Daniel Steven John, a postgraduate student at Durham University working on Dark Matter, has just been cleared of voyeurism, despite being caught in the act, and admitting he was doing so.
The defence was that he was not seeking a sexual thrill, and because John had been suffering from depression and contemplating suicide, he had been carrying out reckless acts for an adrenaline rush, hence the peeking under and over the toilets and showers of female students. He also said in his defence that he had stolen from colleagues, but then returned the items before they had noticed that they were missing.
Now depression can be a terrible ailment, but going by the newspaper report in The Northern Echo on 17th October, this all stinks to high heaven as far as l am concerned.
Firstly it seems as though there is no proof that he took any of his colleagues possessions, or that he contemplated suicide, as stated in his defence. OK, he may well have been depressed, but does that excuse the voyeuristic behaviour, as, whether it was for a sexual thrill or an adrenaline kick, the victims still had to suffer, and who knows how many more unsuspecting victims there were? Does that mean that if l am caught drink driving tomorrow, l can blame it on depression and say it was for the thrill of the chase? Shoplifting? Would l get away with that if l was trying to get a buzz out of outwitting the store detectives? The list could go on and on, and l could bring up (or invent) all sorts of past misdemeanants that l had done and got away with, trying to obtain some kind of rush or meaning to life because l was depressed and had contemplated suicide (which sane person hasn't?).
There was apparently no fine, community order, suspended sentence, or an undertaking that he must receive treatment (which l bet he started after he got caught).
Methinks if he was not a (probably posh) post graduate student at Durham, and not had a consultant psychologist and a no doubt top lawyer defending him, it would be a completely different matter.
If 'crazy' Bazzer, Mazzer, Gazzer or Dazzer from down our way had done this, relying on their legal aid team (for however long that lasts) the outcome would have been completely different.
Pah!! Once again, 'If that is justice, l'm a banana'
toodle pip
No comments:
Post a Comment