Can someone explain sentancing for sexual crimes to me? (BBC link to upsetting case attached)

[BigBellasBeerBelly]

here

Time and time again I see that people who have comitted the most godawful sex crimes get what I consider to be really light sentances.

I just don't understand it.

I started thinking about it a lot after the sentances given for that dreadful caustic soda attack. In the case linked he has literally ruined the lives of many people, it is unlikely they will ever get over it. He has effectively taken their lives. He has got quite a long time, yes, but still less in terms of the years he was actively abusing the children. Then your common or garden stranger rapist gets out in a couple of years or whathaveyou.

Can anyone explain to me why? Why do the offenders get terms that I just feel are so so wrong?

The fact of low conviction rates etc is another topic entirely, and one that has been discussed at length many times. But these people have been convicted and get less than for eg an armed robbery where no-one is hurt. How does that work?

dont understand it either, you seem to get longer in prison for armed robbery than rape or seriouse assaults, it seems that as a society we value money and property over people.

Hate to say but thats mild compared to some sentences handed to these 'things'.
I know of one case where a man getting divorced abused his children and the judge said that as he was divorcing it was understandable that he was stressed and that he felt the man had made a simple mistake he got a short suspended sentence.
Some judges and even some everyday people believe it to be an illness but if thats so then why are these people not kept in mental hospitals as they would if they commited other types of harm to another human.
I cannot understand why they and murderers are not locked up for life and left in a cell to die they don't deserve any better.
In my opinion they are not often mentally ill they like control and they plan their actions from the first words they speak to a potential victim to the end of the abuse.
The system in this country and others has gone mad.Judges who are lenient should be held accountable if the offender commits the crime again,I bet that would sort it out.

"I know of one case where a man getting divorced abused his children and the judge said that as he was divorcing it was understandable that he was stressed and that he felt the man had made a simple mistake he got a short suspended sentence."

When I hear stuff like that singingmum, it makes me think that the judge is an abuser himself.

The other problem for me is that these sorts of crimes have a really high reoffence rate, so why are they released willy nilly just to go and do it again? They can ruin peoples lives and just get locked up for a little while (or not at all in singingmum's example). I honestly find it baffling.

Is it possibly a sign that despite our modern western values, a little deeper the idea that women and children are less important, that they are possessions, that it doesn't matter what happens to them, are still there? Is this why these crimes don't seem to register? i honestly don't know.

As it would happen I have News 24 on and they are talking about the catholic child abuse scandals. These abuses happened years ago and the victims are on TV saying how they feel the report has achieved nothing. That no-one will be prosecuted. Reminds me of haute de genarre in jersey as well. Everyone knew and no-one cared. It's all just appalling.

I think the reality of most sentencing is distorted by those exceptional cases which make the papers by virtue of being an apparent miscarriage of justice. Certainly, if you look at the sentencing guidelines for different offences, serious sexual offences carry the most serious penal sentences of any other case (that I could see) other than murder.

• For aggravated rape, the starting point is 15 years with a 13 year minimum and 19 year maximum.

• For a mugging without violence, the starting point is 12 months with a 2 year minimum and 7 year maximum.

• For aggravated mugging with a weapon resulting inserious harm to the victim, the starting point is 8 years with a 6 year minimum and 10 year maximum.

• For pre-meditated GBH with a weapon resulting in serious harm to the victim, the starting point is 8 years with a 7 year minimum and 10 year maximum.

• For attempted murder, the starting point is 13 years with a 10 year minimum and 16 year maximum.

There are no specific guidelines for murder another than a 20 year minimum in extreme cases (e.g. terrorist, police officer).

So clearly, sexual offences are taken very seriously in terms of sentencing guidelines - attempting to murder someone carries a lower sentence than aggravated rape. And to be clear, judges cannot go outside of these guidelines in passing sentence. Also, according to a 2003 Law Commission report, the average length of sentence for rape has gone up more steeply in the preceding 10 years than for other crimes (although sadly the conviction rate has gone down). Where, however, I suspect you get wrongful sentences for these type of offences is due to the facts that:

(i) Mitigating sexual offences may be easier to achieve than non-sexual offences, mitigation resulting in sentences at the low end of the range. After all providing mitigating reasons for an armed robbery is pretty hard.

(ii) Proving which category a sexual offence falls into may prove hard to show, e.g. rape vs. sexual assault. CPS and police may choose to prosecute an easier charge than the harder and more punishing charge.

(iii) Increased number of offences does not lead to a commensurate increase in sentence - probably particularly relevant in abuse cases where even if the victim has been abused hundreds of times, the sentence is not 100 x one normal sentence but, say, only 2 x one normal sentence (or less).

Thanks for the info cest, but how can that be right?

For eg the caustic soda bastards got less than the 13 year minimum tariff you have quoted. And they were definitely found guilty of aggravated rape.

link although I'm sure you remember it.

So judges must have the option to go below the minimums you have stated?

