Hustveit Case.

Buzz Meeks

seamus wrote: »

The purpose of sentencing is not to make the criminal suffer. It is not to "make them pay".

Yeah, it is.

brevity

seamus wrote: »

So, I've been trying to reconcile this one a bit by taking the emotion out of it.

Working back; at the end of the day, what is the purpose of punishment? To rehabilitate. To punish someone for a crime they have committed is to deny them of liberty in the hope that they will understand the impact of their crime and come out of their punishment reformed and not likely to commit another crime.

The purpose of sentencing is not to make the criminal suffer. It is not to "make them pay". It is not to make a victim feel that justice has been done. It is not to serve as a deterrent to other would-be criminals.

This is why guilty pleas get shorter sentences. The person got away with their crime until they were discovered. But then they put their hands up and said, "OK, fair cop, take me away". Incarceration in that case is to attempt to help the person realise that their mistake was not in getting caught, it was in committing the crime in the first place.

This case goes one step further. The convicted man realised that what he did was wrong, and as the judge remarks, he extraordinarily came forward with his admission and his apology. He offered up the entire case because he already knew everything that he had done was wrong.

With that in mind, what purpose would a jail term serve? The rehabilitation is "done" to a certain extent, it's clear from his actions that he understands the wrongness of what he's done.

So as abhorrent as it "feels" that someone can rape another person multiple times and not be jailed, I can see the logic behind the judge imposing a completely suspended sentence. There's nothing to be accomplished by incarceration except to satisfy some concept of revenge or the outdated notion that penance should be paid for sinning.

What about the victim then? How are they supposed to cope with the fact that the person who has committed a crime against them walks because the judge feels they are honest in their apology?

That's sort of ****ed up IMO.

wp_rathead

Seamus I'm sorry I don't buy that
He repeatedly raped her..
Are we meant to go "Ah fair play, atleast you admitted to it, off you go, good lad"
If he knows NOW what he did was wrong then he knew after the first time he did it- and he REPEATEDLY raped her..
There is no excuse for fully suspended sentence, more I read about this case more mind boggling / fury inducing the sentence gets

VisibleGorilla

Buzz Meeks wrote: »

Yeah, it is.

No it isn't.

And it works out worse for society if it was.

Great post there Seamus.

VisibleGorilla

brevity wrote: »

What about the victim then? How are they supposed to cope with the fact that the person who has committed a crime against them walks because the judge feels they are honest in their apology?

That's sort of ****ed up IMO.

The victim doesn't come into it.

The law should work on logic, not emotion. If that was the case you'd have people being murdered on the streets, e.g mob rule... do you want to live in a society similar to that? Go look at some videos of lynchings in Africa or India then get back to me.

Samaris

wp_rathead wrote: »

Seamus I'm sorry I don't buy that
He repeatedly raped her..
Are we meant to go "Ah fair play, atleast you admitted to it, off you go, good lad"
If he knows NOW what he did was wrong then he knew after the first time he did it- and he REPEATEDLY raped her..
There is no excuse for fully suspended sentence, more I read about this case more mind boggling / fury inducing the sentence gets

I think he might be correct in his logic though. I don't like or really buy the sentence either, and she -did- confront him before he repeated the act a number more times, so he ought to have known it was wrong then. A reduced sentence based on his confession and apparently sincere regret is appropriate, but completely suspended? I can see the logic that Seamus has talked about there, but it just feels like a kick in the teeth for a multiple rape victim and brave woman.

Edit: Yes, the victim DOES come into it. Else why are there "victim impact statements" taken into account in sentencing?

Saipanne

brevity wrote: »

What about the victim then? How are they supposed to cope with the fact that the person who has committed a crime against them walks because the judge feels they are honest in their apology?

That's sort of ****ed up IMO.

It is messed up. Some people...

brevity

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

The victim doesn't come into it.

The law should work on logic, not emotion. If that was the case you'd have people being murdered on the streets, e.g mob rule... do you want to live in a society similar to that? Go look at some videos of lynchings in Africa or India then get back to me.

There is no logic to me in what Seamus posted. It doesn't make sense to me that if someone says sorry (no matter how sorry they are) then they should walk.

I'm sure there are plenty of sorry people in jail right now for a lot less than rape.

eviltwin

I heard he moved back home, I wonder how much this played in the judge's decision. He's no longer resident here therefore not our problem.

seamus

brevity wrote: »

What about the victim then? How are they supposed to cope with the fact that the person who has committed a crime against them walks because the judge feels they are honest in their apology?

Sentencing is not about retribution and making victims feel better. If it was, we'd be executing people for stealing handbags.

Ultimately sentencing has to reflect the best outcome for society. There's no point in imposing a sentence which will result in detriment for society.

