Rapist sentenced to community service

[No_Problemo]

4 hours ago, MacDuffman said:

https://news.sky.com/story/young-men-given-lighter-prison-sentences-for-attempted-murder-in-edinburgh-due-to-age-12867430

Another 3 getting away with attempted murder.

No thought whatsoever about the poor guy thats now in a wheelchair.

Scum defence Lawyer & dodery old b*****d judge.

Except they didn’t get away with anything.

Their age at the time of the offence was taken into account and they were still given lengthy jail sentences - don’t really see the issue with that one tbh. 

[MacDuffman]

Why should their age be taken into consideration.

You should know before you're 16 that it is wrong to do what they did.

The guy is in a wheel;chair for the rest of his life, no future and his relatives now have to look after him so not much life for them.

5 1/2 years, out in less than 3 is not a lenghty sentence.

 

 

[parsforlife]

5 hours ago, MacDuffman said:

Why should their age be taken into consideration.

You should know before you're 16 that it is wrong to do what they did.

The guy is in a wheel;chair for the rest of his life, no future and his relatives now have to look after him so not much life for them.

5 1/2 years, out in less than 3 is not a lenghty sentence.

 

 

Age is to be taken into consideration as the brain is not fully developed until approx 25,  particularly in risky behaviour.    It is very very clear from just about every study that someone is more likely to do something in the heat of the moment in their teens and early 20s than they are when they are older.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't have known better,  of course they should, that's why they are being jailed, they are old enough to be judged criminally responsible.

I think in terms of reduction for age I think this is an appropriate use of the guidelines.   The judge states he would have gone for 10 year sentences without age but reduced to 7.5 years for age,  that seems reasonable.  For those that made guilty pleas they received further reduction which is normal practice in all cases.

I don't like the disparity between attempted murder and murder as the intent is the same and its just chance what side of the line the victim falls on but that's an entire different debate.

 

Edited April 28, 2023 by parsforlife

[ICTChris]

Sean Hoggs sentence is being appealed for being too lenient.

[Busta Nut]

I'm not sure I struggled to know that being a wee cunt had consequences when I was a wee guy. 

[Binos]

On 27/04/2023 at 21:01, No_Problemo said:

Except they didn’t get away with anything.

Their age at the time of the offence was taken into account and they were still given lengthy jail sentences - don’t really see the issue with that one tbh. 

They crippled him

[No_Problemo]

3 hours ago, Busta Nut said:

I'm not sure I struggled to know that being a wee cunt had consequences when I was a wee guy. 

I imagine it largely depends on your upbringing. If, as a child you are surrounded by nothing but violence - whether you are the victim or just continually witness domestic abuse then that will change that. That trauma will lead to far more impulsivity. 

6 minutes ago, Binos said:

They crippled him

Yes - horrific for the guy,  being why they received lengthy jail sentences. 

Edited May 2, 2023 by No_Problemo

[ICTChris]

https://news.stv.tv/north/four-women-raped-by-same-man-in-angus-and-dundee-call-for-under-25-sentencing-guidelines-to-be-changed
 

Four victims of a serial rapist speak about their experience with the court system and the sentences given when the man was convicted.

[Boo Khaki]

1 hour ago, ICTChris said:

https://news.stv.tv/north/four-women-raped-by-same-man-in-angus-and-dundee-call-for-under-25-sentencing-guidelines-to-be-changed
 

Four victims of a serial rapist speak about their experience with the court system and the sentences given when the man was convicted.

I've been seeing people saying the exact same thing for years, re; victims being re-traumatised by the process, defence lawyers questioning wholly irrelevant aspects of their lives, the low rates for convictions after complaints of sexual crimes etc, but I've never seen anyone make a single practical suggestion about how to go about tacking the problem that doesn't completely undermine the fundamental legal principle of presumed innocence.

The main issues appear to be that :-

1. in many instances, the case is often not much more that one person's version of events v's the other. One party says the sex was consensual, the other does not. Absent of any other evidence, how on earth do victims expect the Police and Crown to mount a credible prosecution and secure a conviction?

2. Victims often speak of the trauma of having to give evidence and being cross-examined. Because of presumed innocence, the onus is upon the prosecution to prove a case as the complainant is the one making the accusation a crime has taken place. It's not up for negotiation that an accused has the right to defend themselves, and frequently that defence takes the form of examining the prosecution's case and finding reason why the jury can not possibly conclude guilt 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. How do you propose to alter this state of affairs without impinging upon an accused's right to defence?

