Teenager drop-kicked for saying you need female genitals to be a woman

Yes, it’s easier to secure a conviction for a less serious offence than to push for a more serious one where you have a victim who will not give a statement and will not cooperate with the investigation. Although technically it is possible to convict in the absence of the victim giving evidence, in reality it does weaken the case.

My point is that the term alleged tends to be used to describe a victim until the defendant has been found guilty. Otherwise it’s seen to undermine the presumption of innocence. Here the defendants were never tried for assault so the assault itself was not something that had been proven in court and I suspect that’s why the word ‘alleged’ was used rather than some speculation that the judge was biased in favour of the defendants.

Anyway, as I said I have sympathy for neither party here. I would also have prosecuted the defendants for a more serious crime but I suspect the reason this didn’t happen was due to lack of cooperation by the victim. A conviction for something less serious is better than an acquittal. And it saves issues with what prison they’d go to too.

My concern was just that several posters seemed to be saying that provocation is irrelevant- there’s never an excuse for violence. I would argue that in some cases there is and have outlined the type of cases where I think that would apply.

It’s easier to get a conviction for public order so I think that’s what they did.

Is it really? When there is so much clear evidence of assault? Why do you think that? CPS guidance says in most cases both should be prosecuted if the crime meets the threshold.

Having explained away the decision to prosecute for a public order offence you next explain away the judge's disgusting victim blaming comments because it was a public order offence so it doesn't need a victim.

If the offence doesn't need a victim then the judge has no need to refer to an 'alleged victim' or a 'so-called victim'. The judge said, I accept that had it not been for the alleged victim in this case there probably wouldn't have been an incident. so clearly the fact that there was a victim is central to this crime. So how can it not be an assault?

How can you watch that video and not recognise that an assault is taking place? How can you say there is 'no key witness to give evidence about how they attacked him' when a witness made that video showing exactly how they attacked him and that video was used as evidence?

We can argue about whether this met the threshold for ABH and we can argue about various aggravating and mitigating factors but it's ridiculous to suggest they would have been found not guilty of assault.

If we adopt a policy of ‘no victim blaming ever’ we would have to apply that to female violence against male victims too. And provocation only excuses or explains behaviour, it doesn’t justify it.

Which is why provocation as a mitigating factor is not the same as victim blaming. The judge went far beyond that with his comments.

He referred to 'the alleged victim' and 'the so-called victim' and said if it wasn't for the (alleged) victim there wouldn't have been a crime. That is victim blaming.

Presumably prosecuted as public order offence because victim refused to give a statement.

There was plenty of other evidence that an assault took place - video, hospital records and a whole bunch of witnesses.

I have sympathy for neither victim nor offender here. It’s a fairly typical display of the many brawls that men frequently get caught up in (and some women, but not nearly to the same extent or with the same consequences).

However, provocation as a mitigating factor IS a feminist issue. Research on DV suggests that where women do attack men, it’s often in retaliation or after being provoked for a lengthy period of time. If we adopt a policy of ‘no victim blaming ever’ we would have to apply that to female violence against male victims too. And provocation only excuses or explains behaviour, it doesn’t justify it. So in the Sally Challen case, the fact that her husband had abused her to the extent that she then snapped just meant she was guilty of manslaughter rather than murder. Her husband, the abuser, was still a victim in the eyes of the law.

They were more likely to break their own feet than do any serious damage.

In those stilletos? I don't think so.

They were more likely to break their own feet than do any serious damage.

Actually rolling on the bed laughing at this absurdity.

They were more likely to break their own feet than do any serious damage

Gosh yes, their poor, delicate feet might have been injured while stomping.

Okay, although to be fair this is in Feminism Chat and male on male violence isn't a feminist issue. Its an issue for men to sort out amongst themselves, preferebly without fists and feet.
I listened to the link about catcalling on the "George, not a pervert" thread and I think its clear that men lack impulse control, they think its okay to let every thought in their head come out of their mouths andthat its okay to respond with violence when their feelings are hurt. As a woman I can't really understand it.

Presumably prosecuted as public order offence because victim refused to give a statement.

Actually you're probably right about that

Perhaps worth noting we don't actually know the full extent of the provocation either, just what whoever covered the case for the Daily Mail decided were the most relevant comments by the judge. He could of squared up to them for all we know.

It’s never okay to kick someone who is on the ground and it should ideally have been prosecuted as more serious than public order offence. However, getting angry about the judge’s comments is unnecessary because provocation is relevant to sentencing. There is no suggestion that the judge did anything wrong in recognising that.

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/magistrates-court/item/aggravating-and-mitigating-factors/

Setting out that provocation is a mitigating factor in sentencing for a range of offences. Doesn’t mean that the offender isn’t culpable but it goes towards reducing the sentence.

Presumably prosecuted as public order offence because victim refused to give a statement.

Of course provocation is relevant, which is why the judge commented on it. It goes towards mitigation in sentencing. And rightly so - someone who is provoked is less blameworthy than someone unprovoked. As others have said, it works in women’s favour in DV cases. The Sally Challen case involved a blameworthy victim and I am glad that her sentence was reduced to reflect that. Doesn’t make him not a victim but it helps to excuse some of her behaviour.

Sticking up for someone hurling racist abuse at people isn’t a great look even if you dislike the defendants. He sounds very unpleasant but it seems that the court dealt with hit properly by finding the defendants guilty but acknowledging that they were provoked.

I think its scary the amount of people who think that kicking someone in the head while they're already on the ground is no big thing.

They've been given a slap on the wrist and virtually a license to do it again. I just hope next time they do it, and there will be a next time, that their victim will be able to walk away and that they get the justice they deserve. Although as a realist I imagine they'll be like most gangs of thugs that curse most neighbourhoods and will just escalate and continue to get away with violence.

Anyway I'm not that interested in discussing sentencing policies tbh, the point I was making was that there was nothing particularly unusual or lenient about the sentence in this case as some posters seemed to be suggesting.

Funny old world. There are women in prison for non payment of fines resulting from failing to pay their TV licence, yet kicking someone in the head (which can be fatal and surely is not an action undertaken without intent to cause serious injury) gets a non custodial sentence.

That's a fucked up set of sentencing guidelines. And as a member of society, worried about the societal costs of violence on public transport, I'm failing to see the problem with locking up violent bastards. I think locking up violent bastards is a good idea.

Head kicking is especially vicious. I say this as the ex partner of a very violent man. Even he, renowned for his violent, blind rages, didn't kick someone's head when they were on the ground.

Isn't it interesting the difference in attitudes round violence that's evident on this thread? Some posters see violence as a bad thing, and think one of the aims of the legal system should be to curb human being's baser instincts and seek prison sentences as appropriate to back this up. Another group of posters seems to think "he looked at me funny" absolves the perpetrators of most of their culpability.

I wonder what facet of socialisation could be behind this difference in attitudes? Whether there's any sort of pattern out there?