Horrific rape case verdict...

KingOfFairview

People look down their noses at the likes of Saudi (rightfully), but apprently Australia isnt great either.... note: the judge is female

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7136269.stm

KingOfFairview

More details...

The decision came as The Courier-Mail learned that the girl was also the victim of serious sexual assaults when she was aged five and eight.

The girl, now 12, had exhibited highly dysfunctional, sexualised behaviours as a result of the assaults she suffered as a very small child.

[...]

The Cairns-based District Court judge, who earns upwards of $300,000 a year, has complained to colleagues that "sentencing indigenous offenders is never easy".

[...]

In 2001, Judge Bradley imposed a wholly suspended jail term, without conviction, on a 17-year-old youth who raped his grandmother. The court was told the youth raped his grandmother while she was in a drunken sleep.

[...]

"Sentencing indigenous offenders is never easy," she told a conference in Perth earlier this year.

"There are times when the offending behaviour clearly warrants the imposition of severe and significant penalties.

"There are also times when a judge who has knowledge of a community . . . and the full particulars of those involved may decide that an alternative penalty is appropriate."

Morlar

KingOfFairview wrote: »

People look down their noses at the likes of Saudi (rightfully), but apprently Australia isnt great either.... note: the judge is female

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7136269.stm

There have been a few cases along those lines over the years - apparently some aboriginals have used 'culture' as their defence - ie gang rape is part of their culture of procreation (believe it or not). The last one I heard along those lines that defence was thrown out

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1126

It looked like the guilt ridden 'kid gloves' treatment of aboriginals was over - but with the latest case that could be going backwards again.

biko

Sex of judge - irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

Judge Bradley later defended her sentencing, telling The Australian that the sentences were "appropriate" because they were the penalties sought by the prosecution.

This is interesting, the prosecution asked for low sentences?

MagicMarker

Meh... There needs to be a line drawn between ACTUAL rape and STATUTORY rape. They are both completely different things imo. Personally, I don't believe statutory rape warrants a prison sentence if both parties are consenting, regardless of age.

Mr. Incognito

it gets worse

Today's Australian newspaper reports that the victim in the Aurukun case is "mildly intellectually impaired".

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pms-fury-at-freeing-of-girls-gang-rapists/2007/12/11/1197135385673.html

Morlar

MagicMarker wrote: »

Meh... There needs to be a line drawn between ACTUAL rape and STATUTORY rape. They are both completely different things imo. Personally, I don't believe statutory rape warrants a prison sentence if both parties are consenting, regardless of age.

If your referring to the link I posted as being a case of statutory rape all I would say is read the description and tell me that was 'statutory'.

The aboriginal was charged with statutory rape because the girl was promised to him for a part of his biweekly govt allowance cheque which he gave to her parents, when she refused a gun that was fired in the air beside her head & she was then beaten and subdued. He was charged with statutory rape though by the descripion provided it was rape without the implied consent part of 'statutory' & the culture defence was used there.

NORTH QUEENSLAND, Australia (WOMENSENEWS)--A state judge defended an Aboriginal man's right to have sex with an underage girl as a 40,000-year-old traditional practice and has set off a national debate over the role of culture in practices that deny women autonomy.

A Northern Territory judge ruled in October that a 15-year-old Aboriginal girl "knew what was expected of her" and "didn't need protection" when a 50-year-old man committed statutory rape against the girl and shot a gun into the air when she complained about it. The man was later revealed to have been convicted of slaughtering his former wife. Expert testimony submitted by an anthropologist in the case called the man's arrangement with the girl "traditional" and therefore "morally correct."

The girl's parents had "promised" her as a wife to the man, Jackie Pascoe Jamilmira, at the girl's birth, in return for a portion of Pascoe's fortnightly government allowance. The girl resisted his advances, so he punched her, "put his foot onto my neck" and raped her, according to her statement to the police. When the girl's family was unable to protect the girl, police took Pascoe, brandishing a shotgun, into custody.

hopalong85

MagicMarker wrote: »

Meh... There needs to be a line drawn between ACTUAL rape and STATUTORY rape. They are both completely different things imo. Personally, I don't believe statutory rape warrants a prison sentence if both parties are consenting, regardless of age.

So if a 12 year old girl consents then it's all good yeah? Don't think so man.

KingOfFairview

MagicMarker wrote: »

I don't believe statutory rape warrants a prison sentence if both parties are consenting, regardless of age.