Imposing a custodial sentence typically is seen as beneficial to society because it serves to take a potential re-offender out of the public circulation, and ideologically at the end will release someone back into public who will not reoffend because they understand why their crime was wrong.

In this particular case, what would society gain by sending him to jail? At the end of it you'd have a man who would probably be sorry that he came forward rather than sorry about his crime, he would be jobless and potentially homeless and stigmatised from getting another job in future.

Rather than benefit society you have in fact damaged it.

I'm really struggling to think of a reason here why this guy should get a prison sentence, when there would be no purpose to it. As sh1tty as that sounds.

GLaDOS

seamus wrote: »

With that in mind, what purpose would a jail term serve? The rehabilitation is "done" to a certain extent, it's clear from his actions that he understands the wrongness of what he's done.

Is it though? Confessing and saying sorry doesn't mean he won't do it again.

Maybe there's some sort of psychological treatment as part of his suspended sentence or something, but I would say there's a very real risk of him re-offending. This guy could well go out into the world, form relationships with girls who are unaware of his past and find himself in a position to do this all over again.

Saipanne

So it's ok to rape someone, so long as you say "sowwy" and write a mushy letter.

What a world.

Tombi!

Is he sorry he sent the letter or sorry for raping her?

I honestly don't believe he won't re-offend. He knew what he was doing and either did no care or did not have the self-control to stop.

brevity

seamus wrote: »

Sentencing is not about retribution and making victims feel better. If it was, we'd be executing people for stealing handbags.

Ultimately sentencing has to reflect the best outcome for society. There's no point in imposing a sentence which will result in detriment for society.

Imposing a custodial sentence typically is seen as beneficial to society because it serves to take a potential re-offender out of the public circulation, and ideologically at the end will release someone back into public who will not reoffend because they understand why their crime was wrong.

In this particular case, what would society gain by sending him to jail? At the end of it you'd have a man who would probably be sorry that he came forward rather than sorry about his crime, he would be jobless and potentially homeless and stigmatised from getting another job in future.

Rather than benefit society you have in fact damaged it.

I'm really struggling to think of a reason here why this guy should get a prison sentence, when there would be no purpose to it. As sh1tty as that sounds.

I'm not expecting a beheading here. I'm expecting that if someone commits a crime they are suitably dealt with. Jesus even community service might have been something.

The fact that a woman was raped in her sleep so she couldn't even defend herself, the rapist admits it, says sorry and walks.

And for me society has not been improved as a rapist has been set free.

Red Kev

seamus wrote: »

Sentencing is not about retribution and making victims feel better. If it was, we'd be executing people for stealing handbags.

Ultimately sentencing has to reflect the best outcome for society. There's no point in imposing a sentence which will result in detriment for society.

Imposing a custodial sentence typically is seen as beneficial to society because it serves to take a potential re-offender out of the public circulation, and ideologically at the end will release someone back into public who will not reoffend because they understand why their crime was wrong.

In this particular case, what would society gain by sending him to jail? At the end of it you'd have a man who would probably be sorry that he came forward rather than sorry about his crime, he would be jobless and potentially homeless and stigmatised from getting another job in future.

Rather than benefit society you have in fact damaged it.

I'm really struggling to think of a reason here why this guy should get a prison sentence, when there would be no purpose to it. As sh1tty as that sounds.

Sentencing is also about being a deterrent to others. If I know I'm going down for 15 years for murder, then that's another good reason for me mot to murder someone.

By not imposing a custodial sentence the judge has failed to put up a significant deterrent to others to commit a similar crime. That is where the judge has failed the rape victim and society as a whole.

Boom_Bap

Part of a prison term is that it is a very unpleasant experience. The phsycology of this makes you reflect upon the decision that put you in that very uncomfortable place whilst in the place.
You don't get that my leading your 'normal' life.

wp_rathead

seamus wrote: »

In this particular case, what would society gain by sending him to jail? At the end of it you'd have a man who would probably be sorry that he came forward rather than sorry about his crime, he would be jobless and potentially homeless and stigmatised from getting another job in future.

Rather than benefit society you have in fact damaged it.

I'm really struggling to think of a reason here why this guy should get a prison sentence, when there would be no purpose to it. As sh1tty as that sounds.

I get your argument
I just don't agree with it

Son Of A Vidic

seamus wrote: »

I'm really struggling to think of a reason here why this guy should get a prison sentence, when there would be no purpose to it. As sh1tty as that sounds.

I'll help you with your struggles. You think a prison sentence would serve no purpose? Well perhaps sending him to prison would be proper acknowledgement for the crime he committed. That crime being the particularity despicable crime of rape against an unconscious victim. The fact that he raped a person who trusted him, who cared for him and who felt secure and safe enough to share his bed, only increases his level of depravity in my eyes.

