6 and a half years?

[toryalane]

I refer to Gayle Newland. 6 and a half years. Why? Unbelievably harsh. Help me understand. www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/40668960

From the way that article describes it, it was rape. If other rapists are given lesser sentences, that makes those sentences too lenient rather than this one too harsh.

This is an interesting article. Gives her side of the story. They both seem like vulnerable young women. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/15/gayle-newland-retrial

Ok. I think I'm definitely so shocked here because of the unduly lenient sentences usually given to rape. I am being unreasonable.

I can't get my head around the blindfold thing. How on earth would someone meet up and have a relationship with a man who made you wear a blindfold all the time. Even when watching tv and going out?

Yes, men who violently rape women (or kill them for 'nagging' or infidelity) often get lighter sentences than this. While a crime was definitely committed here, it sounds like the sentencing was more about 'Eww sex weirdo' than the level of malice involved.

It is a very shocking and disturbing case, and it was very very wrong of her, she deserves prison.

However, I do worry about the age of social media dating - especially in this particular example.

Arranging to meet up with someone without being able to guarantee who they are is very worrying, it's hard to say this without sounding like I'm blaming the victims (which I' absolutely not), but regardless of your fetish and interests, I think you should really be making sure you know who it is you are meeting before you consent to anything sexual. I just couldn't imagine being comfortable even going on a casual date with someone who expressly insisted I be unable to see them, even once, even on the first occasion of meeting them.

We need to look after ourselves because unfortunately there are sick men and evidently women who are willing to go to such lengths to take advantage of someone :(

The issue is not that her sentence is harsh, but that it is harsh compared to the sentences male rapists get.

A man has received 16 years for killing cats. As a cat lover I have no problem with this at all, but it is far more than most rapists get, it's more than quite a few people convicted of manslaughter get.

This was such a calculated awful crime. Her victim is going to need therapy for life. It wasn't a one off thoughtless got in a car drunk type thing, she planned and plotted to trick someone to rape them.

Also you can't really compare crimes and sentences. What she did deserved at least 6.5years- thats all you should focus on, not who got more or less time for different offences.

Rape sentences are a joke and so unfair and disregard the effect on the complainant.. But this is a bit different.

This included deception, impersonation, stalking, rape and sexual assault. The sentence is fair. But I do wish that male rape sentences reflect the actual trauma that victims have.

Personally, I would chop off the penis of a convicted male rapist about 1 inch above the bollocks, to allow medics to insert a pee-ing tube. But, also, the pee tube would release acid if the chopped penis got an erection. That might just reflect the trauma that female rape victims live with for the rest of their lives, a little bit.

The sentence seems fair, under the circumstances.

As an aside, I've been raped by two different people and wouldn't want either of them to have their penises chopped off, let alone have their penis stumps release acid (wtf?)

I don't consider that remotely similar to the after-effects of the trauma I've suffered. Torturing/maiming someone physically is nothing remotely like psyhcological trauma/PTSD. PTSD gets under your skin and changes who you are.

Taking a scalpel to somebody's hippocampus would be a more fotting punsihment. But I'm not the kind of person who fantasises over sadistic revenge. I far prefer the idea of real justice than "hey, let's go and maim someone" like an eye for an eye is the way to go..

So read that they spent 100 hours together, and had sex 10 times..........Does anyone else not think it's a little strange why the victim would go along with being blind folded for so long?? Surely she had some suspicions that something wasn't right.....

I think it's odd that a jury believed the victim who said she did consent to sex but didn't realise she was shagging a dildo when a woman is in the dock but in most rape cases don't believe that the victim didn't consent to having sex full stop when a man is in the dock.

Those two conclusions just seem totally inconsistent, and the differentiating factor seems to be the gender of the defendant.

I really dislike the posts saying or hinting that the victim really knew what was going on.

I think the sentence isn't 'just' to do with the rape element of the case though, but the ongoing deception and basically grooming that she carried out on her victim.

Nauticant - do you not find it a little strange? She apparently had sex with a 'guy' many times whilst being completely blindfolded having never previously set eyes on him. Why would anyone not suspect something??

I didn't attend the trial so I'll resist speaking out of my arse.

I really dislike the posts saying or hinting that the victim really knew what was going on.

You aren't the only one.

I believe GN first statments to the police backed her victims story to a large degree.

The victim here is extremely vulnerable. I really dislike the tone coming from some on this thread. What happened to 'we believe you' that used to get used here so much?

Isn't there evidence that women get punished harsher by the courts than men when. Injuring no similar crimes? Can't remember for sure though.., anyone know?