It seems to me that there is no obvious way to reconcile these problems without either totally throwing out the window the principle of presumed innocence and right to proper defence, or, introducing a 'two tier' judicial system where either the burden of proof required for convictions in sex crime cases is far lower, or the principle is switched to presumed guilt, and I would be deeply uncomfortable with either because both seem to be a recipe for locking up innocent people.

I do not doubt that what campaigners say is true, that on the whole victims do not invent sex-crimes for no good reason, and I agree with the woman in the article who says that victims should not be made to feel like they are the one on trial. If you accept that false claims are not at all common, then it's clear that the conviction rates are a disgrace and something requires changing. Complainants certainly should not be traumatised by the process of cross-examination, but I am not entirely comfortable with describing themselves as 'victims' for the purpose of the court process itself, because in that respect they are not legally 'victims' until a conviction is secured, so again, this seems to run contrary to the principle of presumed innocence. Again, the woman in the article is entirely correct when she says that failure to secure a conviction should not be regarded as the complainant having fabricated the complaint, but you are either guilty or not guilty, so I don't accept that someone found 'not guilty' should be regarded as having undoubtedly committed an offence either, because that would also apply to every acquitted defendant including the ones who genuinely did not do what they were accused of.

God knows what the solutions are. 

Edited August 8, 2023 by Boo Khaki

[Granny Danger]

One of the problems with guidelines is it’s arbitrary nature.  Theoretically someone carrying out a crime the day before their 25th birthday could be treated differently to someone carrying out their crime the day after their 25th birthday.

It would be hard to argue that their intellectual development was different.

 

[Wee Bully]

1 minute ago, Granny Danger said:

One of the problems with guidelines is it’s arbitrary nature.  

Theoretically someone carrying out a crime the day before their 25th birthday could be treated differently to someone carrying out their crime the day after their 25th birthday.

It would be hard to argue that their intellectual development was different.

That’s the problem with any limit on anything.  The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12.  

Factually, someone carrying out a crime the day before their 12th birthday is treated differently to someone carrying out their crime the day after their 12th birthday.

It would be hard to argue that their intellectual development was different.  But that’s what the law needs to do.

 

[hk blues]

3 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

I've been seeing people saying the exact same thing for years, re; victims being re-traumatised by the process, defence lawyers questioning wholly irrelevant aspects of their lives, the low rates for convictions after complaints of sexual crimes etc, but I've never seen anyone make a single practical suggestion about how to go about tacking the problem that doesn't completely undermine the fundamental legal principle of presumed innocence.

The main issues appear to be that :-

1. in many instances, the case is often not much more that one person's version of events v's the other. One party says the sex was consensual, the other does not. Absent of any other evidence, how on earth do victims expect the Police and Crown to mount a credible prosecution and secure a conviction?

2. Victims often speak of the trauma of having to give evidence and being cross-examined. Because of presumed innocence, the onus is upon the prosecution to prove a case as the complainant is the one making the accusation a crime has taken place. It's not up for negotiation that an accused has the right to defend themselves, and frequently that defence takes the form of examining the prosecution's case and finding reason why the jury can not possibly conclude guilt 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. How do you propose to alter this state of affairs without impinging upon an accused's right to defence?

It seems to me that there is no obvious way to reconcile these problems without either totally throwing out the window the principle of presumed innocence and right to proper defence, or, introducing a 'two tier' judicial system where either the burden of proof required for convictions in sex crime cases is far lower, or the principle is switched to presumed guilt, and I would be deeply uncomfortable with either because both seem to be a recipe for locking up innocent people.

I do not doubt that what campaigners say is true, that on the whole victims do not invent sex-crimes for no good reason, and I agree with the woman in the article who says that victims should not be made to feel like they are the one on trial. If you accept that false claims are not at all common, then it's clear that the conviction rates are a disgrace and something requires changing. Complainants certainly should not be traumatised by the process of cross-examination, but I am not entirely comfortable with describing themselves as 'victims' for the purpose of the court process itself, because in that respect they are not legally 'victims' until a conviction is secured, so again, this seems to run contrary to the principle of presumed innocence.

