FGM conviction: about goddamn time

Toko Black

You are quite correct - I took it as accurate on face value when I clicked agree.
Having read the categories, it(male circumcision) is comparable with Type I FGM, but only with the rarer subset of prepuce removal only.

I still personally find it an abhorrent practice that is a mutilation of a child (when carried out for non-medical reasons). Not as grotesque, painful and mutilating as the vast majority of FGM cases, but abhorrent non the less.

Sonic67

Mother jailed for 11 years over FGM

Mother, 37, jailed for 11 years after becoming first person in UK to be convicted of female genital mutilation.

Why only one though?

Trollslayer

To set a precedent?

Sonic67

See first post.

Woman who had her three-year-old mutilated becomes first person convicted for FGM in UK

It is the first time anyone has been convicted of FGM offences since the practice was criminalised in the UK in 1985, with laws being expanded in 2003 and 2015.

Toko Black

afiak it's down to a lack of enough evidence to score a conviction.
I would suspect it would be a case of lack of resources, experience, getting people to testify against their own families and a balance of the law between protecting innocent children from dangerous parents and innocent parents in suspicious circumstances.

It's always going to be a difficult one, especially with mothers and children ... and how the law and society view protection and securing those relationships.

Sonic67

It's not like it happens by accident.

Toko Black

I imagine it is extremely unlikely, but not being an expert in paediatrics or the law, I can't categorically say for sure.

I would guess there will could be issues with identifying the guilty party if only one parent did it, but the other who disagrees strongly with it still won't give evidence against the other out of fears of loosing their family or reprisals, loyalty misplaced or otherwise etc.

(I in no way think that the following is a justification for the actions or outcome - it is just a hypothetical)

Imagine a father is disgusted and outraged by his wife getting their daughter 'cut', but in all other aspects of parenting he feels his wife is still the best person to look after their daughter and sons because it was an abhorrent anomaly and can't happen again as they don't have any more girls.
He may never forgive his wife personally, but none the less still want to keep his family together and fears that even though his wife should be punished, that doing so will cause additional and unnecessary suffering for the children from that point on.

How do the investigators, prosecution and courts deal with that situation ?
They don't know for sure whether it was the father, the mother or both, but suspect it was the wife.
Without the fathers testimony and evidence, they can't get a clear indication of guilt - so do they prosecute both and put one innocent and one guilty parent in prison and deprive the children of both parents ?
Again, not a legal expert so I can't speak for the law itself on the precise legality, but it is certainly not an absolutely clear cut ethical, moral and legal scenario where any outcome is a 'win'.

Again, I in no way support parents getting away with such abhorrent acts, merely speculating and reasoning why it may be the complexities of specific cases, the law and families having an effect on the prosecution rates.

rustybin

The only people involved will be the idiot family who will be complicit and the scumbags doing it. Incredibly difficult to prosecute.

Sonic67

The same thing with child neglect, abuse, mental/sexual/physical etc.  It would be interesting to see the prosecution rate in comparison.

rustybin

Not quite the same. This often happens at a very young age, to an area of the body unlikely to be seen by anyone.

How would the girl know that what's happened to her wasn't 'normal' until years later?

The training that's gone on in schools on FGM over the last 24-36 months or so has been incredible, so expect more prosecutions in the years to come.