If you really do mean that last bit you are not right in the head

azezil

In her ruling, Judge Sarah Bradley told them that the victim "probably agreed to have sex with all of you".

Wow, just wow!
She was 10yrs old, my gawd, what manner of lunacy is this! *boggle*

MagicMarker

Obviously i'm not talking about 5 year old and 20 year old.

MagicMarker

Morlar wrote: »

If your referring to the link I posted as being a case of statutory rape all I would say is read the description and tell me that was 'statutory'.

The aboriginal was charged with statutory rape because the girl was promised to him for a part of his biweekly govt allowance cheque which he gave to her parents, when she refused a gun that was fired in the air beside her head & she was then beaten and subdued. He was charged with statutory rape though by the descripion provided it was rape without the implied consent part of 'statutory' & the culture defence was used there.

NORTH QUEENSLAND, Australia (WOMENSENEWS)--A state judge defended an Aboriginal man's right to have sex with an underage girl as a 40,000-year-old traditional practice and has set off a national debate over the role of culture in practices that deny women autonomy.

A Northern Territory judge ruled in October that a 15-year-old Aboriginal girl "knew what was expected of her" and "didn't need protection" when a 50-year-old man committed statutory rape against the girl and shot a gun into the air when she complained about it. The man was later revealed to have been convicted of slaughtering his former wife. Expert testimony submitted by an anthropologist in the case called the man's arrangement with the girl "traditional" and therefore "morally correct."

The girl's parents had "promised" her as a wife to the man, Jackie Pascoe Jamilmira, at the girl's birth, in return for a portion of Pascoe's fortnightly government allowance. The girl resisted his advances, so he punched her, "put his foot onto my neck" and raped her, according to her statement to the police. When the girl's family was unable to protect the girl, police took Pascoe, brandishing a shotgun, into custody.

I wasn't

Terry

Morlar wrote: »

If your referring to the link I posted as being a case of statutory rape all I would say is read the description and tell me that was 'statutory'.

The aboriginal was charged with statutory rape because the girl was promised to him for a part of his biweekly govt allowance cheque which he gave to her parents, when she refused a gun that was fired in the air beside her head & she was then beaten and subdued. He was charged with statutory rape though by the descripion provided it was rape without the implied consent part of 'statutory' & the culture defence was used there.

NORTH QUEENSLAND, Australia (WOMENSENEWS)--A state judge defended an Aboriginal man's right to have sex with an underage girl as a 40,000-year-old traditional practice and has set off a national debate over the role of culture in practices that deny women autonomy.

A Northern Territory judge ruled in October that a 15-year-old Aboriginal girl "knew what was expected of her" and "didn't need protection" when a 50-year-old man committed statutory rape against the girl and shot a gun into the air when she complained about it. The man was later revealed to have been convicted of slaughtering his former wife. Expert testimony submitted by an anthropologist in the case called the man's arrangement with the girl "traditional" and therefore "morally correct."

The girl's parents had "promised" her as a wife to the man, Jackie Pascoe Jamilmira, at the girl's birth, in return for a portion of Pascoe's fortnightly government allowance. The girl resisted his advances, so he punched her, "put his foot onto my neck" and raped her, according to her statement to the police. When the girl's family was unable to protect the girl, police took Pascoe, brandishing a shotgun, into custody.

The world was a different place 40,000 years ago.

Morlar

MagicMarker wrote: »

I wasn't

What exactly were you referring to /what did you mean then ?

Snickers Man

This is another horrific rape case from Australia.

And this time the perpetrators were not aborigine. But the victim might have been. Or at least, from a Pacific Island background.

This one still hasn't gone to trial.

Morlar

Terry wrote: »

The world was a different place 40,000 years ago.

Thankfully we have evolved ! I think using how mankind behaved in the 'stone age' as a legal defence in the 21st century is unacceptable. imo its calculated to prey on australian sensitivity and guilt issues over the 1950's treatment of aboriginals.

daveharnett

Morlar wrote: »

Expert testimony submitted by an anthropologist in the case called the man's arrangement with the girl "traditional" and therefore "morally correct."

BOLLOCKS TO THAT!
There. Summed that up quite nicely i think.

neuro-praxis

MagicMarker wrote: »

Meh... There needs to be a line drawn between ACTUAL rape and STATUTORY rape. They are both completely different things imo. Personally, I don't believe statutory rape warrants a prison sentence if both parties are consenting, regardless of age.

That is an unbelievably naive perspective.

