Student jailed for slapping woman with mantool whilst she sleeps

As an aside, has it been reported anywhere how long his home detention is to last and is it complete house arrest (or what are it's terms)?

 

Well it's a bit of a wild notion but last time I checked comparing South African criminal code with the outcome of a trial for a totally different offence in England & Wales does not really compute.

 

How clever and pompous of you UEA.

Take your pick and compute then:

5 years for rape (Ched Evans) verses this.
No jail for punching someone when drunk and leaving them paralysed verses this.
No jail for smashing a bottle into someone's face and nearly blinding them on your 18th offence for assault verses this.

All recent UK sentencing.

The last one is particularly ridiculous given the fact the thug (Yasmin Thomas) clearly doesn't learn from any previous punishments. But I guess we should imprison this student who is clearly a huge menace to society compared to the others.

 

It's only 'clever and pompous' because you read that into it Jumbo. Sorry if you thought it was a slap down though.

Of course on a forum the merits of many sentences can be thrashed out but the reality is it'll just drive you barmy. Every case is decided on its facts. Every sentence is decided based on many facts, both aggravating and mitigating, the majority of which are much too dull for the media to report. Most trial reports are syndicated into the national press from local reporters and they usually go for the one quote per side approach to sum up the submissions of prosecution and defence before sentence is handed down.

Fan was spot on in post #60 in my opinion. We know too little to begin to decide. For example, it's bit like someone who doesn't understand football saying, "Because Man City lost to [Conference team] in that friendly [Conference team] are clearly the better team". Who was playing for each side? Was it a competitive game? Did it actually matter to the losing side? What happened during the match to influence the result? No doubt we as football fans would consider all those things before coming to an opinion but it seems when it comes comes to the outcome of criminal sentencing the media only report the full time score.

 

I'd far rather be someone who questions based on what they know and is sometimes misinformed versus someone who accepts everything blindly and assumes the right result must have been achieved just because it shook out that way.

 

Fair enough uea sorry for over reacting.

 

Was it a big one ?

 

Strange how the so many courts verdicts are found to be unsafe, or incorrect, and that possibility is one of the main arguments against capital punishment, yet on other occasions when it suits, we are expected to blindly accept a courts decision.

Highly selective logic?

Maybe you people should start accepting career politicians decisions as always being correct, as they spend every minute of their working life working in them.

But my initial point was that it shouldn't have even gone to court in the first place.

 

Yr

A bizarre opinion. As was he's pissed so he can't have consented to his own crime earlier. The logic is - get it wrong here - reversible. Get it wrong in a capital case - terminal. But hey - I don't expect a response anyway.

 

I liked ZZ's post for the make your own mind up logic. With very few exceptions I prefer to rely on my own judgement on forming my opinions, rather than following other people's conclusions.

 

I was trying to use a smartphone with a damp screen and didn't make it clear. My post that you quoted was aimed at those who said that, because we didn't sit through the court case, we shouldn't have an opinion.

Nothing bizarre about it.

 

OK. Point taken. And when I inadvertently hit a dislike button with regard to a return post from you to me that you took some time over, I fully understand why that would pi*s you off. As long as you can accept that's what it was - a smartphone malfunction issue too - then we can bury the hatchet deep underground and resume normal business. I'm not a grudge holder and feuds are boring. So why should this case not have gone to court then?

 

OK. Your post's ironic. Mine still stands.

 

What grudge? You are mistaken, I just moved on.

About the court case, I have already explained, I don't think it was serious enough to go to court and ruining a career.

I am not saying I am right, it is just my opinion. I get fed up with real criminals effectively getting away with it, whilst relatively minor infringements are heavily punished because the offence is the flavour of the month. We need to get some perspective in our moral (and legal) judgements.

Based on what we know about the case, if something similar happened to me, it would have been quickly forgotten and I would have refused to have gone to court to testify. If I was forced to attend , I would have spoken up for him/her and minimised the effects it had on me, rather than make out it was the end of the world.

I would, however, have been far more annoyed with the chap who shared it on the internet.

 

OK good. But when we're at it like two rutting stags (and it is the season for it) and then it's all quiet on the western front for a week. Well ...

Anyway, I don't think it should ruin a career either but I do think it's a sexual assault and that's gotta go to court. As I said earlier, it would have been good if a way could have been found to avoid the custodial sentence and not ruin the rest of his life. But the law's a blunt instrument. The comparative stuff is understandable but the starting point should be to look at each crime individually rather than adopt a 'he should get one sentence because some other bloke, who committed a very different crime, should have got another' kind of argument. And sexual assault's always been on the statute. Nothing flavour of the month about it at all.

If it had happened to me I'd have minimised it too. But it would be hard to forget with the video 'out there' and it happened to a female. They're entitled to a different perspective. And it wasn't her who alerted the police. It was a recipient of the video. Sounds to me that she wasn't vindictive. She was just honest about the way it had affected her. Then it's up to the court to make its judgement.

Sure, the guy with the video's got a lot to answer for. Maybe he's committed a crime too? But it's not clear what the defendant's view regarding its dissemination was.