Perhaps also imposing a custodial sentence upon this sick rapist, would in some small way begin a healing process within his victim. It would have acknowledged her suffering and validated the trauma she has been through. And that is the very least the innocent victim should have expected from the judicial process. But sadly, once again the victim of a degrading sex crime. Has been let down by the illogical and insensitive rulings of a judicial dinosaur.

lizzyman

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Part of a prison term is that it is a very unpleasant experience. The phsycology of this makes you reflect upon the decision that put you in that very uncomfortable place whilst in the place.
You don't get that my leading your 'normal' life.

I watched a documentary last night about a Norwegian prison. The inmates live in apartments in the middle of the country. They can go swimming, work outside, take part in activities, watch tv, cook, grow their own food. The absolute maximum sentence you can get for any crime is limited to 21 years.

Sounds like a soft touch? Guess what - they have the lowest re-offending rate in Europe. Compared to the draconian US penal system which has a 70% recidivism rate, the amount of re-offenders in Norway is just 20%. Their system works.

Saipanne

lizzyman wrote: »

I watched a documentary last night about a Norwegian prison. The inmates live in apartments in the middle of the country. They can go swimming, work outside, take part in activities, watch tv, cook, grow their own food. The absolute maximum sentence you can get for any crime is limited to 21 years.

Sounds like a soft touch? Guess what - they have the lowest re-offending rate in Europe. Compared to the draconian US penal system which has a 70% recidivism rate, the amount of re-offenders in Norway is just 20%. Their system works.

A single factor model. How quaint.

YurOK2

Samaris wrote: »

Did he deserve such a reduced sentence based on that, particularly given that it was a repeated offence? It seems rather like throwing this woman under the bus to encourage other rapists to plead guilty in the future. Or is there an element of because she wasn't aware of it while it was happening, it was considered less serious?

It seems fairly appalling to me that he is being so publically supported by his company, and I reckon I wouldn't be too comfortable working for such a company. It smacks rather of the shaking-the-rapist's-hand disgusting business in Lisdowel a few years back.

Edit: I did ask for and get permission to reopen this topic, in case anyone's wondering

No, he didn't deserve the lenient sentence that was handed down to him.
I read somewhere that his current employer made representations on his behalf that influenced the decision made, I found that very bizarre.
I think the length of the time over which the offences took place and the impact they have had on the victim should definitely have more weight in court than his employer.

lizzyman

Saipanne wrote: »

A single factor model. How quaint.

Not really. It may not satisfy the boards revenge fantasists but you can't argue with the results.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12?r=US

Saipanne

lizzyman wrote: »

Not really. It may not satisfy the boards revenge fantasists but you can't argue with the results.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12?r=US

It is a single factor model. You just don't know what that means. How about singular reasoning? Oversimplification? Ann & Barry argument?

Mesrine65

lizzyman

Saipanne wrote: »

It is a single factor model. You just don't know what that means. How about singular reasoning? Oversimplification? Ann & Barry argument?

Enlighten us then.

Saipanne

lizzyman wrote: »

Enlighten us then.

I've a better idea. You do it. Think of one extra reason for the difference.

lizzyman

Saipanne wrote: »

I've a better idea. You do it. Think of one extra reason for the difference.

I've already presented my argument and backed it up with statistics and a source. I think the ball is in your court now.

GLaDOS

lizzyman wrote: »

I watched a documentary last night about a Norwegian prison. The inmates live in apartments in the middle of the country. They can go swimming, work outside, take part in activities, watch tv, cook, grow their own food. The absolute maximum sentence you can get for any crime is limited to 21 years.

Sounds like a soft touch? Guess what - they have the lowest re-offending rate in Europe. Compared to the draconian US penal system which has a 70% recidivism rate, the amount of re-offenders in Norway is just 20%. Their system works.

I agree with your point and do think throwing people in prison just to let them rot can do more harm than good.

My problem in this case is there is no attempt at rehabilitation. The Norwegian system still takes dangerous people off the streets and attempts rehabilitation (and does the latter pretty well by the looks of things). This case has taken a convicted rapist and put him straight back into the world.

Saipanne

lizzyman wrote: »

I've already presented my argument and backed it up with statistics and a source. I think the ball is in your court now.

No, I'd rather not waste my time if you are so limited in your thought.

lizzyman

Saipanne wrote: »

No, I'd rather not waste my time if you are so limited in your thought.

I'm not at all limited in my thought - I'll certainly consider any compelling and logical argument.

I think that it's more likely that you didn't expect anyone to call your bluff on 'singular reasoning' and 'Ann & Barry arguments'. But I did, and you got nothing to back it up.

Saipanne

lizzyman wrote: »

I'm not at all limited in my thought - I'll certainly consider any compelling and logical argument.