A person very close to me was repeatedly sexually abused by a man (family friend of course) in his fifties when she was 15/16. There is a reason the age of consent is 17. At 15/16 some teenagers are sexually awakened. Others are not; they are effectively still children. This abuse was as much psychological as it was sexual (he effectively "convinced" her to engage in it, thus making her feel she had nobody to turn to) and ultimately it had a profoundly negative effect on many aspects of her life thereafter, affecting relationships etc. long after it was over.

If you are an adult you should not have sex with anybody who is not an adult, regardless of how much they "want" to. There can be no proper consent from children, and for the purposes of this discussion I define a child as anyone under 17. End of.

MagicMarker

neuro-praxis wrote: »

That is an unbelievably naive perspective.

A person very close to me was repeatedly sexually abused by a man (family friend of course) in his fifties when she was 15/16. There is a reason the age of consent is 17. At 15/16 some teenagers are sexually awakened. Others are not; they are effectively still children. This abuse was as much psychological as it was sexual (he effectively "convinced" her to engage in it, thus making her feel she had nobody to turn to) and ultimately it had a profoundly negative effect on many aspects of her life thereafter, affecting relationships etc. long after it was over.

If you are an adult you should not have sex with anybody who is not an adult, regardless of how much they "want" to. There can be no proper consent from children, and for the purposes of this discussion I define a child as anyone under 17. End of.

At which point did i mention abuse?

I'm by no means saying what happened to your friend was right, but when your friend turned 17 did she inexplicably realise what was going on and report it? Highly unlikely, I doubt age was a factor in your example tbh.

neuro-praxis

MagicMarker wrote: »

At which point did i mention abuse?

I'm by no means saying what happened to your friend was right, but when your friend turned 17 did she inexplicably realise what was going on and report it? Highly unlikely, I doubt age was a factor in your example tbh.

I do not understand your question. And like many sexual abuse victims she said nothing to nobody for a long, long time because of the shame, guilt and misery it caused her.

What I am highlighting quite clearly here is that sexual acts between adults and children may look consenting, but seeing as consent is not possible between an adult and a child, it is therefore ABUSE. (And I am not talking here about a 17 year old boy and his 16 year old girlfriend.)

No doubt this man would have insisted it was consensual.

MagicMarker

neuro-praxis wrote: »

I do not understand your question. And like many sexual abuse victims she said nothing to nobody for a long, long time because of the shame, guilt and misery it caused her.

What I am highlighting quite clearly here is that sexual acts between adults and children may look consenting, but seeing as consent is not possible between an adult and a child, it is therefore ABUSE. (And I am not talking here about a 17 year old boy and his 16 year old girlfriend.)

No doubt this man would have insisted it was consensual.

I see what you're trying to say.

This man ''duped'' your friend into having sex with him when she was 15/16. You are saying this is abuse.

If the girl was 17 would you still say it was abuse? After all she is of legal age. Obviously people will say it was abuse because it was! Not because of her age as she would be classed as an adult, but simply because of the act itself.

What i'm saying is age isn't really a factor in your example. If anything, it's your friends vulnerability coinciding with having a bastard of a ''family friend''.

Like i said, i didn't mention abuse and i am not condoning abuse.

Kipperhell

I think there has got to be a lot said for assuming values of anybody. Culture has a big part to play. For all the outraged people here is story for you.

A young naive girl (13 I believe) who frequents the church regularly, becomes pregnant. The church elder convince an elderly widower of 60ish to marry the girl to save her from death, the girl has the child. Three weirdos who believe the stars tell the future arrive and give her expensive gifts. The child is said to be conceived without a magical mark upon his sole and pure feet are worshipped in this place. The child goes on to question all current authority and is sentence to death.

No God fearing Christian could allow such a thing to happen now a days as it is an obvious non Christian thing to do. The poor child must never of understood things in a proper way. They may even end up abused by the step father until they were in their mid 30s.

Age of consent and imposing ones view on every culture has certain flaws. I personally find the situation hard to take but I don't assume to think that no matter what my cultural values superseded all others. I don't believe magical marks are on my feet because my great,great etc granddad listen to his second wife or ones of his ribs. But that's me

Pigman II

Today's Australian newspaper reports that the victim in the Aurukun case is "mildly intellectually impaired".

No offence intended but that could describe a fair number of Aboriginals I met over there.