For me, the biggest issue is the potential sexual humiliation motive. And no-one else has picked up on that yet. But it is an all boys forum ...

 

In the newspaper today, two men were jailed for pushing a blind man and his brother off a station platform onto the tracks, effecting GBH and ABH.

Sentence was 22 months and 9 months respectively.

That is the he sort of thing I am referring to.

 

I've had a look at the case you refer to. Fair enough. Point taken. We also agree that the case we've had under discussion should not have resulted in a custodial sentence. Where we disagree is about it going to court. In that case, what I hope is, he undergoes some sort of social work programme to ascertain if he has an attitude problem around women. He might not have at all. If he does, it could be addressed. And that could easily have been done without him being incarcerated. I doubt he would have absconded from whatever programme he was required to attend. It would also have been a lot cheaper.

In the case you've drawn my attention to, the aggravating factor is that the crime was presumably committed with a reckless disregard as to whether there was a train approaching or not. I would think something around double what they got would have been more appropriate. Particularly seeing as they're only likely to serve half of it anyway.

 

I just consider the two events. One was an unpleasant non-violent drunken indiscretion, and the other was a potentially fatal serious assault by two men on a blind man.

9 months for both. Totally ridiculous!

But, my main point is not the sentence, as I have already said, because once it gets to court there are certain parameters that guide the sentencing, it is that it should never have even got past a caution, at worst.

 

I see that revenge porn is finally going to be made the offence it should be but I hope we get new laws that will encompass all forms of humiliation such as teabagging which, despite the sexual connotations, IMO shouldn't be severe enough to place the perp on a register alongside dangerous rapists and perverts. It really doesn't make sense and it only weakens the importance of the list.

Also there seems to be so much disparity between different forces and courts in different counties, so much so that we really need stricter guidelines on both charging and sentencing and we need to have much, much less tolerance to the ignorance of the law. I.E. in Germany, most lads would be well aware of what to expect if caught doing a prank like this and would almost certainly consider it's "victim's" likely reaction before humiliating them. Here they're 'only avin a larf' and just look at the consequences!

 

I can certainly second that!

 

Shouldn't the sentencing parameters get looked at in that case? Although I too wonder how much the court case has cost everyone and whether it has served the public interest.

 

Absolutely. A prime example is that the media often blames judges for some sentences yet where a defendant pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity they are entitled to a 50% reduction in the the sentence. That's something Parliament has decided. Likewise when it then comes to them serving only half. So a 44 month sentence becomes 11 months in the blink of an eye. No wonder the general public don't get it.

 

At least explain why? ... personally I think a small fine/compensation, an apology and fifty hours community service would be plenty enough for this dastardly deed.

 

All of that ... but a custodial sentence at the taxpayers expense and his name on the register for what really is (despite it's offensiveness) a harmless prank? £200 compo should set right the girls pain.

Get real, we simply don't have the prison space for this.

 

He's committed a sexual offence so of course he should be on the sexual offenders register. It exists for this very reason - people who commit low level stuff sometimes escalate to the more serious and harmful offences. Lessons learned in the past shows that there has to be a way of monitoring such people. He'll only be on it for a few years and will probably only be seen every year until discharged from it. It's a proportionate measure.

 

Rubbish and I think the lack of a stiffy tells us that much. It really is just kids having a laugh at the expense of others just the same as shaving an eyebrow or daubing lipstick. On a mates stag do my mates and I tied him naked to the door handles of Woolworths with a pink ribbon around his member, does that mean we need monitoring too?

 

I suppose it depends on the harm to the victim. If the victim feels the need to complain to the police that's a pretty good indicator that things have over-stepped the mark, no?

 

Agreed we don't have the prison space or the money for it. But it wasn't a harmless prank. It did her harm and he hadn't sought permission. You might not consider the possibility that it had a sexually abusive element, especially when pissed, but it might have have had for him. That requires investigation.

 

No. Self evidently you had no sexual interest in the victim unless you're gay. Unlikely! Do it to a female though, then it's potentially a very different story. That's just something us guys have gotta live with. In addition, your mate would have known the crowd he was out with and what was the likely outcome at the end of the evening so had really already given his tacit consent. I chose my guests carefully so I got a decent night's sleep before the big day ...

 

Yes, but if I've read it rght, it wasn't her who originally complained to the police. It was a male viewer of the video. Then she was required to tell her story, which she would appear to have done without fear or favour, neither being vindictive or underplaying it. She simply told the truth when asked and then the police and CPS made the decision to prosecute.

 

My neighbour complained to the police when I parked in her daughters usual spot in front of their house (I'd only popped home for my lunch). Police complaints are possibly the worst indicator going! ... And what effing harm? She slept through it all!

 

And if it had not been recorded and shown to others it would never have come to light. If you can't see the harm it could do to someone knowing such a video of them was out there - particularly given we don't know if she was identifiable and if he said anything about her on it - then I'd say that's your problem.

Hey, where's the harm in the assault on the guy at the railway station? He's blind so couldn't see anything and it was over in a couple of minutes.

 

He wasn't imprisoned for putting it out on the internet.