Teenage gang rape case

[icowden]

Regardless of level of understanding, if someone is killed, raped or otherwise injured, does the level of understanding make the effect less relevant to the victim?

Sentencing is not about the victim. It is about achieving the best possibility of reoffending. Yes, the victim is taken into account, but the sentence is about the crime and the perpetrator.

 

[icowden]

Judges are neither always right nor infallible. They have leeway within the sentencing guidelines and cases are routinely referred for review.

Most cases referred for review get rejected. Of those that actually get forwarded to the Court of Appeal, there is around a 70% success rate. I don't think the AG has a great success rate for the ones based on the braying of the tabloid press.

I explained to you that the leeway is limited and must be grounded in law. The Judge in this case was clear that he did not wish to deviate from the sentencing guidelines and that he had spend considerable time looking at the options open to him, and was sentencing in accordance with the guidelines.

 

[BoldonLad]

Sentencing is not about the victim. It is about achieving the best possibility of reoffending. Yes, the victim is taken into account, but the sentence is about the crime and the perpetrator.

In this instance, my point is, if we have individuals who, because of mental health or IQ issues, feel that committing acts of rape and/or violence (including killing someone) do we accept that they are free to live among us?

I don't know what the solution, by the way, but, when I ride the local metro, I do sometimes ponder if the person sitting next to me is such an individual. 😊

 

[AndyRM]

In this instance, my point is, if we have individuals who, because of mental health or IQ issues, feel that committing acts of rape and/or violence (including killing someone) do we accept that they are free to live among us?

I don't know what the solution, by the way, but, when I ride the local metro, I do sometimes ponder if the person sitting next to me is such an individual. 😊

Your stretch of Metro is alright though. It's the feral corridor between Wallsend and Meadow Well you want to be worried about. Percy Main seems to be the best/worst for attracting absolute radgepackets.

 

[BoldonLad]

Your stretch of Metro is alright though. It's the feral corridor between Wallsend and Meadow Well you want to be worried about. Percy Main seems to be the best/worst for attracting absolute radgepackets.

Ahh, yes, I do sometimes travel that stretch on the Metro, "interesting", shall we say.

We sometimes cycle through the Tyne Cycle/Pedestrian Tunnel, and transit Percy Main, another "interesting" experience.

The section of Metro, Stadium of Light to Park Lane is not without its share of "characters". 😂

My brother was visiting recently (he lives in leafy Kent), and, during his visit he had the misfortune to be in South Shields Bus/Metro Interchange after dark, I think he is still traumatised. 😂

 

[Bromptonaut]

The cases were referred to the Court of Appeal last month: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...-fordingbridge-three-cases-to-court-of-appeal

How long before the court decides whether to accept the referral and hold a hearing?

 

[matticus]

In this instance, my point is, if we have individuals who, because of mental health or IQ issues, feel that committing acts of rape and/or violence (including killing someone) do we accept that they are free to live among us?

I don't know what the solution, by the way, but, when I ride the local metro, I do sometimes ponder if the person sitting next to me is such an individual. 😊

There are already plenty of convicted killers and rapists living amongst us. Some may be sitting next to you on the metro tomorrow.
This is because most offenders are released before they die (and very few have their Goolies Cut Off).

Does that make you feel any better? x

 

[matticus]

Judges do have to consider the harm to the victim of the offence.

https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-sentencing/sentencing-myths/#step9

Are victims properly considered in sentencing?​

Sentences are decided based on the harm the victim suffers and the offender’s role – so the effect on the victim is therefore a crucial part in the decision as to what sentence an offender gets.

This is quite blatantly an overly-simplistic statement, and frankly misleading.

Why? Well obviously sentences are decided by the guidelines for each offence - something much discussed on this thread and many others. So you are very well aware of this! The guidelines ensure that sentences for rape will be harsher than for littering.
Sure, the degree of harm to the victim will be one factor, but it's not the main one.

