Aspies For Freedom

Full Version: Pensioner, 77, jailed for sex offence
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pensioner, 77, jailed for sex offence

Quote:
Pensioner, 77, jailed for sex offence

A pensionr from Northampton who offered to pay a woman with learning difficulties for sex has been jailed for 10 months.
Cleophus Marcus, 77, had met the woman, who suffers from Asperger's Syndrome, at a barbecue through his work at the Christchurch care home in Northampton.

She suffers from the learning disability and was a resident at another care home in town but had gone to the barbecue at his workplace with a friend.

Northampton Crown Court heard that the woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had bumped into him again while in town and he had given her his address and telephone number.

Michael Fowler, prosecuting, said it was when the woman became the victim of a £10 robbery at Northampton bus station on June 27 that she called Marcus for help.

But, when she got to his home, he gave her some alcohol and said: "I will pay you double if you sleep with me'.

Mr Fowler added: "She says that, because of her condition, she thought it a good idea because she could get some money and took off all her clothes. They were on the bed kissing, hugging and
touching each other when her mobile phone rang and that seems to have brought the matter to an end."

Judge Charles Wide QC said: "As a carer working somewhere else, you must have realised when you met her that she was suffering a disability and you exploited it. You could not have thought this woman was interested in you, a 77-year-old man."

Marcus, of Newnham Road, Kingsthorpe, Northampton, was jailed for 10 months and placed on the Sex Offenders' Register for five years, having pleaded guilty last month to causing a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity due to a financial inducement.

Richard Holloway, defending, said Marcus, who recently married and used a walking stick, had diabetes and recently suffered a stroke which had brought about a partial loss of memory.

He added: "Hindsight is a wonderful thing and, if he could turn the clock back, he would."
Last Updated: 18 September 2007 7:53 PM

If this guy was American and wasn't so old, my comment would be "Say hi to Bubba for us!"  

(Confused?  Google "prison Bubba".)
As no details are given about the woman it is possible that she was very young and inexperienced, and this had an influence on the Judge. He does say that because he is 77 she couldnt possibly be interested in the man, which is a clue. That must mean she would be under 30 at least. If she was 16 and he was 77 then a court would feel more compelled to be harsh and consider him a sex offender, than if it was an Aspie woman who was 55.
There was a reporting restriction so that was why there was no direct info about her. Therefore the reporter couldn't mention her age.
The article also says:-

Quote:
She suffers from the learning disability and was a resident at another care home in town


So I think that it can be assumed that she would be classed as ' a vulnerable person '.

This would also lead to reporting restrictions & cause a heavier sentence.

I don't think the elderly man was in full possession of his faculties either. He should have known better of course but it seems as if he had some brain damage.
So it's a crime to make a pass at an aspie?  Most the convo I hear every day in one spectrum chat room is how depressed they are because they don't have a partner.
I wondered about that myself. I think he was very severely dealt with for what was more of an error of judgement rather than a malicious act.
Sounds more like an act out of eventually so-called 'social' or 'moral' law, and somehow an expression of an attitude towards older people and spectrum people. Older people cannot be attractive or sexually active and spectrum people's decisions cannot be valid and made out of free will by this 'law'.

Yigal Wrote:
Sounds more like an act out of eventually so-called 'social' or 'moral' law, and somehow an expression of an attitude towards older people and spectrum people. Older people cannot be attractive or sexually active and spectrum people's decisions cannot be valid and made out of free will by this 'law'.


Yes that is exactly how it hit me.

I think we are passing this off too easily - cheifly because we don't know how old the Aspie female is. As Amy said, that was with held - which inevitably leads to those of us who are thinking that this was an over reaction by the court that the Aspie was legally an adult.

My view is that the restriction on the age could only have been for one reason (aside from the disability and just generally protecting the female in question). She was not an adult. 16 is the age of consent - at least I assume it is where this took place - so the options for the court with regards to sentence may have been limited (hence the light sentence). Now had she been 15 or younger the penalty would have been much harsher.

Nevertheless - this is unforgiveable and I have no sympathy whatsoever for the old bloke.
"She says that, because of her condition, she thought it a good idea because she could get some money and took off all her clothes. They were on the bed kissing, hugging and touching each other when her mobile phone rang and that seems to have brought the matter to an end."


To me, this sounds more like a mutual thing than taking advantage of someone. We need more data to process.

I do not understand what role the cell phone really played. It rang, so what? If it was like a reminder to her, maybe foul play was involved.

I wonder what they would have wrote if she had offered him some money...
A woman of 13 years of age would not be called a woman, no? So she was at least of 'legal age'.

And he 'gave her alcohol'? How bad is that? Ain't that the thing people do, according to all those ads around?

But again, data is missing.
I hardly think jailing the man was warranted if it was a first offence unless he had used violence against her but I do think he should have not have been allowed to work with such vulnerable people in the future.
She might be older than 16, but under a guardianship for example. I wonder how the word about it got out.
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's