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’

We can do both.

Try reading more of the comments.

And it is their INSTANT go to. They've read nothing, researched nothing, just want to silence the victims and those who want the rapists to be properly sentenced.

We live in a country where rape is not prosecuted - you do realise how low our conviction rates are right?

(What are the conviction rates in the countries you are referring to? And where do they typically murder / cut out the tongue of rape victims.)

There are those on here who avidly know all the Mail prints but do nothing but criticise it for not following their party line! The same people swallow every word from the Grauniad though which is just as biased but in the 'right' way.

That doesn’t contain details of the judge’s comments and the context within which they were made.

Ok.

I think they are talking about the judge’s comments as reported by the DM. Not the attack against this young girl.

Because it's yet another excuse for lenient sentencing, the unproven allegation of 'discrimination'. What about the discrimination against the child he brutally raped? That's OK is it?

Agree, Too many judges are far too lenient on rapists, that's assuming the rapists ever get to court in the first place, which most don't.

But that doesn't mean it's all about immigration.

No one ever said it was all about immigration.

Two things can be true at the same time. Do we have a problem with British rapists? Yes. Do we have a significant problem in now adding to their number with foreign nationals from countries with different standards in the treatment of women and girls? Also yes.

Not if they are brown or muslim or asylum seekers. Same old same thing that has been going on with grooming gangs phenomenon for decades.

It would give me the greatest pleasure to drive a Rusty nail through the perps balls.

Let’s see which judge dictates his “human rights”say he cannot be thereafter deported.

These animals should be thrown out of our country back to the hovels they came from.
That girl will live with the memory for the rest of her life.
I truly think our judges and police force are totally divorced from reality and corrupt.

We need a damned good clearout of the dross in our judicial system.

A white college-age swim star raped an unconscious 18-yr-old girl (was she 17?) outside behind a dumpster in California years ago now. Two other young men came upon the scene and stopped him - luckily.
I believe the judge stated that the young man had his whole life to live and he came from a very good family and he didn’t want to ruin his life or swim career, so he sentenced him to 3 or 6 months or some ridiculously easy punishment.
It was all over the news and people were outraged.
It was sickening - and I think they ran the judge off the bench. It wasn’t in my area and it was years ago so I don’t remember the particulars.

Judges can be awful - because judges are people. And occasionally they forget why they are sitting up there in their black robes deciding exactly who gets to keep their head, and who loses theirs.

Correct.

The reality is that nobody here advocating for the rapist's correct punishment gives a flying fuck in a windstorm what ethnicity the rapist is, decent people want him locked up for 20 plus years to life because he raped a child. Those who give zero shits about raped children do not.

The bigger problem however is that judges are regularly on the side of the rapists. And yes, they should have their hard drives checked.

There is one correct and acceptable way to feel about a child rapist, or indeed any rapist - horror, disgust and a desire to see him locked up for decades. Anyone who tries to minimise deflect or derail that simple requirement is dangerous and not to be trusted.

What a stupid, facetious comment. Actually, it can be that simple.

No, it really can’t. If there was a way of preventing all crime that we could simply through money at, somewhere round the world would’ve done this and achieved 0% crime right. It hasn’t happened, even in utopias like Iceland.

We haven’t thrown money at it as people still don’t see it as a priority spend. There is also the prevailing view, often apparent on MM, that we should lock everyone up forever.

Having heard a lot of sentencing remarks, I can say that dangerousness is a legal term, and the parameters are very strict, usually reserved for people who have committed multiple specified serious offences, who show no remorse and who have been assessed by professionals to be likely to reoffend.

In addition 'severe psychological harm' means in addition to that normally expected to flow from the offence otherwise judges can be accused of double counting in appeal. Also there has to be evidence of this severe harm eg self harming, suicidality, inability to sleep/leave the house etc etc.

Judges have to justify every single decision they make according to actual guidelines. They don't just pick a sentence out of the air.

I understand the dangerous definition element but the psychological harm part seems so illogical. It sounds like the victim has to be on some level performative to ensure the perpetrator gets a maximum sentence? How could that ever be expected of a child? She could well develop these issues in years to come.

And just in principle, if two victims of the same crime respond differently, how does that make one crime worse than the other?

Not blaming the judge, I understand they have to follow guidelines, just seems the law is flawed and unfair.

Here are those responsible - the sentencing council.

shame on every last one of them.

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/sentencing-and-the-council/about-the-sentencing-council/sentencing-council/

Too soft Britain! I bet the judge would think differently if it was their 13 year old daughter that had been raped by this ‘man’.

I take your point but I don't see what they can do about it. They cannot guess at possible future trauma (or possible undisclosed traima).

Also more than once I have heard the phrase 'you take your victim as you find them' so if you happen to attack someone who already has a heart condition and they die because of your attack but a healthy person would have made a full recovery, tough shit. You are punished for the outcome. The same has to be true the other way round. If the victim is a resilient person not particularly badly affected by the crime then the harm done is less.

So do you by the sound of it.

Judges are on the wrong side a lot of the time and that is why people get away with a lot of things. This country is too fucking soft and the judges are too fucking stupid.