Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

Why rape laws don't work

Twelve years for raping and beating woman into a coma.

What an absolute disgrace, that the law only deems this attack of being worthy of twelve years imprisonment.

The judge is a very very good judge, so no blame to him. But this is what we've come to, eight years inside for doing that to someone.

It's at times like this that I think some people just deserve the full Saudi treatment.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I know the girl this happened to and I'm sickened by his sentence, though originally he was trying to get off with it citing his mental health problems as the reason he did it. :impissed: My blood boils when I think of how he has left this young woman and her family to try and re-build their lives while he gets IMO the most lenient of sentences. :mad:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Good God, what an awful creature.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It angers me that someone as sick as that, and someone who has potentially ruined a persons life doesn't get a life sentence themselves. This person is obviously a danger to society and the sentence should reflect that.

    grrrrr.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ---
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why do we send people like this to prison? They need to be rehabilitated, not punished. Two hours counselling should prove more then sufficient.

    Would they not get this whilst they're in prison? :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Would they not get this whilst they're in prison? :confused:

    Considering that born slippy is the OP on the God bless America thread, its clear that he's being sarcastic.

    :eek:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Considering that born slippy is the OP on the God bless America thread, its clear that he's being sarcastic.

    :eek:

    Either that, or he really was born slippery enough that the midwife couldn't catch him in time...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    go_away wrote:
    Either that, or he really was born slippery enough that the midwife couldn't catch him in time...
    :lol:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i feel that the british judicial system is far to leinient with sentances, but with massive over crowding in our prisons the situation looks like it will continue.

    I'd be in support of capital punishment coming back in, but this will never happen in the UK again.

    Think we should just make a deal with russia or something and send our prisoners to there jails, could be quite a good deal i think.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What then, life? hanging? castration?

    What's the difference between 12 years and 20 years?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:

    What's the difference between 12 years and 20 years?
    Ur... about 8 years I'd say?
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Robot_Alan wrote:
    Think we should just make a deal with russia or something and send our prisoners to there jails, could be quite a good deal i think.

    They'd probably just take the money adn then lock them in a shed or something. :/
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Robot_Alan wrote:
    i feel that the british judicial system is far to leinient with sentances

    The judicial system is not.

    As I have said, the judge in question in this case is a very good judge, and is not reknowned for being a woolly liberal. Half of HMP Durham is terrified of Judge Batty.

    The sentence couldn't have been much higher, which is why it is so wrong. In this case.

    Still, eight years of beatings inside HMP Durham isn't something that he'll forget in a hurry.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There are loads of things you shouldn't get prison time for, anything under 6 months is next to useless or counter productive.

    But, for rape and sexual assault the penalties are too low. But then I think rape is a mental health issue rather than a criminal one.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    terrible and horrific. I think they sentance should have been longer now doubt.

    I stil don't agree with the death penalty though. Although if that happend to someone I loved, I couldn't quarentee not taking out some justice on my own.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    But, for rape and sexual assault the penalties are too low. But then I think rape is a mental health issue rather than a criminal one.
    I think you'd find it hard to make the argument that a person's mental health would improve in prison.

    What sentence do you propose?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    I think you'd find it hard to make the argument that a person's mental health would improve in prison.

    What sentence do you propose?

    Keep everything the same, the trial etc (though evidence gathering for rape needs drastic improvement).

    But instead of just being given a 12 year sentance they would be given a minimum term, and any release would be totally dependant on evaluations by teams of mental health experts as to their danger to society. So it would be somewhat similar to murder charges now, you would only ever be out on licence.

    Rapists would be kept in secure hospitals and not prisons and as far as possible the reasons for their crimes investigated and learnt from.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This isn't mental illness.

    It's evil.

    Given what would happen to someone like him in an institution, it's not a bad idea.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    release would be totally dependant on evaluations by teams of mental health experts as to their danger to society. So it would be somewhat similar to murder charges now, you would only ever be out on licence.
    But everyone with a criminal record is a potential danger to society. Is there any real point in attempting to put a percentage figure on it?
    Rapists would be kept in secure hospitals and not prisons and as far as possible the reasons for their crimes investigated and learnt from.
    Quite a drastic change here. By keeping them in a hospital you are presumably suggesting detaining them under the mental health act, which specifies that the person should have a defined mental disorder. And to justify detention in a hospital (which sounds expensive) you are presumably suggesting that there is some sort of treatment available for rapists.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Secure hospital need not be any more expensive than prison, I'm suggesting something along the lines of Broadmoor.