Guy:Incognito

azezil wrote: »

Wow, just wow!
She was 10yrs old, my gawd, what manner of lunacy is this! *boggle*

The article describes 6 of the men as minors so they may well have been not much older than the girl.

daveharnett

MagicMarker wrote: »

Meh... There needs to be a line drawn between ACTUAL rape and STATUTORY rape. They are both completely different things imo. Personally, I don't believe statutory rape warrants a prison sentence if both parties are consenting, regardless of age.

I take your point Magic, but i don't think i can agree with it. I would agree that there are very mature sixteen year olds who are perfectly capable of informed consent, and very naieve eighteen year olds who are not. I would agree that it's all about the mental and emotional states of the two people involved.

Thing is a fair and impartial judicial system cannot and never will be able to deal with mental and emotional states consistantly and fairly. It would simply be a case of who has the best lawyer. It cannot work without some kind of framework based on age, around which mitigating/exacerbating circumstances can be assessed.

To summarise; seventeen and sixteen may not be wrong, depending on the circumstances. However, twelve and forty will never ever be right.

Zzippy

MagicMarker wrote: »

Meh... There needs to be a line drawn between ACTUAL rape and STATUTORY rape. They are both completely different things imo. Personally, I don't believe statutory rape warrants a prison sentence if both parties are consenting, regardless of age.

If you really believe this, you're a sick f*ck! I suppose you think the sentences were appropriate. She was 10 years old for f*cks sake!

MagicMarker wrote: »

Obviously i'm not talking about 5 year old and 20 year old.

Really? Cos you said above "regardless of age".

Morlar

daveharnett wrote: »

I take your point Magic, but i don't think i can agree with it. I would agree that there are very mature sixteen year olds who are perfectly capable of informed consent, and very naieve eighteen year olds who are not. I would agree that it's all about the mental and emotional states of the two people involved.

Thing is a fair and impartial judicial system cannot and never will be able to deal with mental and emotional states consistantly and fairly. It would simply be a case of who has the best lawyer. It cannot work without some kind of framework based on age, around which mitigating/exacerbating circumstances can be assessed.

To summarise; seventeen and sixteen may not be wrong, depending on the circumstances. However, twelve and forty will never ever be right.

Thats exactly the way I would look at it too. Well put.

MagicMarker

Galwayguy99 wrote: »

If you really believe this, you're a sick f*ck! I suppose you think the sentences were appropriate. She was 10 years old for f*cks sake!

Really? Cos you said above "regardless of age".

Why thank yee, i may explain my post to you, when you've finished gathering up the toys surrounding your pram.

MagicMarker

daveharnett wrote: »

I take your point Magic, but i don't think i can agree with it. I would agree that there are very mature sixteen year olds who are perfectly capable of informed consent, and very naieve eighteen year olds who are not. I would agree that it's all about the mental and emotional states of the two people involved.

Thing is a fair and impartial judicial system cannot and never will be able to deal with mental and emotional states consistantly and fairly. It would simply be a case of who has the best lawyer. It cannot work without some kind of framework based on age, around which mitigating/exacerbating circumstances can be assessed.

To summarise; seventeen and sixteen may not be wrong, depending on the circumstances. However, twelve and forty will never ever be right.

Agreed.

My point seems to be missed by some posters here. Although i did say 'regardless of age', i hadn't thought that people would assume i meant it's fine for a 40 year old to be with a 10 year old. My mistake. However my opinions on statutory rape and actual rape remain the same.

HollyB

MagicMarker wrote: »

Meh... There needs to be a line drawn between ACTUAL rape and STATUTORY rape. They are both completely different things imo. Personally, I don't believe statutory rape warrants a prison sentence if both parties are consenting, regardless of age.

I would have to disagree with that. If someone is below the age of consent, then they are legally considered too young to be able to give their consent. If there was no force or coercion involved and the underage party was close to the age of consent, the sentence should take that into account, but statutory rape is a crime and should be treated as such.

Once statutory rape starts being excused because the underage party is fifteen or sixteen, how far will it go? Will we see a defendant arguing that he/she should not be prosecuted for having sex with a twelve year old because he/she was "very mature for his/her age"?

MizzLolly

Ah I dunno about that Holly! I finished school two years ago so I'm not outta the whole minor bracket all that long, where I went to school was full of easy lil tramps who lied about their ages, went after old drunk men just to get free drink and bragged about how their unborn babies could belong to five different boys (..a second year said this)

There's a lotta promiscuous teens out there. I'd reckon 15 is probably a common age for this to reach it's peak. I can see where MagicMarker is coming from. I think if it's a case where an older guy KNOWS that she is under age then by all means punish the pr*ck but there's a lotta grey areas regarding statutory rape.

