Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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

185 replies

treaclesoda · 18/02/2016 05:19

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.

OP posts:
OneFlewOverTheDodosNest · 18/02/2016 11:12

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 · 18/02/2016 11:11
Angry
grimbletart · 18/02/2016 11:06

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.

PalmerViolet · 18/02/2016 09:55

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!

TheCatsWhiskers · 18/02/2016 07:27

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

Sophie38 · 18/02/2016 07:23

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

tribpot · 18/02/2016 06:37

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.

rainbowstardrops · 18/02/2016 05:56

Disgusting Angry

Original poster
treaclesoda · 18/02/2016 05:53

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. Angry

OP posts:
ThumbWitchesAbroad · 18/02/2016 05:41

"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. Angry :(