    And yes, there are things, chemical castration, therapy, there are methods by which re-offending could be reduced.

    And yes, I think raping someone justifies detaining them under the Mental Health Act, but I think a system more like with murder charges now would be easier.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I notice that he lost a whole 4 years off his sentence for admitting his guilt.

    I understand the 'reward' that goes with pleading guilty, but 4 years seems like an awful lot, why so much I wonder?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote:
    I notice that he lost a whole 4 years off his sentence for admitting his guilt.

    I understand the 'reward' that goes with pleading guilty, but 4 years seems like an awful lot, why so much I wonder?

    The starting point for guilty plea credit is 30%, and decreases the closer to trial it gets. A timely guilty plea at the first opportunity is credited with 30% sentence reduction.

    He didn't run a trial, so he is entitled to a credit of about 20-25%, which is what he got.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    The starting point for guilty plea credit is 30%, and decreases the closer to trial it gets. A timely guilty plea at the first opportunity is credited with 30% sentence reduction.

    He didn't run a trial, so he is entitled to a credit of about 20-25%, which is what he got.
    and his victim is the one who has effectively ended up with the life sentence :no:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    vikki1825 wrote:
    and his victim is the one who has effectively ended up with the life sentence :no:
    The credit is there to help the victim.

    No credit = no incentive to plead guilty. Which means all defendants will run trials. Which means the victim has to go through the ordeal of the witness box.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    The credit is there to help the victim.

    No credit = no incentive to plead guilty. Which means all defendants will run trials. Which means the victim has to go through the ordeal of the witness box.
    logically i suppose this makes sense, but from a subjective point of view it seems ridiculous that with all the evidence against him his victim should have to stand witness. :banghead: The judge did what he could and fair play to him but the law really should be reviewed. On the flip side when you have female politicians saying women bring it on themselves then thats not likely to be happening anytime soon really, is it? :no:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    vikki1825 wrote:
    logically i suppose this makes sense, but from a subjective point of view it seems ridiculous that with all the evidence against him his victim should have to stand witness. :banghead: The judge did what he could and fair play to him but the law really should be reviewed. On the flip side when you have female politicians saying women bring it on themselves then thats not likely to be happening anytime soon really, is it? :no:
    Does the defendant not also have a right to a fair trial though? It's all very well thinking of the victim (and rape trials are a terrible ordeal) but I believe in someone being innocent until prove guilty and that is the principle with which every trial starts, unless they plead guilty at the outset of course.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Does the defendant not also have a right to a fair trial though? It's all very well thinking of the victim (and rape trials are a terrible ordeal) but I believe in someone being innocent until prove guilty and that is the principle with which every trial starts, unless they plead guilty at the outset of course.
    innocent until proven guilty is fair enough but when the evidence is stacked against you it doesn't look good
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    Secure hospital need not be any more expensive than prison, I'm suggesting something along the lines of Broadmoor.
    I don't know the figures, but I expect Broadmoor is more expensive to run than a prison. But that's by the by.
    And yes, there are things, chemical castration, therapy, there are methods by which re-offending could be reduced.
    Chemical castration implicates testosterone or some other hormone as being the root cause of rape, or a large factor in rapists' behaviour. Is this borne out in reality? Could this "therapy" not reasonably be provided in a prison? What is it that distinguishes rape from any other brutal crime based on power and fear - domestic violence, random violent acts, armed robbery?
    And yes, I think raping someone justifies detaining them under the Mental Health Act, but I think a system more like with murder charges now would be easier.
    What is the mental disorder they are suffering from?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    vikki1825 wrote:
    logically i suppose this makes sense, but from a subjective point of view it seems ridiculous that with all the evidence against him his victim should have to stand witness.

    That's the way it is.

    If the defendant doesn't agree a witness statement, the witness has to come to court. And if he agrees the statement of the complainant, he's pleading guilty.

    Trials aren't ideal for anyone, but that's the nature of the beast.
    The judge did what he could and fair play to him but the law really should be reviewed.

    Non-violent offences should be reduced, and violent offences should have greater sentences.

    As I say, Judge Batty is a very very good judge. All our clients whinge whenever they get sentenced by him, which is the sign of a good judge IMHO.
    On the flip side when you have female politicians saying women bring it on themselves then thats not likely to be happening anytime soon really, is it? :no:

    Nope.

    Look at the recent Amnesty poll to see what people think of rape victims who are drunk or dressed sexily. If this woman had been wearing a short skirt, and hadn't been beaten, she'd probably have never seen justice.
Sign In or Register to comment.