As far as sentencing is concerned you should really be blaming the legislature who have consistently failed to address the issue of rape in the United Kingdom. They need to start inforcing mandatory life sentences or at least a minimum of ten years, but as the law stands, its only 25 years maximum, which will only be achieved in a worst case senario. Essentually, judges can only work with what they are given.

Furthermore, the conception that rape is predominently sexual rather than an issue of dominence and power is something that is fed to us repeatedly by the media, who have denied clear sociological evidence to the contrary since the 1960′s.

the system seems to find an awful lot of excuses for men in this sort of situation – and I think Katy has a point in that the thread could be called Judges hate women. I mean there have been so many other cases where things like ‘oh the girls were wearing short skirts’ or ‘ she’s a bit of a slag’

That really isn’t the case

When it is estimated that 80-90% of rapes in the UK are unreported

Im not sure how exactly they compile stats for something that isn’t reported but iirc it includes non-consensual sex within relationships/marriage, which although terrible is different in context to ‘stranger danger’

-when it is a given that only a small percentage of charged rapists are actually convicted, 6%.

Damn the juries! You may as well, all those people who ultimately have to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, damn them for having those doubts.

What exactly is your point? It is mostly a case of he says she says, that doesn’t detract from the crime, rather it puts it into context. If both parties know each other before hand or met in a social situation and both parties agree intercourse took place it all comes down to what one person says against another.

>> What if they’ve both had something to drink, they were flirting in a club/pub. They go somewhere, have sex but later on the next day or in the following week the girl decides that in actual fact she didn’t consent. Situations where everyone is sober are easy, most rapes aren’t along those lines but instead amount to little more than ‘he said’ ’she said’. Because not enough vile sex monsters are being convicted the law might be changed so a woman can’t give consent when pissed, though how that will actually work is beyond me

is really something else!

-When it is estimated that 80-90% of rapes in the UK are unreported

-when it is a given that only a small percentage of charged rapists are actually convicted, 6%.

Yet, when the police themselves admit to a ‘ “substantial intelligence gap” as they could not assess the true pattern of offending’ , Mr Kulwinder feels complacent enough to assert it is mostly a case of ‘he says, she says’. Yeah right, Mr Kulvinder! You’re a lawyer,I think? And some women wonder why the Criminal Justice system fails them so!

What I should have said was that the way to deal with it was not to push for “unduly lenient sentences”.

I don’t think ‘no means no’ is enough; I think we need to work on the principle that, for the first time at least, nothing less than enthusiastic, joyous consent is consent.

Sarah, I agree with you. Feel free to get in touch and rant some more.

helps send a message that roaming around in a gang looking for members of a particular group to attack is an aggravating factor

If it happened in those circumstances id agree, it rarely does though. An individual or group of individuals may attack someone because of ‘hate’ (as opposed to say love…) but outside of riots there aren’t many gangs actively roaming the streets looking for particular victims. Even if they do im skeptical any setence in that situation would put them off – the consequences are already quite clear. Its more effective to deal with it at a social level.

However, the key point here is that a judge has used ‘cultural’ differences to give a lesser sentence, the implication being that because Modi was Indian he could not be expected to know that what he was doing was wrong

I think thats unfair, he considered a number of factors in the case. I accept the point you’re trying to make, im a bit iffy on this my position isn’t set in stone.

Not that I’m aware. That was a cheap shot and not worthy of you.

Er, if she consented at the time then it wouldn’t be rape no matter what she decided later.

That might not be the case in the future…

I don’t approve of the changes in the law either, Kulvinder, but the way to deal with that is not to push for lower sentences for people who admit sexual assault.

You’re kinda going against the entire judicial system on this, theres lower sentences for pleading guilty because it saves money and saves the victim a fair amount of further trauma. If you get rid of the reduction in tarrif for guilty pleas lawyers would take everything to trial.

Er, if she consented at the time then it wouldn’t be rape no matter what she decided later. I don’t approve of the changes in the law either, Kulvinder, but the way to deal with that is not to push for lower sentences for people who admit sexual assault.

‘I’m against any ’stiffer’ sentences for hate crimes.’

Fair enough, I see your point. If we say ‘Thou shalt not kick people to death’ then adding ‘especially if your motive is hatred of a group’ does seem redundant.
There is an argument to made, however, that singling out hate crimes for stiffer sentences helps send a message that roaming around in a gang looking for members of a particular group to attack is an aggravating factor. I’m not 100% certain which argument I find most convincing, but being human I tend to get a bit retributive in cases such as the ones we have been discussing. Not lynching, obviously. When it comes to lynching I like to think of myself as the Randolph Scott figure at the door of the jail house, Winchester cradled in the crook of my arm and stern morality in every line of my face.

