HeadingNorth Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I didn't say the punishment should be the same for everybody . If you prove someone guilty of sexual assault, the punishment should be the same ............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthebean Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Erm, you seem to have only taken half my sentence there I don't want to argue with you HeadingNorth, I am ok if we have differing opinions about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I didn't say the punishment should be the same for everybody . If you have raped ten other people you should get a harsher sentence. If you are believed to be of significant risk of raping someone in the future you should spend longer in prison. However I dont personally think that if you rape victim was dressed provacatively or if he/she was seen cosying up to you earlier in the evening you should be let off more lightly. I agree, it shouldn't. But I don't think that we've got anything like the full facts in this case, I hope that there was far more to it than this... As already mentioned the fact that the prosecution were looking for only 3 years says something doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 25, 2011 Author Share Posted February 25, 2011 Sorry I was in a rush at the time so didn't have time to put it fully - the point I was making was that the intent between different sexual assault laws differs, so if his version was a "lower" crime than rape the sentence would be lower - hence, one assumes, the apparent low sentence (remember, the prosecution only asked for 3 years). I'm not sure he was blaming the victim rather than saying it was mitigation in favour of the defendant. I’m not going to disagree that there are different degrees of sexual assault, or any other violent crime for that matter, which deserve different degrees of sentencing. I’m not going to disagree that there can be mitigating circumstances in favour of a defendant, see my previous post. A 3-year jail sentence would not be unusual for a rapist, but neither would a 10-year sentence, or a non-custodial sentence. I cannot help but think that the point is being missed, and one only has to read the judge’s actual words to form the opinion that the victim is being blamed in some way for the assault. I have heard many bloggers defend this judge with a claim along the lines of “well somebody wearing a fancy suit and a Rolex in the rough end of town shouldn’t be surprised if he gets mugged”. That might well be the case, and his family and friends might reprimand him in private, but no judge blames the victim in public for naïve provocation, or modifies the sentence accordingly. The law is there to protect all equally, even the stupid. Why is it only ever women in sexual assault cases that seem to be treated differently? The judges words were not only misogynistic, there were also dangerous, and Noob quite conveniently shows why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I cannot help but think that the point is being missed, and one only has to read the judge’s actual words to form the opinion that the victim is being blamed in some way for the assault. There only seems to be a brief quote from the judge: “This is a different case than one where there is no perceived invitation,” the Free Press quoted the judge as saying. “This is a case of misunderstood signals and inconsiderate behaviour.” How is this blaming the victim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 25, 2011 Author Share Posted February 25, 2011 How is this blaming the victim? The judge uses the term "moral blameworthiness". "I'm sure whatever signals were sent that sex was in the air were unintentional," he added. Rhodes and a friend met the 26-year-old woman and her girlfriend earlier that night outside a bar under what the judge called "inviting circumstances." Dewar specifically noted the women were wearing tube tops with no bra, high heels and plenty of makeup. What the hell is "moral blameworthiness"? Doesn't assessment of "moral blame" end the moment he found him guilty of rape? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 The judge uses the term "moral blameworthiness". "I'm sure whatever signals were sent that sex was in the air were unintentional," he added. Rhodes and a friend met the 26-year-old woman and her girlfriend earlier that night outside a bar under what the judge called "inviting circumstances." Dewar specifically noted the women were wearing tube tops with no bra, high heels and plenty of makeup. What the hell is "moral blameworthiness"? Doesn't assessment of "moral blame" end the moment he found him guilty of rape? Where does he use that term? It's not in the article you linked to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 25, 2011 Author Share Posted February 25, 2011 Where does he use that term? It's not in the article you linked to. "moral blameworthiness" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 There hasn't been any false allegations. The man has been convicted. Strictly speaking he hasn't - in the case of a conditional discharge no conviction is entered. "moral blameworthiness" I've read the article and yes he uses the term "moral blameworthiness" but he doesn't attach blame to the victim. The paper states: Dewar said he didn't want to be seen as blaming the victim but that all of the factors surrounding the case must be viewed to assess "moral blameworthiness." He could have equally been assessing the amount of "moral blameworthiness" that attaches to the man... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoop Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Strictly speaking he hasn't - in the case of a conditional discharge no conviction is entered. You're mistaken - he hasn't had a conditional discharge, he recieved a conditional sentence. He has been convicted of rape. http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/02/25/outcry-grows-against-manitoba-judge-who-did-not-jail-rapist/ http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/02/24/no-jail-for-rapist-because-victim-wanted-to-party/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.