That is a good question, although without knowing the detail it's hard to say. Were any of them under 18 at the time, perhaps (in which case those tariffs wouldn't apply)? Were they all charged with aggravated rape, or just rape charges which may carry lesser minimums? Whatever the case, in this case though, the judge has clearly screwed up - and the appropriate amount of coverage has been drawn to it.

I noticed though that the case is being referred to the Court of Appeal as the sentences were considered to be too lenient.

That's right cest it was referred - it made the papers and there was quite rightly outrage at the sentances - although i haven't heard anything since. Can only assume that the appeal process takes ages.

I think that I just notice these cases - not just when they are being reported for light sentances - but when they are being reported generally - and time and time again I am stunned at how long the people have got.

Interesting as well that the time period/number of instances of abuse don't really count for anything. So I have seen cases where children have been abused over a period of say 15 years yet the abuser gets less than that. Which seems totally wrong to me.

It's difficult BB. Clearly the length of abuse is a factor in the sentencing which would push the length of the sentence up the top end of the possible sentence length but it couldn't (I think) go beyond it. It's the same in all other areas of law, e.g. if someone is found guilty of 10 counts of burglary he wouldn't receive 10 times the sentence for one burglary.

I see what you mean, but with abuse, the number of years really ought to be a factor.

It is nonsensical that the abuser can perpetrate abuse activaely for 10 years say, and then have his lifestyle curtailed for only 5. The term should be at least the amount of time that they have been abusing. It's just common sense.

The commons etc keep saying they are looking at this stuff but nothing seems to happen...

To me that case is a slightly less horrific Fritzel. He deliberately moved them around to avoid social services, god knows what happened in their 'homes'. Lives have been destroyed, I think it's shocking he gets so little time for it.

TDWP that's exactly what i thought - and the case came out shortly after Fritzl. At the time I wondered if that was why it was reported, and if Fritzl hadn't happened it wouldn't have got any attention.

Emotionally, I can completely see that argument.

But practically and rationally I can't. The difficulty is that is effectively justice on the basis of an eye for an eye - they've had their lives ruined for 10 years so he should have his life ruined for 10 years (or more). Can you equate levels of harm solely on the basis of time? Is someone abused for 5 years less harmed than someone over 10 years? HOw much less scarred is someone who is abused just once versus someone who is abused several times?

But even if you get over those (and other similar questions), how does that leave all other crimes? If someone is crippled in a street assault, should the offender be crippled in return? After all the victim has had his life permanently damaged. Etc. Etc.

It's not solely on the basis of time though, it's clear that a person who has systematically abused other/s for a long period of time should expect to receive a sentance commensurate with the horror of that. Abuse over a long period of time should be taken seriously. One rape is not the same as 100 no matter what the courts may say.

Similarly i don't understand why in cases like the caustic soda one, each man is simply prosecuted for rape, the fact that there were 10 of them there who all took part (although only some of them were found/sucessfully prosecuted) carries no weight. That to me does not follow common sense either. Clearly the gang attack is worse than a single attack (although obviously both appalling), why does the court not acknowledge that.

I also don't get the whole thing about rehabilitation. For other crimes eg robbing burglery mugging there are usually underlying social causes which can be addressed. Drug addiction, lack of education/opportunity etc. For sexual violence these things don't really apply, the people should be treated as a risk to the public and only released when the authorities are pretty damn sure they won't reoffend, not simply because they've served their (often) paltry sentance.

Normally length of abuse is an aggravator .

And (in general) they do. Someone who has committed multiple offences, or offences over a long period of time, will receive the maximum sentence for that offence. In the case you refer to in the opening post the man got 19 years minimum, right at the very top of the scale (don't ask me why it was subsequently reduced by the way...). All I'm saying is that once you sentencing on the basis of harm, and ignore guidelines and precedent, each judge could do whatever they want.

Don't know about the caustic soda attack. That just seems a miscarriage of justice (so far) in general. Hopefully that will be rectified.

In terms of rehabilitation, that again goes to the heart of what a criminal law and penal system is all about. Is it about punishing, or retribution, or rehabilitation, or protection of society, or deterrence? On virtually all of these counts the prison system fails today. However, (with the exception of paedophiles) I don't think the recidivism rate is higher for other sexual offences that for any other offences. Prison Reform Trust has more details on just how (un)successful rehabilitation in prisons is for all types of offenders on their website somewhere I recall.

Thanks for your informative reponses cest - it's nice to know that these crimes are being judged more harshly than in the past, even if there are still dodgy things that happen etc.

I suppose for me and many women this type of crime is so appalling that we all turn into daily mail string em up types. Not someone I ever used to be - but this brings it out in me.

i do think that it would be helpful if we heard about when the court system and police actually work, rather than when they don't, as i suspect many people in this country have a very skewed idea about things due to reporting styles in the papers.

We always hear about the crimes, but rarely that anyone has been caught except in big cases, and very rarely what their sentance is.