But is there a difference, which the law should consider, between a violent yob who goes looking for a fight with anyone who looks at him funny or spills his pint, and a violent yob who goes looking for a paki or a queer? I’d say yes, on the whole, but I take your point.

‘There’s a certain moral culpability and hypocrisy in society when ‘outsiders’ are feared and hated (be they white/brown/black/asylum seekers/gays) with great venom but those that feed off that hate are demonised for acting in ways that aren’t ‘justifiable’.’

No shortage of moral culpability and hypocrisy in society, but are those who hate and fear the outsider the same as those who ‘demonise’ (not sure about that word) those who feed off that hate? And if they are, perhaps that’s a recognition that those feelings are shameful. Didn’t Oscar say something about hypocrisy being the tribute vice pays to virtue? The human psyche is messy and far from satisfactory, but we’re stuck with it. If an unreflective bigot, faced with the logical and bloody consequences of bigotry, reacts with horror, is that necessarily a bad thing?

‘dealing with that is more important than locking someone up and throwing away the key.’

Absolutely agree. Someone (I’m afraid I can’t remember who) recently posted a comment in another context that you can slap as many mosquitoes as you want, but draining the swamp is the real issue. I don’t know if it was an original metaphor, but brilliant if it was. But the two are not mutually exclusive. While draining the swamp, keep slapping.

However, the key point here is that a judge has used ‘cultural’ differences to give a lesser sentence, the implication being that because Modi was Indian he could not be expected to know that what he was doing was wrong. In #11 you expressed exasperation at the tabloids second guessing judges often on a knee-jerk reaction and the government (desperate for tabloid approval ) interfering in the judiciary. I’d agree with that, but I don’t think this case fits into that category.

‘I’m assuming they also called for the gang rape of Lindy Chamberlain?’

Not that I’m aware. That was a cheap shot and not worthy of you.

If the girl says no and the person carrys on, it is rape, or attempted rape. You should only advance if the girl is giving you all the signals or she tells you too. But as soon as she says no, you gotta stop.

What if they’ve both had something to drink, they were flirting in a club/pub. They go somewhere, have sex but later on the next day or in the following week the girl decides that in actual fact she didn’t consent. Situations where everyone is sober are easy, most rapes aren’t along those lines but instead amount to little more than ‘he said’ ‘she said’. Because not enough vile sex monsters are being convicted the law might be changed so a woman can’t give consent when pissed, though how that will actually work is beyond me:

‘no i didn’t consent i was pissed’
‘but you said you can’t remember what happened’
‘yeah but im stone cold sober now and i can say that id never have sex with him’

Naturally, Australians howled for his blood. I myself would have happily lynched the lying bastard

Nothing like a good lynching is there. Im assuming they also called for the gang rape of Lindy Chamberlain?

Similarly, the judge here did not pass a racist verdict on these three men.

Im against any ‘stiffer’ sentences for hate crimes. Those actions are really horrendus but i don’t see how increasing sentences dissuades anyone else from acting. Infact the only reason they act is because they believe the ‘community’ they come from is somehow supporting them. Theres a certain moral culpability and hypocrisy in society when ‘outsiders’ are feared and hated (be they white/brown/black/asylum seekers/gays) with great venom but those that feed of that hate are demonised for acting in ways that aren’t ‘justifiable’. I believe the case you highlighted was a hate crime but keeping them in prison for 20-25 years won’t get rid of the feelings they had in the lead up to that murder. Similarly the killing of Anthony Walker was horrible (and his mother has shown great courage) but turning on his killers and rejoicing as they’re put away for decades or if they’re beaten up in prison is a nice easy way to bypass any real contemplation about what happened. There was racist abuse in that community before that crime (as there was in the asian community before the one you pointed out) dealing with that is more important than locking someone up and throwing away the key.

What does being Indian have to do with anything. This is the one of the reasons I’m so pissed about the decision. It stereotypes us, and shows that if you’re ‘ethnic’ you get away with it. The rapist should be locked up.

Hey g! get over yourself and learn to read! Sunny brought up the aussie case but got the details completely wrong. I corrected him.

By the state. I have no problems with my own personal violence – though it is only language so far- on the clear understanding that if I break the law by lynching someone, I pay the price for it. Legally, morally. I really don’t want to kill that rapist but you know that.

You owe me an answer on the Sri Lanka thread Sunny.