Note the page you are quoting from is not instructional for judges - it's a PR page.

 

[icowden]

Judges do have to consider the harm to the victim of the offence.

Which is why the Judge specifically considered it:

From Part 1:

The impact on C is set out in her statement. I have considered it carefully. I have also seen a harmed person statement.

From Part 2:

The impact on L is set out in her statement. Again, I have considered it carefully and I have read the harmed person statement.

He goes on:

When assessing the seriousness of the offence the guidelines suggested any form of sexual activity, including penetration, without coercion, exploitation or pressure, may result in a non-custodial sentence. Any penetrative activity involving coercion, exploitation or pressure, use or threats of violence against the victim, or someone known to the victim, prolonged detention/sustained incident, severe psychological or physical harm caused to the victim, may lead to a custodial sentence or YRO with ISS or fostering may be called for.

I find that the rape offences fall more obviously into the second category, given pressure which must almost inevitably come with the absence of consent, albeit the guideline does not specifically refer to non consensual penetration. However, there was no violence or exploitation.

I have taken account of the victim personal statements, and bear in mind the submissions made on behalf of J at paragraph 18(c) of that note. The references to the principles in Chall and Others and Forbes are particularly helpful, and have informed my Page 13 of 23 A B C D E F G H conclusion on this aspect. To borrow respectively the words of Popplewell LJ at paragraph 28 in Price, I do not seek to minimise the effect on each girl when saying it does not reach the high threshold of being severe psychological harm required, by the guideline, adding those words the end.

Therefore he very clearly sets out that he has taken into account the impact on the two girls involved.

 

[AuroraSaab]

We'll have to see what the result of the referral is then. If you have confidence in an individual judge then you'll have just as much confidence in the judges reviewing the sentence.

 

[icowden]

We'll have to see what the result of the referral is then. If you have confidence in an individual judge then you'll have just as much confidence in the judges reviewing the sentence.

Yep. On the face of it it looks like a very considered Judgement however.

 

[Psamathe]

There are already plenty of convicted killers and rapists living amongst us. Some may be sitting next to you on the metro tomorrow.
This is because most offenders are released before they die (and very few have their Goolies Cut Off).

Not related to the case being discussed but who/where those on the Sexual Offenders Register live is an interesting aspect. Some time back a private care company providing "troubled children" residential care (24/7 staff attendance) were applying to Planning to convert a residential house into a care for 6 under 16 year old girls. The Parish Council surprised a lot of local when one of the objections they raised was that there was an individual living within 500m of the proposed care house who was on the Sexual Offenders Register after having served a prison sentence for having sex with minors and was still on the Sexual Offenders Register. Much of the village was "shocked" but in effect something the Parish Council somehow knew had "outed" the individual where previously most had been unaware.

 

[Pblakeney]

Not related to the case being discussed but who/where those on the Sexual Offenders Register live is an interesting aspect. Some time back a private care company providing "troubled children" residential care (24/7 staff attendance) were applying to Planning to convert a residential house into a care for 6 under 16 year old girls. The Parish Council surprised a lot of local when one of the objections they raised was that there was an individual living within 500m of the proposed care house who was on the Sexual Offenders Register after having served a prison sentence for having sex with minors and was still on the Sexual Offenders Register. Much of the village was "shocked" but in effect something the Parish Council somehow knew had "outed" the individual where previously most had been unaware.

Had similar in our area. A convicted child molester was housed opposite a primary school. Go figure.
I don't think it was fair on him either. Talk about tempting fate.

 

[BoldonLad]

There are already plenty of convicted killers and rapists living amongst us. Some may be sitting next to you on the metro tomorrow.
This is because most offenders are released before they die (and very few have their Goolies Cut Off).

Does that make you feel any better? x

You seem to have a bit of a fixation on Goolies (which I have never mentioned) 😂

 

[Mr Celine]

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=04clpd7h0b0


I think he's referencing this.