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've just looked at the sentencing guidelines here:

Rape sentencing guidelines

and, on the basis of the news coverage, I can't see any factors that would elevate it beyond category 2B, which is the sentence he got.

I think people often don't realise that judges can only sentence within the parameters of the guidelines.

Honestly give it ten years and they’ll be saying how they were always very vocal about this issue yada yada

I think wanting to know the full information before forming an opinion rather than jumping to conclusion is not a problem.

Do you really think they're treating all rapes alike in terms of sentencing will help women?

Or does it give a licence for rapist men to be as violent and barbarous and sadistic as they want, because the sentence is the same.

Being blunt here, because this isn't a topic where we can be coy, this would mean giving the same sentence to these guys:

1. a. 14-year-old from a troubled background, victim of child sexual abuse himself, someone who is grown up with very blurry lines when it comes to consent, in a consensual sexual relationship, doesn't take no for an answer, and rapes her once, hates himself for it.

2. A man repeatedly rapes his wife over a 20-year. She has children as a result of these rapes, and has tried to commit suicides several times. She stays with him for cultural reasons.

3. a man drags a child off the streets at gunpoint and subjects her to a sadistic sexual assault and rape lasting a prolonged period. Includes anal rape. Child needs intense psychological support for the rest of her life and never emotionally recovers.

All of these are rapes. All of them are wrong wrong. All of them deserve prison. But they are not the same, they don't show the same level of barbarity, and they shouldn't get the same sentence.

Some real ignorance of the law on this thread.

Some real ignorance in general. Lots of self-righteous comments about posters excusing rapists, when it’s perfectly clear that it’s the depiction of the judge that they’re questioning.

As a lawyer I find these articles attempting to whip up hatred for the judiciary really dispicable. The judge has to follow the sentencing guidelines. He has to categorise the offence by harm done - ie he has to examine where there are any additional factors which make this offence harmful over and above the ingredients of the offence (which are already taken into account). He has categorised it as category 3 not category 2. He also has to assess whether the offender is dangerous in the sense of posing a significant risk to the public of committing further specified offences. On the facts he has found that the thresholds are not met.

A judge is, quite rightly, not allowed to throw away the guidelines and just apply the higher categories if there is no factual basis for them.

The fact that the judge did not categorise the offence into higher categories is NOT a way of saying that he does not consider the offence serious. See pp10 to 12 https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Aug-2015-Sexual-Offences-Definitive-Guideline-web.pdf

This thread separates out those that understand the sentencing procedure in a court, and those that don't.

Most people aren't going to understand sentencing procedure and law, it's reasonably niche, and if it's not something you've come across or work with, terms like is rapist's not being dangerous or there not being severe psychological trauma seem atrocious. But as people have pointed out they're legal terms, with legal definitions that the judge has to apply.

This headline could apply to cases up and down the country everyday. It's just one the daily mail chose to use to drive their agenda on immigration.

Take another area of life, that most of us are familiar with, for example, pregnancy. The term geriatric pregnancy sounds really offensive, especially to someone still in their thirties. But there's no point getting upset about, because it's a medical term with a specific definition. In the same way, dangerousness has a legal definition and it's quite a high bar. If it is considered that the sentence is too low that can be appealed.

I think people prefer to get caught up in the froth though.

And here we have the perfect example of someone preferring the froth.

Do you think all three men should get the same sentence?

Yes. But you feel free to justify the raping.....

@hydriotaphia

These articles are not “whipping up hatred” for the judiciary. You speak as though people don’t have their own independent thoughts and mind.

Have you considered that people are understandably outraged by the lenience of the sentence, while still understanding that the judge is working within the confines of the sentencing guidelines?

For sure, but then why not do a quick google search and read a variety of articles to establish the facts. Rather than spending the time piously lecturing other posters about reading the daily mail?

Fair enough.

Next up, everyone gets the same sentence for speeding, whether they're 31 in a 30, or 120 in a 30.

Stealing a loaf of bread is now treated the same as stealing the crown jewels.

And the elderly guy married for 60 years, who gives his terminal ill wife a morphine overdose to end her suffering, gets treated the same as Fred West.

By the way, telling me to fuck off , could be considered a malicious communication. It's at the milder end, but you don't believe in that, so I guess you'd be getting the maximum of 2 years?

If you really can't see why there's a range of sentences available for the same offence, then my mind absolutely boggles.

Agree.

Imagine coming on a thread about a raped child and whatabouting and trying to muddy the waters.

We all know what you are. All of us.

I refer you to the comments about checking the judge’s hard drive because he has apparently not gone outside of the boundaries of his authority when it comes to sentencing.

Rubbish. The thread is about the judge’s comments.

It’s perfectly reasonable to consider how and why stories, particularly emotive ones, are reported the way they are.

This thread is a real insight into mob mentality - anyone who doesn’t agree or show what is deemed to be an appropriate level of fury is sanctimoniously slurred as a rape apologist. There are utterly dim posts about checking hard drives.

Quite how you think you’re helping or standing up for victims of crime (or how questioning reporting is harming them) is beyond me.

Please explain your logic.

And say clearly what it is you see. It would be good to be clear on what I’m being accused of and on what basis.

Is the judge not talking in the law guidelines - the different thresholds that have to be legally proven?

Agree with all of this. They are legal terms that have set criteria; having been based on the reports provided during trial and not subjective opinion on the abhorrent nature of the crime. It can be hard to look at it in this manner, but that is how the process works

But the information is detailed there so it’s not jumping to conclusions.

2 limited quotes without everything the judge says is not the full information.

Other posters have also explained that the dangerous the judge is refering to and mental harm are both measured against specific standards. This is a big part of the full information.

Important to remember that 90% of rapists don’t spend a day in prison. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but at least this guy is actually in prison.

This is which I hate the media with a vengeance. They so know who to attract sensationalism, and therefore money, by twisting interpretation in a way that those less educated, less capable of unbiased assessment, their views driven by drama.

It's the same whatever the headline. How hard is it to distinguish one's view on a crime, from the view of the person giving the sentence bound by legal policies they have no control over.

Blame or judge the legal system, not the person who might themselves be questioning their role in the process.