Rapist has sentence reduced as judge says there is no indication that it was anything other than a 'single impusive act'

[treaclesoda]

link to newspaper report here

I came across this newspaper report and I couldn't believe what I was reading. A man who rapes a stranger in a car park sounds to me like the very definition of someone who is a danger to women, not just someone who made a minor impulsive error of judgement. Such a horrible crime totally minimised.

[ThumbWitchesAbroad]

"A single impulsive act" - like driving drunk that one time, and wiping out another family in the car that's hit, for e.g. But that's ok - it was a one-off.
Or punching that stranger in the bar so they fall, hit their head and die (coward's punch as it's now known in Australia) - but it's ok, it's a one-off.

What an utter bollox of a judge, and the crappiest of crap reasons.

A man who "impulsively" decides to rape a stranger in a carpark is NO BETTER than any other rapist - he is A RAPIST and should serve the same (preferably much longer) sentence as any other RAPIST.

FFS. This shit makes me angrier and angrier, every time I see it. :(

[treaclesoda]

Yes, exactly. It's like if he only did it once it somehow doesn't matter as much? With no regard for the fact that it doesn't matter to his victim if he'd never done it before or not, because he still attacked her.

[rainbowstardrops]

Disgusting

[tribpot]

I couldn't get your link to work for some reason, I've included a second one here

So the crime did not involve 'gratuitous' violence? Just the right amount for a rape, then. And was the result of 'alcohol and opportunism', two things he is unlikely to encounter in the future? Is the implication that the crime wouldn't have happened if his victim hadn't have given him the opportunity by being out after dark on her own, perhaps? The 'Taliban defence'.

I can't imagine how the victim is feeling after this news, sympathies to her.

[Sophie38]

Yes quite

'Ruling on his appeal against the sentence, Sir Declan accepted the attack involved violence, but not a gratuitous type'

What??????? This seems to imply that the violence was somehow - uhh - necessary

[TheCatsWhiskers]

Is there anything we can do? I just can't believe this.

[PalmerViolet]

So, an actual stranger rape in a dark car park... the type we're all told is so much worse than, you know, someone you know raping you gets their sentence reduced because he only used enough violence to make it possible to rape her and probably won't rape another women in a car park?

Fuck off!

[grimbletart]

What the hell is rape but "gratuitous violence"?

He should be kicked off the judges' bench. Someone should give him a dictionary as well. Gratuitous means given or done free of charge or uncalled for/ lacking a good reason. Source OED.

So the judge is saying in reality it was OK either because he didn't charge her and it was called for, or he had a good reason for the violence.

[PausingFlatly]

[OneFlewOverTheDodosNest]

When I hear this reasoning coming from a judge it makes me wonder how many of the judiciary are rapists themselves - after all they certainly share the same mindset.

[PausingFlatly]

Yes, OneFlew, I've been wondering about about that.

My suspicion (tho NB I have no evidence for this), is that there are many people who themselves have not committed sexual violence, and possibly would never commit sexual violence. But are more than happy to enable other people to commit sexual violence.

How does that work? What's happening in the enablers?

If they believe sexual violence is hunky-dory, why are they not doing it themselves? If they believe it's wrong, why are they colluding with the abusers?

[PausingFlatly]

I suspect this because of the sheer number of people (men and women) who seem eager to support and assist rapists, and to attack the victim to assist in the process.

[ThumbWitchesAbroad]

I've read the link now.
What it appears to boil down to is "silly woman, going willingly with the man in question, probably knew what was likely to happen because didn't run away when left alone with him, or fight him off"

So, victim blaming at its finest then. Bloody bastard judge.

[LineyReborn]

Is there anything we can do?

[PausingFlatly]

Is it that they think it's wrong, but it's actually kinda convenient that there are other people prepared to commit sexual violence?

Perhaps because it helps enforce some social end the Squeaky Cleans are quite happy with?

I'm still at the mulling stage with this.

[Lightbulbon]

That judge should be struck off!

[VinceNoirLovesHowardMoon]

Fuck sake.
1- it's highly unlikely the stranger rape was the first incident of sexual violence in this mans life. All the evidence we know about sexual violence indicates that it escalates, and raping a stranger in a car park is the definition of an end point, not a starting point
2- even if this was the first incident, again (see above) it's highly likely he would do it again and probably worse

Arararrarathfjgfhdhshhsshj

[Owllady]

And the excuse that alcohol was involved
Wtf

[PausingFlatly]

Yes, is there anything we can do?

[ElderlyKoreanLady]

So, applied to another serious crime, I assume this judge also believes that the sentencing for murder should be reduced providing it's an impulsive one-off?

Can atrocities like this be overturned?

[treaclesoda]

Sorry that my original link didn't work.

I posted in a fit of outrage and didn't check it properly.

It makes me so angry.

[cadnowyllt]

Here is the judgment from BAILII - for an insight into the Courts thinking in this case. When Judges have to decide on a sentence, they need to refer to sentencing guidelines - with sets of possible aggravating (such as previous convictions of a similar nature) and mitigating circumstances , although the lists are not exhaustive. What the Judges are trying to do is to look at offences of similar gravity and hand down similar sentence.

[OneFlewOverTheDodosNest]

Sadly Pausing I take a more cynical view on this than you do.

I believe that the reason so many men argue against enthusiastic consent is because they KNOW that they've been guilty of sexual coercion but they like to pretend that they're nice guys.

So they maintain that they "didn't realise" that they'd got a woman blind drunk before sleeping with her (despite buying doubles and pretending they were singles) or they "can't read minds" when women don't actively fight back (despite the fact that the woman froze and clearly wasn't comfortable with what was happening and just stopped bothering to say no rather than saying yes)

So they pretend that women are stupid and change their minds, because the alternative is to admit that they're very bloody lucky that they haven't been charged with sexual assault and they have no intention of changing their behaviour.

[StealthPolarBear]

Oh well I'm sure he's a nice guy really. We just need to no go near hI'm when he's drunk. Or grumpy. Or angry. Or anything other than mellow really. Still...not his fault, not his problem.

[cadnowyllt]

Having read the judgement, I think you may be on your own in thinking him a nice guy.