AIBU to think the judge’s comments in this case are completely inappropriate?

I still maintain that some posters’ defence of the Judge’s comments (we all understand sentencing guidelines, thanks) are less about a devout respect for the Law and more about trying to silence any discussion surrounding this criminal.

I do understand how it is presented by the offenders legal teams and the sway reports can have

The law absolutely does not judge everyone the same unless you want to claim it does

but the prison population will show you something quite different

Because it’s nothing to do with time after the offence! It’s nothing about whether he’s still a danger to society. You clearly don’t understand the way it works. Maybe go back and read some of t( excellent explanations made in the thread.

keep going

and I shall keep questioning how that call can be made not even after a year after the attack took place I am well aware how prisoners are assessed in prison

Ok. I’m hiding this thread.
We all think the crime is abhorrent.
We would all like the sentencing guidelines to be harsher for this kind of crime.
We would all like more races to result in prosecution.
But the people saying the judge must be a paedophile or ignoring what the terms ‘dangerous’ and ‘psychological harm’ have specific legal meanings in a judge’s comments are just enjoying their ignorance and I can’t be doing with it.

Good point - it may be that this judge is out of step with peers or has even made an error. Or that there is a negative trend in lenient sentencing for serious crimes. All things that should rightly be reported and discussed. But that isn’t the DM’s story and - as mentioned above - it rather artfully overlooks the fact there is a framework judges are operating within at all until the end.

The reporting comes across as sensationalist and should be interpreted with caution. It’s worrying that people confidently assume they have all the facts based on it.

And he hasn’t said he’s ’no lohger a threat’. He’s sentenced him in line with guidance for the crime he committed but said he’s no more dangerous than anyone who has raped a child. Not that he’s not a danger at all.

Yes I am aware of how it works

and the attack took place not even a year ago and a child was raped

He doesn’t see him as no longer a danger to society. He was making a legal judgement which has been explained several times on the thread.

The ^nothing to see here” attitude is astounding when this is a site for women. And mothers, come to that

Absolutely agree MaturingCheeseball

Who the fuck do judges take this professional advice from

I work with offenders not one professional I work with would ever consider a man who has raped a child no longer a danger to society and so soon after the attack

At times it is obvious the offender has money and has been able to buy a very good defence team its not so clear in this case

How many pages does this thread need to go before people stop confusing the law (whether punishments are right or wrong is another thread) and the judge’s personal thoughts?

The judge wasn’t saying that he didn’t think the rapist was a nice guy and was doing no harm, or that he wasn’t an ongoing threat to people. His comments on the danger level of this beast are legal, not personal. The guy didn’t meet the criteria to be considered particularly dangerous over and above the generally accepted level of danger that comes with any child rapist.

Letting your personal feelings cloud the legal process is exactly what the judges cannot do. They oversee the application of the law, make sure the prosecution and defence behave themselves and also act within it and make rulings based on extensive knowledge and experience within the legal world.

There’ll be judges out there would give this individual the death penalty if they could, I’m sure.

Who are ‘they’? And can you show anyone being an apologist for the crime? Or showing sympathy for the perpetrator? (Hint - explaining to you what might be given in mitigation of a sentence does not equal sympathy - it’s just an explanation).

Absolutely this.

I cannot believe this judge said 'However, I do not think there is sufficient evidence before me to be satisfied that you meet the criteria to be considered a dangerous person.’ . Are they stupid? How much more evidence do they need if a grown men has violently raped a child.

I think some of our judges need to retire or retrain.

I am well aware of South Africa’s femicide issue but I don’t think that PP was talking about SA.

What is the rape conviction rate in SA?

And if the only example is of ONE child rape victim in Pakistan or Bangladesh (those are two different countries) having their tongue cut out I am not sure it can be claimed be claimed as a cultural norm.

If police rapes attract protests clearly it is not viewed as acceptable and “unchaste women” are not viewed as “fair game”.

And to reiterate: the UK also has a very very loe rape conviction rate.

So I'm from South African background. DV is ignored, rape in marriage is ok. I have friends from Nigeria, Ghana and Zimbabwe. Most women's first sexual contact is as a child, the men aren't prosecuted. To be raped is still seen as shameful, the men aren't blamed. DV isn't even recognised as such. Women are murdered for all sorts of reasons, you have to have male family members who will kick up a fuss and then the police can just decide to ignore what's happened. If you've travelled around Africa, you'll know that you can bribe your way out of trouble. Google child rape victim has tongue cut out, Pakistan/Bangladesh. You haven't seen reports of women having to protest in the streets because a woman has reported a rape and been raped by the police (an unchaste female is fair game)?
The lives of women there doesn't compare with our low conviction rate.

I get nuance, but I really struggle to see any nuance in child rape TBH.

Actually, no, of course, 2 13 year-olds having illegal due to age, but otherwise consensual sex isn't anything like a grown man forcing himself on a 13 year old.

I guess I see no nuance when it comes to adults raping children is what I should say.

I can't see any comparison in anyway similar to bread vs. crown jewels, or terminal patient given lots of morphine vs. bludgeoned to death during a mugging.

Adults raping a child is always very wrong. No wiggle room there.

There is a whole book called “Noise” which is the word used for the “variability of judgements that should be identical’. Judges all have the same guidelines but their judgements are not all the same and their remarks should be a window into why. It is reasonable to comment on disagreements with the reasoning behind these decisions, if only in the interest of free speech.

The DM may have an interest in whipping up public sentiment to the extent of selling more newspapers. Not sure if they want the collapse of the rule of law.

You can apply to the General Attorney to have the sentence reviewed, takes 5 mins and is very easy

I would be happy if each case was dealt with on its own individual merits.

Do you believe in the rule of law?

The judge is a twat. But I'm sure someone will be along to agree with him, saying the rapists doesn't understand our laws, rape and under age sex is part of his culture, and we're all bigoted racists for wanting this child rapists convicted.

Fair enough but I think that you have missed the point