I'm not attacking your beliefs Holly, I do agree a lil with you. I just think it's not always so black and white and it's only coz I've seen it for myself. Having said that, you're totally right where a genuinely vulnerable minor is taken advantage of by a family member/friend... that's terrible the poor things I just think there's a lotta scheming lil hussies (to be abrupt) out there who really do know what they are doing!

Anyway... back on topic..The poor lil girl... That judge is TOTALLY wrong! :mad:

HollyB

Stekelly wrote: »

The article describes 6 of the men as minors so they may well have been not much older than the girl.

According to this article, the six underage boys were aged between 14 and 16 - what's the age of criminal responsibility in Australia - and the other three were aged 17, 18 and 26.

I would say that the underage boys should have been detained in a reform school or juvenile institution for at least five years, and the adults given prison sentences of no less than ten years.

The judge should be ashamed of herself. I hope that the appeal against those ridiculous sentences is successful.

l3LoWnA

MagicMarker wrote: »

Meh... There needs to be a line drawn between ACTUAL rape and STATUTORY rape. They are both completely different things imo. Personally, I don't believe statutory rape warrants a prison sentence if both parties are consenting, regardless of age.

She was TEN years old!!! Equivalent to a child in FOURTH class here in ireland. Ten, just ten, and some of the guys who raped her were not minors so were WELL older than her, she is a CHILD, a young innocent child!!! For christ sakes magic marker, there's a difference with having a stance on statutory rape and having an opinion about the "rape" of a 10 year old CHILD, she's not a teenager or a willing consenting, mature person.....she's a child!!!

Anyways....rant over!!

HollyB

MizzLolly wrote: »

There's a lotta promiscuous teens out there. I'd reckon 15 is probably a common age for this to reach it's peak. I can see where MagicMarker is coming from. I think if it's a case where an older guy KNOWS that she is under age then by all means punish the pr*ck but there's a lotta grey areas regarding statutory rape.

If the defendant genuinely believed that the minor was aged seventeen or over, had legitimate cause to do so and could not reasonably be expected to know that they weren't - ie., obviously, in an 18 and over club, people can't be expected to ask for ID from people they chat to - that should be taken into account when the time comes for sentencing, and a non-custodial sentence may be considered in such a case, but once "he/she consented!" becomes a defence, it's a very slippery slope and I could see it ending, all too easily, in some scumbag bribing a kid and claiming that they were willing.

Zzippy

MagicMarker wrote: »

Why thank yee, i may explain my post to you, when you've finished gathering up the toys surrounding your pram.

Thats ok, I don't need you to explain/dig any deeper. You've already tried to condone statutory rape. Your opinion is very sick. Its no wonder people do things like this, when people like you don't think its very wrong. IMO, you're sick

MizzLolly

l3LoWnA wrote: »

she's not a teenager or a willing consenting, mature person....she's a child

Yeah I totally agree... poor lil girl

HollyB wrote: »

If the defendant genuinely believed that the minor was aged seventeen or over, had legitimate cause to do so and could not reasonably be expected to know that they weren't - ie., obviously, in an 18 and over club, people can't be expected to ask for ID from people they chat to - that should be taken into account when the time comes for sentencing, and a non-custodial sentence may be considered in such a case, but once "he/she consented!" becomes a defence, it's a very slippery slope and I could see it ending, all too easily, in some scumbag bribing a kid and claiming that they were willing.

Yup I know and I agree with you but I can see where MagicMarker is coming from (I dont think he meant it how it looks) but I do really feel for the twenty somethings out there who've been branded a RAPIST because a girl lied to him. As a young girl I know it's very easy to lie about your age. I know what u mean, it is a dangerous slope... but I think it's too easy for a young one to lie about her age, get drunk and sleep with an older guy... then wake up and PANIC and the next thing the guy's a rapist. Anyway this is totally irrelevant here, the lil girl was only ten. Like my lil sis... I SWEAR I would KILL any man who even thought of a child that way! It's disgusting. That judge is a total bloody disgrace. I hope the poor little thing is being taken care of now..

HollyB

MizzLolly wrote: »

Anyway this is totally irrelevant here, the lil girl was only ten. Like my lil sis... I SWEAR I would KILL any man who even thought of a child that way! It's disgusting. That judge is a total bloody disgrace.

