[Closed] Is this justice?

EDIT Questioning my own reasoning.

Jurors were told the boy's harrowing ordeal began in 2006 and lasted until 2013.

Bleedin hell he was raping the boy until he was 83 😯

Initially I thought if he has dementia and it happened a long time ago "punishment" would appear pointless. But that puts a different perspective on things.

Whatever the court decides to do, eg, issue a hospital or supervision order, I hope they do whatever is needed to make the victim feel that some sort of justice has been administrated.

Chop his tackle off.......scum!!

Yo will never obtain justist for this type of crime. you can never rehbilitate a hibitual ofender like this. All you can do is reduce / remove the risk to the public, the the man is very ill, he is of no risk. Prehapse this is the logic, sending him to prison would just take up space and help. It still does not help with the sense / feeling that he should be punished.

he is of no risk.

From the article :

Butt was arrested in August 2013.

So he only stopped after being arrested.

Did dementia set in very rapidly or was he still abusing the boy while suffering from dementia ?

Naahh ... confiscate all his properties then sell them to compensate the boy.

Then throw him in jail to see how long he will survive at 83. See if his organs will shunt down slowly if you adjust his diet, while you sit and watch him frail away with rich tea dunking into a cup of coffee or tea. Then bill his family members, if he has any, for cost incurred.

Then repeat the process to see if he can remember.

That's justice the ancient way.

😈

Justice has to be seen to be done, plus he needs locking away so he can't hurt anyone else.

If he cannot remember what he has done then he will repeat it again and again ... like going in loop. Even more risky and dangerous ...

Have you seen movies where the character(s) keeps repeating the same thing?

I thought this sort of justice was reserved for those with titles?

he only stopped after being arrested

As I said maybe that was the logic being used, perhaps I should have been more specific and said was / is not considered to be a risk.

Compensation idea is a good one, not that it would help healing but it would maybe hurt the offender in a different way.

"he only stopped after being arrested"

As I said maybe that was the logic being used, perhaps I should have been more specific and said was / is not considered to be a risk.

Perhaps I should have been more specific - he only stopped after the boy spilled the beans and the mother knew.

From the article :

They heard Butt regularly turned up at the youngster's house to offer his mother a break by taking her son out to the park or arcade.

However, the boy was instead taken to the paedophile pensioner's house to be abused before being taken out for ice cream as a "treat".

We have to assume that the mother put a stop to it after the old man was arrested, not necessarily that the old man had suddenly become harmless.

I read it as the mother did not know?

He is so ill that he cannot understand the charges or defend himself in court so there has been a trial to establish whether or not he did the acts alleged regardless of criminal intent . He has been found to have done the acts he will now in all likelyhood be made subject to a hospital order ie detained in hospital either without restriction or with. 'with out' means the psychiatrists get to decide when he is fit to release 'with" means the home secretary decides. If and when he gets better he can be charged and tried for the crimes and sentenced for them though obviously a sentencing judge would take some account of time spent locked up in a secure hospital when deciding the appropriate sentence .
So in short yes this is justice.