Peter McLaughlin denied the charges at two previous trials and only admitted them on the third attempt to convict him. Despite having forced his victim to endure three distressing trials rather than admit to being a pervert, the judge took into account his "good character" and positive testimonials and suspended his six month prison sentence for two years and ordered him to sign the sex offenders register.
How can a child abuser can actually have "good character" and should his refusal to admit to his offences during his first two trials warrant such a lenient sentence? The justice system throws pensioners into prison for not paying their council tax yet convicted sex offenders are free to walk the streets. What do you think? Does the punishment fit the crime? Click here to vote.
Stuart Parr is a 
Posts
