Rapist sentenced to community service

[G_&_T]

6 hours ago, Ross. said:

I can’t figure this one out. Is there something that hasn’t been mentioned in the media reports that is pertinent to the case and explains the sentence? From what I have read my opinion sways between “lock him up for life” and “cut it off”, and sometimes both.

My first thought when I heard this was that it statutory rape, i.e. the two were in  a relationship, and since he was 17 at the time the judge was very lenient. I have no idea whether that's the case or not, but it makes sense given the rape occurred multiple times.

Someone at work said that he should be castrated without anaesthetic, flogged to within an inch of his life and then hanged. I raised an eyebrow and he told me that I obviously don't have a daughter.

I would need to know all the facts to make a proper judgement, and to be honest I don't care enough to do the research, but I assume there must be some sort of mitigating circumstances. 

Personally, even the most heinous of crimes don't merit what my colleague suggested. We live in a violent enough world as it is, without the government sanctioning that sort of thing. 

[Thistle_do_nicely]

hm. Is it one of those "Romeo and Juliet" laws situations??? only thing that sprang to mind without knowing any of the details of the case.

Flip side is that off the top of my head getting convicted of rape in a criminal case is fairly challenging as its quite often one persons word vs. another so if he's been convicted I'd guess the evidence must be solid...

edit: G_&_T beat me to it with a similar idea, idk if its more an American thing but statutory rape can afaik still be consensual.

Edited April 6, 2023 by Thistle_do_nicely

[vikingTON]

4 minutes ago, G_&_T said:

Someone at work said that he should be castrated without anaesthetic, flogged to within an inch of his life and then hanged. I raised an eyebrow and he told me that I obviously don't have a daughter.

The classic 'Ahve got a wean so ma experience matters more' gambit, coupled in this case with dreaming up psychotic fantasies which is okay in the case of sprog defence (legal clarification: it is not). 

Definitely OFTW material, either for a dodgy hard drive or an aneurysm by 60. 

[highlandcowden]

I'm assuming the crown wil be appealing this

[G_&_T]

8 minutes ago, virginton said:

The classic 'Ahve got a wean so ma experience matters more' gambit, coupled in this case with dreaming up psychotic fantasies which is okay in the case of sprog defence (legal clarification: it is not). 

Definitely OFTW material, either for a dodgy hard drive or an aneurysm by 60. 

Probably an aneurysm, I doubt the former, tbh. I said nothing, of course, because I'm never going to change his mind, but it's frightening to think that anybody wants to live in a society like that.

I imagine he's the sort who privately rants about what he perceives to be the insidious creep of 'Sharia law' into British society, and in the next breath suggests burglars should have their hands amputated...without anaesthetic, of course. 

Edited April 6, 2023 by G_&_T

[ICTChris]

17 minutes ago, Mr Waldo said:

It used to be the case because it involves penile penetration but because of the transgender debate, it has changed.

The law says that you rape someone by penetrating them with your penis.  So you can’t be convicted of raping someone if you don’t have a penis.

[G_&_T]

20 minutes ago, Thistle_do_nicely said:

hm. Is it one of those "Romeo and Juliet" laws situations??? only thing that sprang to mind without knowing any of the details of the case.

Flip side is that off the top of my head getting convicted of rape in a criminal case is fairly challenging as its quite often one persons word vs. another so if he's been convicted I'd guess the evidence must be solid...

edit: G_&_T beat me to it with a similar idea, idk if its more an American thing but statutory rape can afaik still be consensual.

I'm not sure what the law is in Scotland, but you're 100% correct about statutory rape; it essentially means the victim is unable to give consent as they're too young. So the two could have been in a 'consensual relationship, but the law (quite rightly) does not accept that. The fact is, if he was 17 years old he was technically a child, too, and the age gap was four years - possibly less.

Again, I'm making an assumption, but presumably the media have not made it clear what the true nature of the offence was. I find it difficult to believe he forced himself on her and yet was not given a custodial sentence. If that was the case, then it is indeed a shockingly lenient sentence. But I suspect there's more to it. 

[parsforlife]

I too suspect there’s something more in it, there’s a media storm being kicked up and nobody is actually bothered by the details.  However from the little I have seen having tried to find a little more detail is that isn’t statutory rape.  He threatened her, then grabbed her wrists and then head.  That certainly isn’t a ‘she wanted to do it but he should be taking responsibility and acknowledging that someone that age can’t be considered to be able to give consent, regardless of how consensual they may sound.

It’s possible the two were in a relationship. But if that’s between a husband and wife of 50 years the actions are still rape.

[19QOS19]

30 minutes ago, G_&_T said:

Probably an aneurysm, I doubt the former, tbh. I said nothing, of course, because I'm never going to change his mind, but it's frightening to think that anybody wants to live in a society like that.

Almost as frightening as living in a society that gives child rapists community service. 

[No_Problemo]

17 minutes ago, G_&_T said:

I'm not sure what the law is in Scotland, but you're 100% correct about statutory rape; it essentially means the victim is unable to give consent as they're too young. So the two could have been in a 'consensual relationship, but the law (quite rightly) does not accept that. The fact is, if he was 17 years old he was technically a child, too, and the age gap was four years - possibly less.

Again, I'm making an assumption, but presumably the media have not made it clear what the true nature of the offence was. I find it difficult to believe he forced himself on her and yet was not given a custodial sentence. If that was the case, then it is indeed a shockingly lenient sentence. But I suspect there's more to it. 

