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’

Who are ‘they’? And can you show anyone being an apologist for the crime? Or showing sympathy for the perpetrator? (Hint - explaining to you what might be given in mitigation of a sentence does not equal sympathy - it’s just an explanation).

How many pages does this thread need to go before people stop confusing the law (whether punishments are right or wrong is another thread) and the judge’s personal thoughts?

The judge wasn’t saying that he didn’t think the rapist was a nice guy and was doing no harm, or that he wasn’t an ongoing threat to people. His comments on the danger level of this beast are legal, not personal. The guy didn’t meet the criteria to be considered particularly dangerous over and above the generally accepted level of danger that comes with any child rapist.

Letting your personal feelings cloud the legal process is exactly what the judges cannot do. They oversee the application of the law, make sure the prosecution and defence behave themselves and also act within it and make rulings based on extensive knowledge and experience within the legal world.

There’ll be judges out there would give this individual the death penalty if they could, I’m sure.

Who the fuck do judges take this professional advice from

I work with offenders not one professional I work with would ever consider a man who has raped a child no longer a danger to society and so soon after the attack

At times it is obvious the offender has money and has been able to buy a very good defence team its not so clear in this case

The ^nothing to see here” attitude is astounding when this is a site for women. And mothers, come to that

Absolutely agree MaturingCheeseball

He doesn’t see him as no longer a danger to society. He was making a legal judgement which has been explained several times on the thread.

Yes I am aware of how it works

and the attack took place not even a year ago and a child was raped

And he hasn’t said he’s ’no lohger a threat’. He’s sentenced him in line with guidance for the crime he committed but said he’s no more dangerous than anyone who has raped a child. Not that he’s not a danger at all.

Good point - it may be that this judge is out of step with peers or has even made an error. Or that there is a negative trend in lenient sentencing for serious crimes. All things that should rightly be reported and discussed. But that isn’t the DM’s story and - as mentioned above - it rather artfully overlooks the fact there is a framework judges are operating within at all until the end.

The reporting comes across as sensationalist and should be interpreted with caution. It’s worrying that people confidently assume they have all the facts based on it.

Ok. I’m hiding this thread.
We all think the crime is abhorrent.
We would all like the sentencing guidelines to be harsher for this kind of crime.
We would all like more races to result in prosecution.
But the people saying the judge must be a paedophile or ignoring what the terms ‘dangerous’ and ‘psychological harm’ have specific legal meanings in a judge’s comments are just enjoying their ignorance and I can’t be doing with it.

keep going

and I shall keep questioning how that call can be made not even after a year after the attack took place I am well aware how prisoners are assessed in prison

Because it’s nothing to do with time after the offence! It’s nothing about whether he’s still a danger to society. You clearly don’t understand the way it works. Maybe go back and read some of t( excellent explanations made in the thread.

I do understand how it is presented by the offenders legal teams and the sway reports can have

The law absolutely does not judge everyone the same unless you want to claim it does

but the prison population will show you something quite different

I still maintain that some posters’ defence of the Judge’s comments (we all understand sentencing guidelines, thanks) are less about a devout respect for the Law and more about trying to silence any discussion surrounding this criminal.

Can you explain why? It doesn’t seem fair to cast aspersions on people’s motivations for posting without something to back it up.

Surely it doesn’t need to be stated that this is a dreadful crime. I can’t imagine what discussion we’d have about the crime itself, but if you think there is a point that is being stifled, what is it?

Whereas, it does seem worthwhile to point out misunderstandings. And I completely disagree that everyone on here understands sentencing guidelines! Lack of understanding about the law is a staple on any crime and justice thread.

Yep. Shut it down. Same as people reporting posts for being "deeply offensive"

Go on and say whatever it is you think people are preventing you from saying about this crime.

However, if what you want to say is that a poster you disagree with is some sort of unspecified deviant (as a deleted post aimed at me implied earlier) of course you’ll be shut down - by MN.

Yeah. Believing on the internet is just daft. That’s why I read newspapers and reputable online sources.

Really you see no nuance in rape cases involving children? You see no difference between these fictional cases?

1. 18 Yr old man having sex with his 13yr old girlfriend, she tells the court she consented but she's under the age of consent

1. 18 Yr old man who was drunk at a party, went to a bedroom with a 13yr old girl who he thought was older, she enthusiastically consented to some "heavy petting" but he "got carried away and went too far". He has shown great remorse, written a heartfelt letter of apology, undertaken therapy and volunteered to undertake unpaid work for a charity educating young people about consent. He has no previous history and excellent character references

1. A 40 Yr old man corners the 13 Yr old friend of his son and rapes her. He says "she was gagging for it", she says she was crying and saying "please stop" other girls come forward and report flashing and groping.

1. A 30 Yr old man in a balaclava grabs a 13yr old girl walking home through a park in the dark, holds her down and rapes her, threatening to cut her throat if she screams and come for her family if she reports it. There are 10 other reports of similar crimes by this offender taken into account.

You really think there is no difference?

Lol you reported me for even saying I see you. Hahahahahaha! Yeah, nothing to see here, move along 😅

Again, imagine being THAT person on a thread who is trying the ACKSHUALLY raping children is ok in certain circumstances but I won't quite say that out loud...

Imagine even thinking of the instances where you might barely squeak by raping a child in order to try to disrupt and minimise normal, correct responses to child rapists.

Oof. Wow.

Absolutely no idea. I’m fully in support of immigration, the UK needs it. Why convicted overseas criminals aren’t deported has always baffled me, though.

Our economy needs it, in a kind of Ponzi scheme way, our environment definitely does not!

I didn’t report you, pal.

But if you’re going to make comments like ‘I see you’ - which on a thread like this one implies something very serious - you need to be able to back them up.

You’ve said you don’t do ad hominem attacks, so I’ve either said something so obvious that everyone literally can see it or you’ve applied your laser sharp powers of deduction to my posts, in which case you can join the dots for everyone.

Heaven forbid you might just be throwing around nasty, poisonous half-baked accusations.

Not one person has said anything like that.