Agreed. I hope she does the decent thing and resigns, after publicly apologizing to the little girl and every other child in Australia - considering that she just freed nine child rapists, an apology is the very least she owes them.

MizzLolly wrote: »

I hope the poor little thing is being taken care of now..

She's been placed with foster parents. According to the article I linked to, her rapists are all members of "some of the most prominent and powerful Aboriginal families on Cape York". She does not enjoy the same elevated family status.

Justice is supposed to be blind, right?

MizzLolly

I just don't get how any man can look at an innocent little child that way. Even when I was studying psychology, I just couldn't see what could even cause a grown man to be so bloody evil towards a little girl. Geez... it makes me so angry. I don't usually agree with violence but I can't say I'd be too concerned if somebody caught those pr*cks in a corner and kicked their heads in!! :mad:

Yeah she deffo owes them all an apology! The outcome for this will be interesting...

HollyB

MizzLolly wrote: »

I just don't get how any man can look at an innocent little child that way. Even when I was studying psychology, I just couldn't see what could even cause a grown man to be so bloody evil towards a little girl. Geez... it makes me so angry. I don't usually agree with violence but I can't say I'd be too concerned if somebody caught those pr*cks in a corner and kicked their heads in!! :mad:

As a rule, I don't agree with corporal punishment, but for people who sexually assault children, I would cheerfully bring back the whipping post.

MizzLolly wrote: »

Yeah she deffo owes them all an apology! The outcome for this will be interesting...

Definitely. It's good to see that people are reacting to this travesty with anger and indignation - I'd be worried and horrified if people accepted it.

Kipperhell

MizzLolly wrote: »

I just don't get how any man can look at an innocent little child that way. Even when I was studying psychology, I just couldn't see what could even cause a grown man to be so bloody evil towards a little girl. Geez... it makes me so angry. I don't usually agree with violence but I can't say I'd be too concerned if somebody caught those pr*cks in a corner and kicked their heads in!! :mad:

Yeah she deffo owes them all an apology! The outcome for this will be interesting...

You studied psychology and never understood where this comes from?

AFAIK it has to do with the age your sexual encounters start at a lot of the time . If you yourself were sexualised at a young age you can end up associating that young age with sex. It happens to some and not others. It is not a specific male trait either with many woman sexually abuse girls and boys. It is really only sexual abuse based on social constraints. Evil is also only based on social constraints as I personally find murdering people for honour unacceptable as with arranged marriages to cousins. These are however seen as morally correct things in other cultures. I don't think physical punishment is the best thing.
Many people think physical castration would prevent such crimes but it has actually not stopped people in the past. Some have gone on to use implements.
As I have pointed out Mary is said to be only 13 when she was pregnant with Jesus. A young naive girl who went to the church every day becomes pregnant and then forced to marry an elderly widow. Sounds really Christian

Ponster

HollyB wrote: »

Agreed. I hope she does the decent thing and resigns, after publicly apologizing to the little girl and every other child in Australia - considering that she just freed nine child rapists, an apology is the very least she owes them.

Legal question - Can the judge impose a more severe punishment than what is requested by the prosecution? The judge replied exactly to what the prosecution asked for. Should the judge be to blame in this case then?

Kipperhell

Ponster wrote: »

Legal question - Can the judge impose a more severe punishment than what is requested by the prosecution? The judge replied exactly to what the prosecution asked for. Should the judge be to blame in this case then?

They can over rule a prosecutor but are very unlikely to do so and it can give a opening for a retrial with evidence being removed from the second trial. The judge realistically could do little or nothing is my understanding

vorbis

if she gave the sentences the prosecution asked for then I don't see how the judge is to blame!!!!

Why on earth were the prosecution looking for such light sentences?

Thats the real question.

HollyB

Ponster wrote: »

Legal question - Can the judge impose a more severe punishment than what is requested by the prosecution? The judge replied exactly to what the prosecution asked for. Should the judge be to blame in this case then?

I would imagine that the final discretion over sentencing is the judge's; if they can impose a less severe sentence than the one requested by the prosecution, it would be pretty strange if they couldn't use their discretion and impose a more severe sentence if they felt that the prosecution's recommendation was too lenient.

One possibility is that there was a plea bargain or something, but the Australian legal system must have even more problems than this one judge if they've got prosecution lawyers who actually plead for this degree of leniency for child rapists.

As a rule, I'm opposed to all suspended sentences for any violent or sexual offence. It should be very much the exception, and allowed only if the convicted person is terminally ill or similar.