Court of Appeal on comedian sex offender: not entirely good news
So, finally, the comedian who sexually assaulted a child but was initially discharged because he’s so funny then re-sentenced because that’s not actually a fucking excuse will finally actually serve his sentence. Which is only eight months’ home detention anyway.
Here’s the latest problem (because this story is just packed full of delicious, angry-making problems):
Judge Cunningham decided not to sentence Comedian Z (as referred to by the courts) because it would damage his career. (My thoughts on this argument remain the same: Sexually assaulting a kid SHOULD FUCKING WELL AFFECT YOUR CAREER.)
Judge Perkins decided this argument was bunkum not because sexually assaulting a child SHOULD FUCKING WELL AFFECT YOUR CAREER but because:
[he] considered that, to a significant extent, the adverse consequences had already been suffered and would not be significantly exacerbated by the refusal of a discharge
And this is what the Court of Appeal has agreed with in choosing to enforce the frankly pathetic sentence.
Not because sexually assaulting a four-year-old is fucking awful. Not because changing your story about sexually assaulting a four-year-old – “oh I don’t remember what happened” but “oh I thought she was my adult partner” – is fucking digusting.
Nope, it’s okay for this guy to serve eight fucking months‘ home detention because his career’s already been shot to hell – AS IT FUCKING SHOULD BE – so a sentence can’t make it worse.
Which leaves only the fucking terrifying conclusion that if his career hadn’t already been ruined by his sexual assault of a child … the Court of Appeal would entertain the idea he should be let off. Their argument is literally that his career can’t be ruined any worse by a custodial sentence, so he should serve a sentence.
For, let me just remind you one last time, sexually assaulting a four-year-old.
Our fucking justice system, ladies and gentlemen. If anyone needs me, I’ll be in the Angry Dome.