Rapist Prick gets his just desserts

ojewriej wrote: »

I didn't say new, I said strong.

I was just answering to someone who said he was convicted based on one peron's statement only. I find it hard to believe, that is all.

Rape is all about consent, and consent is a subjective matter in the view of the victim, therefore many rape cases are based on the statement of the victim


the unique thing about this case is that the victim 'thought' it was her husband that had jumped into bed with her until after the act

krazy_8s wrote: »

I find it interesting that a person was convicted to 10 years in prison for what was basically one persons word against another.

If somebody broke into your mothers house and raped your mother that is "basically one persons word against another". Whats your point.

Edit: Woooo32, why did you horribly misquote me in this post

DonJose wrote: »

If somebody broke into your mothers house and raped your mother that is "basically one persons word against another". Whats your point.

Thats person would

*Have no reasonable alibi for being there.
*Have no reasonable alibi for sleeping with my mother.
*There would be signs of forced entry.

Tbh, your analagy fails.

How about this one.

You meet a lash in the pub, or know one through a friend. You both get a little drunk. End up back at her/your place. She likes it a little rough, you oblige. You decide not to call her the next day. Police show up at your house a week later claiming your raped her. You had drank more then her, your memory was fuzzy and you can't remember exact details and certain points are blanks. You get sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Or option B.

All of the above, except it wasn't consensual. You raped the bitch.

What is the difference between the two? One persons word against the other. Losing ten years of anybodys life because some decided her word was better, would be about the worst thing I could imaging happening. The same with some rapist walking away scot free.

There is no easy option here, so I'm not going to give you a alternative.

DonJose wrote: »

Thats a nice way to describe a rape victim :rolleyes:

**** it, she was going to report me for doing it anyway. Did you not see the first option?

ojewriej wrote: »

How did I misquote you?

Edit, sorry wrong user. That woo chap is to blame.

the unique thing about this case is that the victim 'thought' it was her husband that had jumped into bed with her until after the act

Not her husband, her boyfriend. She always slept with the lights on, the lights were on this night, she didn't notice it was not her boyfriend until after the fact. The defence stated she did not have a boyfriend at the time of the incident.

What the hell?
Was she on drugs too? I reckon the guy involved is absolute scum based on his reported actions on the train, but what the hell is this?

I should clarify. Rape means no consent given. What people are saying is that consent was there, but then withdrawn AFTER the event!??

NotWormBoy wrote: »

Yeah, if that actually is true... then no way in hell is it rape.

The accused was not a stranger to the victim, they were in fact friends.

It is indeed a strange case, not as black and white as protrayed, Justice Carney saw it as this too and would be a reason he gave a leniant sentence first time out.

Justice Carney is highly respected and widely regarded as a very tough but fair Judge.

fluffer wrote: »

What the hell?
Was she on drugs too? I reckon the guy involved is absolute scum based on his reported actions on the train, but what the hell is this?

I should clarify. Rape means no consent given. What people are saying is that consent was there, but then withdrawn AFTER the event!??

The victim stated in court she thought it was her boyfriend, the defence noted that the accused has several large body tattoos.

LadyJ wrote: »

10 years for rape seems decent enough.

Personally, I think that it ought to be the mandatory minimum sentence for rape - remember, quarter of the sentence will never be served thanks to automatic remission.

LadyJ wrote: »

Suspended sentences for things
like that are just unacceptable imo. Good outcome.

Agreed. When it comes to violent crimes, suspended sentences should only be allowed under exceptional circumstances - as in the convicted person is terminally ill with a year to live or something along those lines.

HollyB wrote: »

Personally, I think that it ought to be the mandatory minimum sentence for rape - remember, quarter of the sentence will never be served thanks to automatic remission.

Mandatory sentences are bad things and should be avoided tbh.

Boggles wrote: »

It is indeed a strange case, not as black and white as protrayed, Justice Carney saw it as this too and would be a reason he gave a leniant sentence first time out.

IMO a custodial sentance was still warranted, regardless of the judges opinion of the evidence. I mean, the jury found him guilty of rape on the strength of the evidence presented. If the judge thought the case was too weak, why did he allow this judgement to stand?

nesf wrote: »

Mandatory sentences are bad things and should be avoided tbh.

Unfortunately, they may be the only way to avoid against ludicrous sentences like the one in this case, and in the Lavinia Kerwick case, for example. As I understand it, a judge may direct a jury to find a defendent not guilty if there is no merit in the case against them (obviously, it doesn't go the other way) so I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would impose a suspended sentence on a convicted rapist.

I wonder if the sentence would have been reviewed and a more severe penalty imposed if the victim had not broken her silence. How many other cases have there been where convicted rapists have walked free because of suspended sentences, cases that we may never hear about?