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’

I think a lot of people would think differently about a lot of things if it were their daughter.

Why isn’t he being deported?

This is the most ridiculous comment

You’ve shown your true colours and have embarrassed yourself.
Time to shuffle off.

They can't do anything that would affect the outcome of this case, but they could ultimately change the sentencing guidelines. I see what you mean about taking the victim as they are but I think psychological trauma is not well enough understood for it to be taken into account as a factor in determining how serious the crime is, even in adults, certainly not children. I think physical outcomes are a different matter as they are objectively measurable.

I'm just surprised the law works this way when it comes to psychological harm, I didn't know that.

The judge’s comments were appalling and it was a truly horrible crime. Seven years doesn’t feel like enough although I suppose he was constrained by sentencing guidelines.

But this man was sentenced in June. Odd that it’s taken the shadow Home Secretary two months - and the quietest news point of the year - to find his outrage. Call me cynical but it looks politically motivated to me. I think weaponising a crime for political gain is pretty low.

From the judge’s comments I assumed this was a case where the girl had consented but was under the age of consent so it is still rape. But it isn’t! He put his hands on her face and dragged her down an alley! It says in the article that the judge not deeming the man dangerous didn’t change the category of his crime - but if he’s not dangerous then who is?? I also find it pointless for people to be sentenced to X amount of years in prison but not have to serve them all

What political gain would that be?

You’re an intelligent human being. Work it out for yourself. If you’re honest it won’t take you long.

Since I was not in Court to hear the judge's remarks, I cannot say.

However, I strongly suspect that the version the Daily Mail is giving out may only be the edited highlights.

I wouldn't condemn anyone for anything on the basis of a report in the Daily Mail (or, sadly, even the Daily Telegraph these days).

The problem with building more prisons, is that there's no staff to run them. The prison service is already severely short staffed in the prisons we do have.

Many people who should have got prison sentences, haven't. Those who are sent to prison are getting more lenient sentences. It's all wrong. Theoretically we could pump more money into every aspect of the justice system (although where it would come from I don't know) but no one wants these jobs. Be it on the rehabilitation or punishment side.

It's easy to say this or that should happen but no one wants to do the job to make it happen. The pay is low for the stress of these jobs. The people who do work in the system are struggling due to low staffing numbers, making the roles even less desirable. It's dangerous work. Look at the prison officers who have been attacked and severely injured. Just recently a probation officer was stabbed at work, she's still in hospital and the perpetrator has been charged with attempted murder.

Of course, the sentences handed out should fit the crime. I don't disagree with that at all. But what do we do? How do we make that happen?

You’re not condemning a child rapist who has been convicted because you don’t like the newspaper it’s been reported in?

Unfortunately I’m seeing more and more women - and I presume they’re women on MN - making excuses for sex attackers based on some criteria or other.

There was a piece in The Guardian playing down statistics saying there was a difference between the numbers of men brought to trial and those found guilty.

I think we all know how hard it is to secure a conviction. The Guardian is basically saying that a large number of accusers are liars, aren’t they?

Some real ignorance of the law on this thread.

It’s a separate debate if you think sentences are too lenient, but for god sake, the judge can’t just magic a life sentence for this person. The same way they can’t just give him a community payback order…because the law does not allow it.

The guidelines are strict and all of the aggregating/mitigating factors need to be taken into account. They can only sentence within the law, which has happened. Rightly or wrongly, the law is what it is.

We don’t know much about this case - nothing about the lives or background of the victim or perpetrator which may have influenced which category he was sentenced under, so none of us are in a position to talk about checking anyone’s hard drive.

Equally, with the judge’s comments on the level of psychological harm - this isn’t the judge casually deciding that the girl is fine and so no real harm has been done. It’s not their personal opinion. There is a system in place to determine whether someone meets the bar for psychological harm, and that’s what the judge is commenting on. The same applies to the level of danger of the perpetrator.

Actually when it comes to court reporting, journalists, wherever they’re from, have to report fairly, accurately and contemporaneously, or they’re hauled up for contempt. Court reporting is taken very seriously. They have to report comments verbatim if given as a direct quote, they cannot take out of context. It’s actually part of the judicial process. Part of the criminal’s punishment is it being reported widely in the press.
While I rarely agree with the DM headlines, nor their entire editorial approach, and would never buy or read their site, you really are wasting your time trying to defend the judge here.

Exactly. The establishment are still frantically trying to cover this stuff up because community cohesion or not wanting to appear racist/islamaphobic or plain old virtue signalling. An increased likelihood of young girls being raped is accepted as a reasonable price to pay.

This isn’t court reporting. It’s reporting the reaction of a Tory MP to the outcome of a trial that took place in June.

You are using those words in their normal everyday meaning not in the context of their strict legal terms.

A defence is a specific argument that can be raised to answer an allegation. So if you are accused of murder in would be a complete defence to plead self-defence and a partial defence to plead provocation or diminished responsibility, a partial defence leads to a lesser conviction of manslaughter.

A plea in mitigation doesn't arise until after a guilty verdict and is the defence raising factors they would like the judge to take into consideration when deciding the sentence. The judge is bound by sentencing guidelines so will have a range to work with and can give the maximum, the minimum or somewhere in between. Factors raised in mitigation are often nothing to do with the actual offence and more to do with the character and circumstances of the defendant and whether he is a risk to society.

A common mitigation would be asking a judge not to give a driving ban for a driving offence because the defendant would be unable to work or asking for a non-custodial sentence where the defendant is the sole carer for a disabled relative.

It’s not like, that’s exactly what it is.

This

The sentencing guidelines are here: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/rape/

The judge’s remarks are him explaining his reasoning in line with the guidelines, using the terminology used in the guidelines. As none of us have access to the evidence that the judge saw, as presented by the prosecution and the defence, we have to accept his categorisation. The police seem happy with the sentence. The comments of the shadow justice secretary, as reported in the DM, smack of political point scoring.

Why blame and tarnish the judge? It sounds like he was himself frustrated that he could give a longer sentence but he is not at liberty to bend the rules.

It's nasty to point the finger at him.

@WorriedRelative

You’re correct, I’m using those words in their everyday context and not the strict legal definitions, not being a lawyer.

Thank you for your explanation, it’s helpful. However, I still don’t know why this rapist having potentially being discriminated against could be considered a factor in mitigation.

I’d be happy to lock up child rapists forever.

Oh god, fuck off with your pathetic purity performance. Another poster who cares more about showing they are superior for not reading the Daily Mail, than the rape of a child, it’s revolting.