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

[Lizzie67384]

A male judge stated he thought the rapist was not a ‘dangerous man’ and that the 13 year old victim had ‘not suffered much degree of psychological harm’

Seriously!?!
The thread is about the comments made by the judge. And as far as I can see, your link doesn't contain the comments made by the judge.

Do you understand the difference between defence and mitigation? Those are two completely separate things. The first applies to whether you are guilty or not, the second to the sentencing once you are found guilty.

Your post comes across as if you are downplaying the rape of a 13 year old girl. You might want to consider editing it

What are you on about? It is. It’s there, available to anyone online. Feel free to prove me wrong.

I think most male judges (and some female) need their hard drives checking.

I used to carry out dangerousness assessments for court. The term dangerousness is specific in this context and he is very wrong.

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/sentencing-dangerous-offenders#:~:text=The%20SA%202020%20contains%20separate,The%20available%20alternative%20sentences.

That’s unfair. He is a rapist and the sentence was wrong. The overwhelming majority of immigrants aren’t.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/rape/

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/rape-of-a-child-under-13/

Sentencing guidelines for rape and rape of a child under 13.

About halfway down the page - mitigating factors. Both mention a screed of points including the offenders age and their own experiences in the past.

@Lizzie67384 Couldn’t be any simpler really, could it?

Yep, imagine thinking "but it's the dAiLy mAiL!" is any kind of discussion point.

Unfair in your opinion. Not mine. The sentence is wrong, I agree, far too lenient.

Look at the matrix this is a child, a stranger, in public, during the day, pre meditated. I'd be interested to see the probation assessment. I've worked with a few rogue CC judges in my time who pay them little heed.
Dangerousness also isn't impacted by whether someone will be deported or not. It's about likelihood of serious reoffending not where.

The sentence is in line with guidelines for someone not assessed as dangerous, it's that assessment I question.

This is frustrating to read.

The sentence was handed down because even a judge can’t pluck a figure from the sky and imprison someone for that time. Look at the categories on the guidelines. The judge is limited in what they can do and I don’t doubt for a second that they must wish they could put these beasts away for longer. None of us know the intricacies of the case so we can’t possibly say how it ended up in which sentencing category.

The argument needs to be with the law, not the person working within the confines of it.

Absolutely the punishments need to be harsher. But they won’t be, because we can’t fit the criminals in as it is. There’s no room for longer stays.

Why is the result of trauma-level relevant to sentencing?

Rape is rape. The act is illegal.

Whether it's a (perpetrator) husband, father, brother or stranger.... (means) date rape, threat, weapon... (mindset of perpetrator) drunk, angry, tired... (victim) age, sex, species etc

When will the crime alone be cinsidered abhorrent "enough"?

Why dies the victim have any any relevance? Rape is rape. He is a rapist.

Should always be a maximum sentence.

No, but I’m against exposing women to any more risk than is necessary, particularly when the men come from terrifyingly misogynistic countries which de facto makes them more likely to be misogynistic (otherwise who is supporting the show there?). Please don’t do the equivalent of NAMALT and miss my point entirely.

It’s like a victim is punished for not being traumatised enough.

Yes, there is some misunderstanding here. The Judge is referring to a specific type of risk assessment normally carried out by a Probation Officer in a pre-sentence report, in order to pass a specific type of sentence with an extended licence period.

I agree with you. It is far too lenient. But you surely can’t believe that every immigrant is a rapist?
That would suggest that every white, British doctor called Harold and every white, British, special care unit nurse called Lucy is a murderer.

Of course they’re not.

We need to be building more prisons.

Part of the problem with cases involving immigrant men is that they come from countries were rape isn't prosecuted. They also often murder, or cut out of the tongue of rape victims, so they can'tbe identified. There'sakso beencases were they'veblinded their victim. Children certainly aren't off limits.. So no-one can judge how dangerous these men are.

I hear you. Find space for these horrors to exist and keep the public safe.

Don’t be stupid. It adds nothing to the debate.

Nobody has said that every immigrant is a rapist, in the same way people with concerns about transwomen aren’t saying every transwoman is a rapist. I refuse to believe you can’t extend the same logic to this.

Quite and you can’t just check their criminal record as there won’t be one. Misogynistic regimes aren’t in the habit of prosecuting rape or sexual assault then keeping diligent records on criminal convictions.

And for rape especially, the victim impact is just another way if taking away a victim's power.

If you want your perpetrator to do a proper sentence you have to either be traumatised or put on a show of being traumatised enough, even if it takes away your chance to claim back your power.

You can't stand up and say "fuck you, you took a small portion of my life and I refuse to give you the power of telling you it impacted me because youve already taken control once"

Instead, rape victims who want justice have to make a choice about exposing their vulnerability again.

I'm so over it.