Friday, June 21, 2013

It is all about perception

A Hainault robber who was seen “sizing up potential victims” outside a tube station before punching a man to the floor for his mobile phone, has been jailed for four years. Ilford Recorder.

From the blog Ian Visits. I think that is a fair sentence if that was all that the sentence was about and he had no prior convictions. 

There may be exceptions, but generally I think a physical assault on someone should be punished by a gaol sentence.

For some reason the Australian law enforcement and courts seem to take a very mild view of a physical assault, and I think this is very wrong. Physical assault should not be tolerated at all in our society.

I may not win female friends, but I will suggest there are degrees of rape. Surely the rape of a woman who says yes, then no, then yes, then no, is different to that of a woman dragged off the street and raped and then murdered.

If the perpetrator of such violent rape followed by murder had two prior convictions for violent rape, would you not think he would think he would receive the maximum sentence for rape of 25 years in the slammer? No, apparently not, only 15 years, judged by our judiciary.  There can be a very fine line between rape, and kind of unwilling sex. That he subsequently murdered her and received a very long sentence for that is not the point. Surely if someone rapes women violently three times, for the third offence he should be given the maximum sentence.

Judges always talk about severity of crimes when sentencing the guilty (they talk the talk), yet give them what seems to be very light sentences. Are our judges all crusty old fogeys who sleep through most of the trials? What they need to learn about is appearances, perception and symbolism. The guilty party referred to above would have ultimately served the same time gaol, a couple of years short of him turning 80, but he really should have been sentenced the maximum time for his third violent rape offence.

Might there be grounds for appeal? After all, his violent rape crime, a third offence of the same, was not bad enough to receive the maximum sentence.

Surely one violent rape, followed by another, followed by a third should lead to a maximum sentence on the merits of the rape alone, let alone the subsequent murder. I am a worldly person in some matters, but I find it hard to imagine what sort of rape could be worse than what the murder victim suffered that would lead to the maximum sentence.

6 comments:

  1. We have our own case at the moment in NSW, Andrew, of a man who was released on parole at the 7th request after serving a gaol sentence for murder who within a year has been arrested and charged with stabbing, puncturing the lung of, beating and attempting to rape a woman at a bus stop at 6pm the other evening.

    The relatives of the earlier victim pleaded against his release on parole arguing that he would reoffend and tragically they have been proven correct. The Government has instituted a judicial review of the parole decision.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just awful Victor. Clearly parole officers are not a good judge of the character of extreme offenders.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Any woman who can't decide between yes and no should stay home. At least until she makes up her mind. If she says yes, then changes her mind, that should be the end of it, continually swinging between yes and no is wrong and the bloke who goes ahead after a couple of rounds like can could maybe be excused for thinking she'd eventually say yes again. But still wrong for not stopping after the no. It's a very grey area and in this case the woman would also be in the wrong. But a violent rapist, caught for the third time should definitely get the maximum sentence.

    ReplyDelete
  4. River, it is so grey. I don't think women should stay at home, whether they do yes no, maybe, yes no. But ultimately no. For some reason, I expect you know the difference between forced sex and rape.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In the words of Mr Bumble 'the law is an ass' ! I agree Andrew if no comes after much indecision...it's still NON!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, no is no, but violence combined with rape must be so much worse for the victim.

      Delete