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

cad

I think you are probably right

Rufus

Ok, it seems agreeing to disagree on the issue might be the best policy

Thank you cad

In respect of sexual assault i think (as with rape) that the act is violent...it does not have to have involved any violence

In the same way that some people put yelling and screaming under the domestic violence catagory

I know its not the legal view and i think thats why some of us are talking at cross purposes

Rufus at 22:23 Sexual assault is a violent act...clue being in the word assault

Not according to the definition of sexual assault at S3 of Sexual offences act 2003 - if you’re interested, I leave you to look it up - a sexual assault can be occasioned by a mere touching. There’s no need for it to be violent in any way.

Lass at 00:25 Possibly it would be more acceptable if these aggravating elements were tried as separate crimes in their own right rather than an aggravation of the main crime ?

Maybe but even then, when it comes to sentencing, the Courts try to arrive at a ‘just and proportionate’ over-all sentence - in something called the “totality principle” – Again explanations on t’internet can explain it better than me. But in fact, there is an example of it, in this Northern Irish case, the applicant had been convicted of two charges, the first of rape for which he was initially given nine years and a second charge of sexual assault for which he was given two years - that second two years was to be served concurrently with the nine years. The case doesn’t spell out what was the sexual assault – probably the molestation before the rape.

Bathtime at 08:32 Does the same apply to other violent crimes? Is there a concept of gratuitous violence if you do a murder or a grievous assault?

Yes they do – again, sentencing guidelines for these type of offences are available on t'Internet. As above - the courts try to make the sentence fit the overall culpability of the offender. In fact, for different levels of injury & the intent of the offender there are different statutory offences - Common Assault, ABH, GBH (s20), GBH with intent (s18), Manslaughter and Murder

The creepy and offensive thing in those sentencing guidelines is the idea of using more violence than necessary to commit the crime.

Like if you are going to get your raping done, you will need to use some violence. But you are only allowed to use just the right amount. If she would have given in with one punch fewer, then that is "gratuitous".

Does the same apply to other violent crimes? Is there a concept of gratuitous violence if you do a murder or a grievous assault?

It seems to me that talking about the right amount of violence for commuting the crime rather makes it seem like the rape is a crime against property rather than a crime against a person.

Sorry lass just to clarify that i am completely agreeing with you

lass

I think that would make people more...i dunno...understanding if ,as you say, rape was seen as a violent crime in of its self

So any rape is a violent crime but being beaten is a seperate violent crime with seperate punishment added on to the rape

Thats probably what is supposed to happen but doesnt

Its, I understand what you're trying to say. But wouldn't you agree, as a matter of ordinary English, that every single rape involves someone being violated? And that, by extension, as a matter of ordinary english, each involves violence?

Unlike some posters here, I don't have a difficulty with the idea that, whilst all rapes are appalling crimes, some are even worse than others, and should be punished as such. But I also think that talking about a category of 'non-violent rape' is dangerously minimising

That is a good post. It covers what happened in the Ched Evans' case for example. His victim was violated .He committed rape because he didn't bother considering one way or another whether or not she consented and the court found she was incapable of consenting. There was no suggestion say that he doped her drink or abducted her or physically overpowered her resisting him or beat her up. A court would impose a heavier sentence if those elements were present.

I completely understand it can lead to the appearance of saying some rapes are worse than others.

Possibly it would be more acceptable if these aggravating elements were tried as separate crimes in their own right rather than an aggravation of the main crime ?

The judgement in this case seems very peculiarly worded - to talk of "gratuitous violence" in the context of a crime seems meaningless to me. Although from the full court judgement it seemed to be a technical term? I don't know, NI Criminal law is outwith my jurisdiction but it read as if it were a recognised technical term.

...but, like a lot of women...

Really must proof read before I post.

At least then I can be belittled accurately

I am very sorry you were sexually assaulted cadno.

It was a violent act and should never have happened.

It beggars belief that you can't see that, but, like women who are sexually assaulted and raped, you have either justified it away or minimised it. It happens all the time, and, along with people not believing that certain violent acts constitute rape, is one of the reasons women don't report.

It also beggars belief that you think your little vignette makes some kinds of rape ok. I thought you were supposed to be a lawyer? I'm pretty sure the law is fairly clear about what constitutes rape. Anything else is deemed an aggravating factor, no?

So, no, not me with a need to return to any drawing board. Plus, an apology for misrepresenting me might be nice. Deeply unlikely given your history, but hey, I'm a glass half full kind of woman.

Sorry that was to cad

Not that I think there was any point

It doenst matter if both you and she think it wasnt violent

Sexual assault is a violent act...clue being in the word assault

You dont get to say "some rape is not violent because i dont think it is"

Rape is a violent act

I didn't intend to cause you psychological distress. I have no interest in you.

And I didn't say there was male violence and female violence, rather that your attempt to define violence as something that left marks and caused physical pain privileged a macho worldview.

You are now boasting about the career of the woman who did a nice gentle sexual assault on you.

And this is relevant to a discussion about rape because...?

If you and your college professor assailant agree that her assault of you wasn't violent that proves a point about whether rapes are violent?

Mansplaining is usually at least clear.

Bathtime - coming from someone who apparently thinks there is "male violence" and "female violence" - your insult, although intended to cause me psychological distress (and therefore, a violent act according to your own definition), didn't have the intended consequences. You can fuck right off.

Rufus

Yes, it was a sexual assault - no question of it. However, I still did not consider it violent and neither did the woman. Palmer - thought opinions such as ours would beggar belief.

The woman in case, is now a professor at a UK University but I suspect there is very little need to worry for the young men in her care.

Oh and penis in mouth without consent of the mouth owner is also a violent act

What happened to you sounds like sexual assualt so I would personally say that was a violent act as well

cad

You are obviously struggling with this, penis in vagina without consent equals violent act

Thats what this thread is about

I am sure if you start your own thread with your own experience you will get lots of relevant comments

i am obviously just a self loathing, misogynistic women with no clue as to the machinations of the world, hell bent on minimising rape.

That's the smartest thing you've written on this thread.

*woman even, ffs, anyway good day.

i give up, i am obviously just a self loathing, misogynistic women with no clue as to the machinations of the world, hell bent on minimising rape. You learn something new about yourself every day.

Can judges be struck off? What's the process for that?

Ladies,

You think you know what it's like to have a vagina and many of you even think you know what it's like to be raped.

But think again. I'm here with my cock and a story about a surprise blow job to teach you all a thing or two.

Funny thing, though, it has never occurred to me that was an act of violence as you postulate.

So you are telling us all, that as the owner of a penis, you get to decide whether it is an act of violence to have something inserted in your vagina without your consent?

Is this the ultimate in mansplaining?

The bottom line here is that a penis inserted into any orifice where consent hasn't been freely given, without coercion, is absolutely an act of violence. It beggars belief that anyone could think otherwise.

Your bottom line model needs some re-modelling. The exact thing as described above happened to me. I was in a parked car, in the driver's seat and a female work colleague was in the passenger seat. We'd been to a party. I was very drunk as to be almost passing out. I closed my eyes for a moment and when I opened them again to speak to this woman, I was more than a little surprised that she wasn't in the seat. It took a couple of seconds to realise that she had bent over onto my lap and was giving me a BJ.

Funny thing, though, it has never occurred to me that was an act of violence as you postulate. Back to the drawing board ?

I suspect your first thought will be to try to dismiss men's (aka menz) experiences.