. This is also the difference between paedophilia (sexual attraction to pre-pubescents), hebephilia (attraction to young adolescents in the early stages of puberty) and ephebophilia (attraction to adolescents in the latter stages of puberty) (thanks Wikipedia!). Once someone has gone through puberty then essentially they are an adult - even if not treated as such in the law (depending on the individual and the country they reside in).
There would be allowance for the fact she was 15 rather than 3 but the fact remains she is legally designated to be a child and he knew this and carried on.
Also, as we keep saying, he's 28 compared to her 15. The law is there for a reason, it has to contain an age reference of some kind in order to make it into a law that can be written down, enforced etc.
Also, as we keep saying, he's 28 compared to her 15. The law is there for a reason, it has to contain an age reference of some kind in order to make it into a law that can be written down, enforced etc.
Not sure if its been posted yet but Pretty good watch from TrueGeordie video, sums up what most of our thoughts are on the matter I'm sure.
Who's saying decisions are made on generalisations....I am sure each case is taken individually but my understanding is where possible and certainly in cases of single mothers where the child would have to go into care a mother is allowed to continue to care for their child.
What Johnson did was wrong, and he clearly knew it was wrong, hence his asking her to delete the conversations.
That said, I'd like to see the sort of sentences other people have received for the same offence. He shouldn't be punished excessively just for being a rich, arrogant footballer.
That said, I'd like to see the sort of sentences other people have received for the same offence. He shouldn't be punished excessively just for being a rich, arrogant footballer.
And then him getting her to start messaging him on Snapchat after the second meeting took place (Snapchat deletes messages after 24 hours automatically)
"He said the photos were for the doctor, of course. Have you not had your monthly dick check up? It's free on the NHS."
Him being a rich footballer was a huge part of the case though. He knew the girl idolised him and chose to abuse that.
- Status