Rapist has sentence reduced as judge says there is no indication that it was anything other than a 'single impusive act'

[treaclesoda]

link to newspaper report here

I came across this newspaper report and I couldn't believe what I was reading. A man who rapes a stranger in a car park sounds to me like the very definition of someone who is a danger to women, not just someone who made a minor impulsive error of judgement. Such a horrible crime totally minimised.

So it's all part of a continuum? They're afraid their own behaviour will be challenged unless women are always in the wrong? That would add up.

cad, I've now read that judgement too. I'll have to go back and re-read because I found the first pass too nausea-inducing to fully concentrate.

First impression is that the judges would win limbo at the Olympics, they're bending over so far backwards.

Well the woman wasn't being careful was she. She was out alone at night and forgot to leave her vagina at home

ffs only one person is ever guilty of rape. typical victim blaming and yet again making excuses for violence by men against females

And the truly nausea-inducing bit is the judges' behaviour, I should add. Not "merely" the details of the attack.

Pau - nauseating in that they (the panel of Judges) were trying to abide by the sentencing guidelines that is imposed on the Criminal Courts ?

From what you've read of the judgement with its references to the guidelines, why do you think that the judges were wrong to order a lower sentence ?

I'll need a second pass to pick it apart properly.

But nauseating in that, at first glance, they appeared to be working hard to choose interpretations most favourable to the attacker. I need to re-read it to see if that's accurate.

Can I check something, if you're someone with legal knowledge (are you)?

"Innocent until proven guilty" pertains until someone has been found guilty, yes? So a high standard of certainty is required to find someone guilty.

Once someone has been found guilty, what is the standard of certainty required for sentencing? Does a judge have to be certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that a convicted offender will re-offend, before they can decide that the offender is a danger to the public?

Or is it balance of probabilities, ie over 50%.

Or would say a 30% probability of the offender committing a further serious offence (not shoplifting) be enough to make them a danger?

(For those who haven't read it, the appeal court judges agree with the original judge about what the tariffs are, and that certain factors trigger the higher tariffs. But they've argued that this case doesn't have those factors whereas the original judge's opinion was that it did.

So this isn't some impersonal, automated process of bureaucracy: it depends heavily on the individual opinions of the judges.

I'll try to write more, but can't do it right now.)

Yes, their views seemed sharply at odds with those of the original (female) judge, whilst being at pains to say they were not criticising her original assessment. Although obviously they were criticising it. The defendant's lawyer appears to have referred to two appeals heard in England where "findings of dangerousness" were set aside. The judgement states they don't actually know if those cases were similar to this one but that they set a precedent for not regarding a single sexual offence as evidence of a risk of re-offending.

They note that his failure to recognise the seriousness of what he had done has to be set against a pre-existing background of a good work record, a previous stable relationship and an absence of any similar activity in a mature man. - I don't see what the first two have to do with whether he is likely to reoffend. Are all rapists unemployed and unable to maintain a relationship? The Yorkshire Ripper was married and had a job.

Pau Yes, I'm a Solicitor. I would have thought that its more of a balance of probability - but I'm not sure on that question and the only book which I have to hand, that might have assisted is way out of date and doesn't appear to deal with that question anyway - I don't practice in criminal law, but it is the most interesting.

What the Appeal Judges will have done in the first instance, is listen to advocates for the Appellant and the Crown as to reasons why the sentence should or shouldn't be changed.

They obviously can't look into the future as to what crimes he might go on to commit. All they are saying here was that there was no evidence that this was a planned attack and it appeared to have been impulsive (see paragraph 26) - so in this case, without any such evidence, there simply is no balancing exercise to carry out anyway. The factual background that led to the attack - and which seems to have been accepted by both sides - is also set out. They also note that he had no history of any violence or sexual offences.

Surely someone who impulsively commits extreme acts of violence is extremely dangerous?

How can that be in any way a mitigating factor?

Surely someone who impulsively commits extreme acts of violence is extremely dangerous?

And does this describe the Applicant in this case, do you think ?

Thank you cad, that's helpful.

If it's any standard lower than "beyond reasonable doubt", then I stand by my initial assessment that the appeal judges have bent over backwards to give the most favourable assessment to the offender on each point.

It's particularly obvious in this judgement because we have their interpretation of evidence about the victim to compare to their interpretation of evidence about the offender. And the double standard is glaring.