God knows what the solutions are. 

With the justice system we have the end result is that there are more guilty folk on the outside than innocent on the inside.  As a society we seem to prefer that hence the 'guilty beyond all reasonable doubt' requirement for criminal cases whilst we have the alternative "balance of probability' for civil cases - folk don't get sent down in civil cases.  

So, apply the balance of probability criteria if we want to increase the conviction rate for sex crimes and accept there will be innocent folk sent to prison.  Or stick with what we have and accept that there will be guilty folk walking free. 

No good solution if you ask me so the status quo will prevail.

[Boo Khaki]

5 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

One of the problems with guidelines is it’s arbitrary nature.  Theoretically someone carrying out a crime the day before their 25th birthday could be treated differently to someone carrying out their crime the day after their 25th birthday.

It would be hard to argue that their intellectual development was different.

 

I can't imagine though, that in specific cases the only factor taken into account is the date of birth. I mean, obviously the guidelines only come into effect if the convicted is under-25, but surely other background factors such as IQ, educational attainment, family history, and so on are taken into account as well?

To me it seems obvious that a 24 year old with a stable, normal, loving family background, no deprivation or lack of opportunity, no learning difficulties, no history of being a victim of abuse themselves, is an entirely different kettle of fish from someone who is 25+1 day with a life history featuring every horror imaginable.

Edited August 8, 2023 by Boo Khaki

[Granny Danger]

1 minute ago, Wee Bully said:

That’s the problem with any limit on anything.  The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12.  

Factually, someone carrying out a crime the day before their 12th birthday is treated differently to someone carrying out their crime the day after their 12th birthday.

It would be hard to argue that their intellectual development was different.  But that’s what the law needs to do.

 

Yeah but it’s not like setting an age for driving, drinking, marrying, etc. where society sets (arbitrary) ages.

Before each sentence there will be a full review of a serious offender that can delve deeper into individual circumstances rather than just age.  That doesn’t happen with other age related restrictions.

[RH33]

You're sexual history is raked over by the police first. I can't emphasize how traumatising and how many hours of questioning a victim goes through with the police.

Then I can only imagine what defense lawyers would do in court.

[Mr Waldo]

Also, it is 25 at the time of conviction

So a 24 year gets done and a 23 year old whose trial gets delayed, gets a different sentence.

It is indefensible.

[Boo Khaki]

Not to belabour the point, but most of the revulsion and anger seems to arise after the public have read a half-page article in a newspaper. The paper does not have all the facts re- why a specific case resulted in a specific sentence, so I think it's a bit quick to jump the gun that '24 year old gets 18months for rape' is automatically an outrage and inappropriate. 

On the face of it, I'd agree, that particular sentence does appear to be extraordinarily light, but that is literally 'on the face of it' and only because it's known the perp is 24. The paper doesn't report all the other factors that went into deciding that was an appropriate sentence.

Edited August 8, 2023 by Boo Khaki

[hk blues]

4 minutes ago, Mr Waldo said:

Also, it is 25 at the time of conviction

So a 24 year gets done and a 23 year old whose trial gets delayed, gets a different sentence.

It is indefensible.

I wonder what the rationale behind that is?

Also, it encourages those on the borderline to plead guilty at the outset as the age at the time of the guilty plea/verdict is the determining point in time.

Have I just answered my own question?

[Boo Khaki]

4 minutes ago, RH33 said:

You're sexual history is raked over by the police first. I can't emphasize how traumatising and how many hours of questioning a victim goes through with the police.

Then I can only imagine what defense lawyers would do in court.

I've heard that the 'defence' for this practice is that with the abysmally low rates for conviction for what can often be a 'he said/she said' case, the Crown will not even attempt to prosecute a case unless they believe it is water-tight and a slam-dunk conviction, so they demand that the police are utterly rigorous before they even submit the file.

I'm in no way saying that justifies how they operate, but it seems like it's a two-way issue. The inability to secure convictions feeds back to questionable investigation procedures, and the difficulty in compiling solid cases leads to low conviction rates. Again, I am completely out of ideas how to go about addressing this, even though I wholeheartedly agree that the status quo is clearly inadequate and inappropriate.

[RH33]

I know of what I speak and I understand why. 

It's just utterly horrific but complicated to see how else you get convictions.