• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Societal collapse?

Fucking hell, can we not use rapes as a method for point scoring on an internet forum?

There are vile people in all walks of life - it's not restricted to a specific segment of society and the far right hosting riots over specific incidents but not all incidents is simply hypocrisy.
 
I see the 15 year old who raped a 17 year old in Worcester only got 5 years.

That is absolutely astonishing.

He got a lesser sentence because he was under 16, it was his first offence, and he pled guilty.

I can't abide by those reasons for a lower sentence.
 
An early guilty plea has always been a factor in sentencing mitigation for every criminal offence under the laws of England and Wales. Like literally for at least living memory.
Similarly, lower sentences for those aged under 16 at the time an offence has been committed have been on the statute book for a very long time indeed.
Lower sentencing guidelines for first offences actually make sense because an offence by a repeat offender is a more serious thing in the eyes of the law because it is an indication of recidivist behaviour, which is an exacerbating factor.

So I have no problem whatsoever with those three factors in a sentencing decision.

The sentence in this case is at the lower end of the sentencing scale for rape, which is 4-5 years in the very lowest cases.

So in summary, without reading the full facts of the case and the judge's sentencing remarks, I don't see anything outlandish or astonishing at all under the current sentencing guidelines.
 
There's a difference between the law being consistent and the law being right.

My issue with first offence as mitigation for rape specifically is this repeat offending should be an aggravating factor that increases the sentence, not first offending being a mitigating factor that reduces it!

The baseline should be the full sentence.

Also the current definitive guideline is from 2015 not ancient history at all.

Two rapists, same week, vastly different sentences. That's worth examining regardless of whether it's technically consistent with the guidelines.
 
Okay, let's go back to the early guilty plea. Specifically in a rape case. Have you any experience of what a rape victim goes through in court? THAT is why mitigation for an early guilty plea should be there.
 
Elephant Pyjamas said:
Two rapists, same week, vastly different sentences. That's worth examining regardless of whether it's technically consistent with the guidelines.
Click to expand...
Every case is judged on its specific facts, circumstances, and merits in sentencing. Even the mandatory life sentence for murder has differences in tariff depending on mitigating or exacerbating factors.

As I say, the sentencing remarks from the judges in both cases would make an interesting comparison.
 
Paddingtonwolf said:
Okay, let's go back to the early guilty plea. Specifically in a rape case. Have you any experience of what a rape victim goes through in court? THAT is why mitigation for an early guilty plea should be there.
Click to expand...


I didn't realise I needed personal experience of a rape victim to have a view on whether 5 years probably less, is an adequate sentence for rape?

By that logic nobody outside the legal profession or victim community can have an opinion on sentencing at all.

That said, fair point on the guilty plea. Sparing a rape victim the trauma of cross examination is genuinely meaningful, however, whilst the victim benefits from the guilty plea, conversely they also have to live with knowing their rapist is out in 2-3 years, and the public have that risk too.

So the guilty plea discount and the youth discount stack on top of each other on an already low starting point, and you end up with a sentence that doesn't reflect the severity of the crime or the ongoing risk this person poses.

The law being consistent with the guidelines and the guidelines being fit for purpose are two different things. I'm questioning the latter, you are simply making excuses for it.
 
Paddingtonwolf said:
Every case is judged on its specific facts, circumstances, and merits in sentencing. Even the mandatory life sentence for murder has differences in tariff depending on mitigating or exacerbating factors.

As I say, the sentencing remarks from the judges in both cases would make an interesting comparison.
Click to expand...
Two different cases yes, but the lower sentence still produces a rapist back in the community in under 3 years.

Whatever the specific facts, that outcome needs scrutiny.
 
You are outraged at the sentence. Which is fair enough. I have explained why the three reasons you gave for a lower sentence are perfectly legally valid and, in my opinion, correct. I am not making excuses for anything. I am saying it is right. Your mileage may vary. My comment is that if you had experience of what the victim can go through you would see the logic more clearly why credit is given for an early guilty plea, even if you don't agree with it. I am not, to be absolutely clear, saying you have to have legal experience to make a comment.

As I have said twice, the sentencing remarks and actual facts of the two cases need to be read to understand the comparison in sentencing. Taking the headline three reasons without any context isn't helpful.

There is no minimum custodial sentence for rape in the laws of England and Wales. Like none. The guidelines would expect a minimum of 4-5 years, and obviously, a life sentence is also available at the other extreme. So, there is actually a very wide range available to the court. Because there are different levels of the offence.
 
So you're still not addressing my actual argument. I'm not disputing the three factors are legally valid.

I'm saying the baseline they're reducing from is already inadequate.

A guideline minimum of 4-5 years for rape, one of the most serious crimes on the statute book is the problem.

The discounts then reduce that further.

And specifically on first offence my point is that it shouldn't work as a downward mitigating factor at all for serious violent and sexual offences.

Repeat offending should be an upward aggravating factor. The baseline should be the full sentence. Those are different things and it's a distinction worth engaging with rather than explaining that the current guidelines are internally consistent, which I already know.
 
And the fact there's no statutory minimum actually makes this worse we're entirely dependent on guidelines that allow multiple discounts to stack on top of each other with no floor.

Parliament should consider whether rape specifically needs a statutory minimum that discounts cannot reduce below a certain point.

And the current Sexual Offences Definitive Guideline the actual document judges use was published in August 2015. Not ancient history at all.

The principles may be older but the framework as it currently operates is just over ten years old and worth revisiting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top