Don't have time to set it all out right now - but looks like others are already doing so!

And does this describe the Applicant in this case, do you think?

Clearly.

The fact that he committed his rale impulsively seems to be accepted by the court.

Rape is an act of extreme violence.

It's difficult to see what other way he could be described unless you think it is acceptable that the level of violence needed to do your raping is given legal protection for rapists.

"Surely someone who impulsively commits extreme acts of violence is extremely dangerous?"

And does this describe the Applicant in this case, do you think ?

Do you not think rape is an act of violence?

Shouldn't rapists who plan their attacks expect a greater sentence ?

WilLiAm - Yes I do.

He did plan it, that's why he got his mates to fuck off having used them to lure her into trusting them.

Why did you ask if that describes the applicant? It is agreed he raped 'on impulse' isn't it? I thought you might be questioning whether rape is an act of violence.

Because it talks of multiple acts of extreme violence. The applicant committed a rape - an act of violence - for which he has now received a custodial sentence of 7 years with an extended license period. However, whilst there is no doubt it was violent it wasn't in my view, extremely violent either. Nor is there any evidence that he has committed more than one act - in order to qualify for the plural 'acts' on other occasions - so for that reason, I don't believe that Bathtime is correctly describing this particular rapist.

I'm not going to be very eloquent here so bear with me (I'm fuming about something else)

But anyway there still seem be a lot of people that think that vaginal rape is not necessarily a violent act. That the vagina is in a state of constant readiness and that for it not to hurt all the woman needs to do is relax.......

They are of course all idiots.

I say vaginal rape as in my limited observation anal rape is seen as a violent act, I could hypothesise that this is because anal rape can happen to both sexes and vaginal to only one......

I did put this theory to 2 men and a woman once, the woman thought about it and agreed. The 2 men nicely explained to silly old me that anal rape (of a man) was always going to be more violent as they would have to be beat unconscious before they'd 'allow' that to happen.

BigJock, I was just wondering myself why vaginal rape is viewed as not that bad. Maybe it's because in their heart of hearts some people think women either deserve it (for being out alone, wearing a short skirt, leaving the house, or whatever); or because they think women are secretly into it and enjoy it; or maybe because they think 'well, that is the purpose of the vagina. So it can't be that bad.' Or maybe there's another reason I can't think of. I don't know.

I think it must be something along the lines of 'Sex feels good. Rape is a type of sex. It might be a bit unpleasant but not awful, because that's what the vagina is for.' Coupled with the deep-seated belief that 'if the woman really didn't want it they would fight.'

Personally, I do believe that rape is an extremely violent act, in and of itself. It's a deliberate over-riding of the other person's right to bodily autonomy.

I'm not sure that all rape is a violent act, what about someone who is drugged or unconscious for example ?

I actually believe that fighting back is decent advice at times, it strikes me that a lot of men who commit rape don't really thing they have, they just needed to be persuasive or persistent. This is particularly the case with so called "date rape", I have a feeling a lot of men who might be able to convince themselves a women actually wants sex would have a harder time actually physically beating her into submission. This is partly why the anal rape thing is viewed the way it is - because a man would have to be physically beaten into submission.

If they had to beat you or leave any physical evidence that they had forced you to submit, they would think twice, they'd have a harder time denying that they punched you in the face when you have a broken jaw than saying that oh the sex was consensual, you see how she is physically unharmed ?

I'm not sure that all rape is a violent act, what about someone who is drugged or unconscious for example ?

Putting your penis into a vagina where it is welcome is an act of violence.

Or is it not violence to punch someone in the face if they are unconscious?

So if I punched or kicked someone repeatedly while they were unconscious or drugged, that would not be violent?

Putting the fact that a lot of rape victims freeze to one side, I don't think I'd be capable of doing any/much damage to most men I know. I'm pathetically small. I certainly couldn't break a man's jaw. I also probably wouldn't want to take the risk that he wouldn't stab/strangle otherwise threaten my life.

This is partly why the anal rape thing is viewed the way it is - because a man would have to be physically beaten into submission. Seriously?

itallbefine Have you read any accounts by rape victims? It's very easy to say it's a good idea to fight, but you just don't know how you'll react. Humans have three responses to threat- fight, flight and freeze. You don't get to choose, instinct takes over. Spend a while on the relationships section of MN, it's a real eye opener.