Absolutely this, no one has any idea in terms of the actual details, or those of the background of the accused - including social work reports etc. No one is commenting on the actual details, and ultimately never will be. As usual it’s just harmful journalism, the new sentencing guidelines for those under 25 is a good thing and affords those with a horrific upbringing to have that taken into account. 

Of course, if the outraged are correct in their assertions then he should receive a jail sentence regardless of the sentencing guidelines for a crime like that. 

[G_&_T]

7 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

I too suspect there’s something more in it, there’s a media storm being kicked up and nobody is actually bothered by the details.  However from the little I have seen having tried to find a little more detail is that isn’t statutory rape.  He threatened her, then grabbed her wrists and then head.  That certainly isn’t a ‘she wanted to do it but he should be taking responsibility and acknowledging that someone that age can’t be considered to be able to give consent, regardless of how consensual they may sound.

It’s possible the two were in a relationship. But if that’s between a husband and wife of 50 years the actions are still rape.

Well, that's blown my theory out of the water, then. Crazy stuff.

 

2 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

Almost as frightening as living in a society that gives child rapists community service. 

It's just the opposite extreme. I wouldn't want to live in either society. 

[19QOS19]

9 minutes ago, G_&_T said:

It's just the opposite extreme. I wouldn't want to live in either society. 

Indeed. Depressing that we live in one of them though. 

[Trogdor]

The Crown Office will appeal on the grounds of the sentence being unduly lenient.

The perpetrator will ultimately get a custodial sentence. We're dealing with a judge who clearly interprets the guidelines as meaning no custodial sentence for <25. Given the judge even said the following as part of their ruling:

Quote

This offence, if committed by an adult over 25 you attract a sentence of four or five years...

It's quite clear that age is the mitigation here which is an altogether wrong headed interpretation of the guidelines. Basically, every KC has said more or less the same as well.

It's a bit like when the Scottish ref (was it catastrophically bald Madden?) was given penalties for shirt pulling and then got taken aside and told that they were overinterpreting the guidance. Same thing will happen with this Judge.

I have seen some chatter about this being the SG's fault but the guidance is written by an independent body with reports to SG. The government could change the law so for rape a custodial sentence is mandatory but that shouldn't be necessary.

[The Derry]

Should let a 13 year old rape him and see how he likes it.

[G_&_T]

11 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

Indeed. Depressing that we live in one of them though. 

Aye, well based on what @Trogdor has said, it would appear that I was wrong in thinking it might be statutory rape (or the Scottish equivalent). Though how a judge can misinterpret the sentencing guidelines so badly is beyond me. I genuinely assumed there MUST have been something more to this. If he forced himself on a thirteen year old girl, he should do porridge.

I'm still of the opinion that prisons should primarily be focused on rehabilitation, and I'm opposed to corporal and capital punishment, which is what comment on this sort of crime usually elicits.

[No_Problemo]

12 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

The Crown Office will appeal on the grounds of the sentence being unduly lenient.

The perpetrator will ultimately get a custodial sentence. We're dealing with a judge who clearly interprets the guidelines as meaning no custodial sentence for <25. Given the judge even said the following as part of their ruling:

It's quite clear that age is the mitigation here which is an altogether wrong headed interpretation of the guidelines. Basically, every KC has said more or less the same as well.

It's a bit like when the Scottish ref (was it catastrophically bald Madden?) was given penalties for shirt pulling and then got taken aside and told that they were overinterpreting the guidance. Same thing will happen with this Judge.

I have seen some chatter about this being the SG's fault but the guidance is written by an independent body with reports to SG. The government could change the law so for rape a custodial sentence is mandatory but that shouldn't be necessary.

In that case it would be very strange then, if anything in my experience it’s the exact opposite I’ve seen in terms of the new sentencing guidelines - old Tory style guys not giving a f**k about them. 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Reforms of the criminal justice system, beyond sentencing are mad. There are loopholes that would allow someone to walk free from custody without interview for crimes such as rape/murder etc which I wont highlight the ‘how’ but they exist. 
Ive seen 17 year olds convicted of attempted murder, constantly re-offending with knives, skipping bail curfews (committing over 30 offences whilst on bail) and then get non custodial sentances. 

I do believe that except in cases of public sector corruption, fraud over a certain value and other similar offences that non violent/non sexual crimes shouldnt have a prison sentence. 

[StellarHibee]

27 minutes ago, The Derry said:

Should let a 13 year old rape him and see how he likes it.

That really doesn't read well at all.

[s_dog]

8 hours ago, itzdrk said:

I think while the under 25 guidelines are generally a good thing there should surely be exceptions for violent crime (not fighting). 

I agree with this. The idea that people under 25 aren't fully developed and that they don't recognise the consequences of their actions might be true for some things but crimes against an individual, and especially violent crimes like this, that's nonsense.

The judge did say that he chose against sending Sean Hogg to prison because "Prison does not lead me to believe this will contribute to your rehabilitation." Except that rape, and especially rape against a child, should always result in a prison sentence and rehabilitation can come after the punishment.

[ICTChris]

Rehabilitation is a noble aim but prisons are also to protect the public by separating people who commit crimes from society at large and also to punish people for transgressing the law.

I would say in the case of repeatedly raping a 13 year old girl the public need to be protected from this man and he needs to be punished. His rehabilitation can begin while he serves his punishment and while the public are protected by him.