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

Some real ignorance of the law on this thread.

It’s a separate debate if you think sentences are too lenient, but for god sake, the judge can’t just magic a life sentence for this person. The same way they can’t just give him a community payback order…because the law does not allow it.

The guidelines are strict and all of the aggregating/mitigating factors need to be taken into account. They can only sentence within the law, which has happened. Rightly or wrongly, the law is what it is.

We don’t know much about this case - nothing about the lives or background of the victim or perpetrator which may have influenced which category he was sentenced under, so none of us are in a position to talk about checking anyone’s hard drive.

Equally, with the judge’s comments on the level of psychological harm - this isn’t the judge casually deciding that the girl is fine and so no real harm has been done. It’s not their personal opinion. There is a system in place to determine whether someone meets the bar for psychological harm, and that’s what the judge is commenting on. The same applies to the level of danger of the perpetrator.

Unfortunately I’m seeing more and more women - and I presume they’re women on MN - making excuses for sex attackers based on some criteria or other.

There was a piece in The Guardian playing down statistics saying there was a difference between the numbers of men brought to trial and those found guilty.

I think we all know how hard it is to secure a conviction. The Guardian is basically saying that a large number of accusers are liars, aren’t they?

You’re not condemning a child rapist who has been convicted because you don’t like the newspaper it’s been reported in?

The problem with building more prisons, is that there's no staff to run them. The prison service is already severely short staffed in the prisons we do have.

Many people who should have got prison sentences, haven't. Those who are sent to prison are getting more lenient sentences. It's all wrong. Theoretically we could pump more money into every aspect of the justice system (although where it would come from I don't know) but no one wants these jobs. Be it on the rehabilitation or punishment side.

It's easy to say this or that should happen but no one wants to do the job to make it happen. The pay is low for the stress of these jobs. The people who do work in the system are struggling due to low staffing numbers, making the roles even less desirable. It's dangerous work. Look at the prison officers who have been attacked and severely injured. Just recently a probation officer was stabbed at work, she's still in hospital and the perpetrator has been charged with attempted murder.

Of course, the sentences handed out should fit the crime. I don't disagree with that at all. But what do we do? How do we make that happen?

Since I was not in Court to hear the judge's remarks, I cannot say.

However, I strongly suspect that the version the Daily Mail is giving out may only be the edited highlights.

I wouldn't condemn anyone for anything on the basis of a report in the Daily Mail (or, sadly, even the Daily Telegraph these days).

You’re an intelligent human being. Work it out for yourself. If you’re honest it won’t take you long.

What political gain would that be?

From the judge’s comments I assumed this was a case where the girl had consented but was under the age of consent so it is still rape. But it isn’t! He put his hands on her face and dragged her down an alley! It says in the article that the judge not deeming the man dangerous didn’t change the category of his crime - but if he’s not dangerous then who is?? I also find it pointless for people to be sentenced to X amount of years in prison but not have to serve them all

The judge’s comments were appalling and it was a truly horrible crime. Seven years doesn’t feel like enough although I suppose he was constrained by sentencing guidelines.

But this man was sentenced in June. Odd that it’s taken the shadow Home Secretary two months - and the quietest news point of the year - to find his outrage. Call me cynical but it looks politically motivated to me. I think weaponising a crime for political gain is pretty low.

They can't do anything that would affect the outcome of this case, but they could ultimately change the sentencing guidelines. I see what you mean about taking the victim as they are but I think psychological trauma is not well enough understood for it to be taken into account as a factor in determining how serious the crime is, even in adults, certainly not children. I think physical outcomes are a different matter as they are objectively measurable.

I'm just surprised the law works this way when it comes to psychological harm, I didn't know that.

You’ve shown your true colours and have embarrassed yourself.
Time to shuffle off.

This is the most ridiculous comment

I think a lot of people would think differently about a lot of things if it were their daughter.

Why isn’t he being deported?

Judges are on the wrong side a lot of the time and that is why people get away with a lot of things. This country is too fucking soft and the judges are too fucking stupid.

So do you by the sound of it.

I take your point but I don't see what they can do about it. They cannot guess at possible future trauma (or possible undisclosed traima).

Also more than once I have heard the phrase 'you take your victim as you find them' so if you happen to attack someone who already has a heart condition and they die because of your attack but a healthy person would have made a full recovery, tough shit. You are punished for the outcome. The same has to be true the other way round. If the victim is a resilient person not particularly badly affected by the crime then the harm done is less.

Too soft Britain! I bet the judge would think differently if it was their 13 year old daughter that had been raped by this ‘man’.

Here are those responsible - the sentencing council.

shame on every last one of them.

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/sentencing-and-the-council/about-the-sentencing-council/sentencing-council/

I understand the dangerous definition element but the psychological harm part seems so illogical. It sounds like the victim has to be on some level performative to ensure the perpetrator gets a maximum sentence? How could that ever be expected of a child? She could well develop these issues in years to come.

And just in principle, if two victims of the same crime respond differently, how does that make one crime worse than the other?

Not blaming the judge, I understand they have to follow guidelines, just seems the law is flawed and unfair.

Having heard a lot of sentencing remarks, I can say that dangerousness is a legal term, and the parameters are very strict, usually reserved for people who have committed multiple specified serious offences, who show no remorse and who have been assessed by professionals to be likely to reoffend.

In addition 'severe psychological harm' means in addition to that normally expected to flow from the offence otherwise judges can be accused of double counting in appeal. Also there has to be evidence of this severe harm eg self harming, suicidality, inability to sleep/leave the house etc etc.

Judges have to justify every single decision they make according to actual guidelines. They don't just pick a sentence out of the air.

We haven’t thrown money at it as people still don’t see it as a priority spend. There is also the prevailing view, often apparent on MM, that we should lock everyone up forever.

No, it really can’t. If there was a way of preventing all crime that we could simply through money at, somewhere round the world would’ve done this and achieved 0% crime right. It hasn’t happened, even in utopias like Iceland.

What a stupid, facetious comment. Actually, it can be that simple.

Correct.

The reality is that nobody here advocating for the rapist's correct punishment gives a flying fuck in a windstorm what ethnicity the rapist is, decent people want him locked up for 20 plus years to life because he raped a child. Those who give zero shits about raped children do not.

The bigger problem however is that judges are regularly on the side of the rapists. And yes, they should have their hard drives checked.

There is one correct and acceptable way to feel about a child rapist, or indeed any rapist - horror, disgust and a desire to see him locked up for decades. Anyone who tries to minimise deflect or derail that simple requirement is dangerous and not to be trusted.