I think that it's more likely that you didn't expect anyone to call your bluff on 'singular reasoning' and 'Ann & Barry arguments'. But I did, and you got nothing to back it up.

I've plenty to back it up, I'm just concerned that if I make the effort to post it, you'll just wave it away and point to your myopic model. I don't think you can see past it. Genuinely.

So, I'll pass. Bye.

lizzyman

Saipanne wrote: »

I've plenty to back it up, I'm just concerned that if I make the effort to post it, you'll just wave it away and point to your myopic model. I don't think you can see past it. Genuinely.

So, I'll pass. Bye.

You see, I don't think you do have anything to back it up. Most of your earlier posts are just populist one liners like

'So it's ok to rape someone, so long as you say "sowwy" and write a mushy letter. What a world'
'It is messed up. Some people'
'Judges in this country love rapists'

Samaris

Saipanne wrote: »

A single factor model. How quaint.

As you can see from my previous posts, I do reckon this guy should have gotten gaol, so don't think I'm having a go when I ask what you mean? How is it a single-factor model? I mean, what's the factor?

Not being sarky, I actually don't get the term as it's applied here.

osarusan

Saipanne wrote: »

I've plenty to back it up, I'm just concerned that if I make the effort to post it, you'll just wave it away and point to your myopic model. I don't think you can see past it. Genuinely.

So, I'll pass. Bye.

Empty vessels...

NachoBusiness

seamus wrote: »

Ultimately sentencing has to reflect the best outcome for society.

How could you suggest that a lack of a custodial sentence here was: "the best outcome for society"?

Clearly it is not as now there is less deterrent than there was previously.

In this particular case, what would society gain by sending him to jail?

Society would gain the very same as they would currently for jailing a person for a whole plethora of other crimes: there would be less chance of recurrence.

At the end of it you'd have a man who would probably be sorry that he came forward rather than sorry about his crime, he would be jobless and potentially homeless and stigmatised from getting another job in future.

Rather than benefit society you have in fact damaged it.

I'm really struggling to think of a reason here why this guy should get a prison sentence, when there would be no purpose to it. As sh1tty as that sounds.

He raped someone, repeatedly, and could potentially do the same to his next partner.

scrimshanker

seamus wrote: »

Sentencing is not about retribution and making victims feel better. If it was, we'd be executing people for stealing handbags.

Ultimately sentencing has to reflect the best outcome for society. There's no point in imposing a sentence which will result in detriment for society.

Imposing a custodial sentence typically is seen as beneficial to society because it serves to take a potential re-offender out of the public circulation, and ideologically at the end will release someone back into public who will not reoffend because they understand why their crime was wrong.

In this particular case, what would society gain by sending him to jail? At the end of it you'd have a man who would probably be sorry that he came forward rather than sorry about his crime, he would be jobless and potentially homeless and stigmatised from getting another job in future.

Rather than benefit society you have in fact damaged it.

I'm really struggling to think of a reason here why this guy should get a prison sentence, when there would be no purpose to it. As sh1tty as that sounds.

Out there, there is a man who works with vulnerable people and who is a rapist. When I was 13, he 'befriended' me online and spent two years grooming me. He convinced me to send him pictures of me that became more and more explicit until I was sending him well, everything. Then when I was 15 and he was 30, he decided we should meet. He told me how to go about deceiving my parents so that I could spend time with him. Which I did. We had sex a number of times. It's 12 years since I last saw him and to this day I am trying to make sense of everything that happened, and to this day I continue to carry the awful burden of having been raped. I never said no. I couldn't; I was a teenager who had been manipulated and still hadn't reached an age where I could legally consent.

Recently I had thought about reporting all of what happened once I get to a place where I am able to. Until recently I wasn't even sure it was a crime; that anything wrong was done at all. Now I KNOW that the justice system won't take me seriously, that no punishment will be handed down because the judiciary and the legal profession are so caught up in legal logic such as the rubbish you've been spouting in this thread, that they forgot that victimless crimes don't exist.

How dare you say that society would be no better off. Of course it would be. Would be rapists might think twice and more importantly, rape victims would feel like they are taken seriously. The ACTUAL message sent out is ah don't worry about yer wan, you're a grand lad for owning up and if we really thought you did anything seriously wrong you'd have been locked up. Not a day in jail. And you think society BENEFITS from that?!

B0jangles

Its called the Justice System for a reason.

This man's victim went to the system looking for Justice for the crime that had been committted against her. She did not want to find the most positive and productive outcome for her rapist.

She wanted justice.

FÚCK him.

FÚCK fixing his oh so sad brain problems that made him commit rape agaist someone who trusted him. But its ok now because he totally knows he did a bad thing but he's much better now and his company totally needs him.

FÚCK HIM.

If his victim doesn't get to feel safe sleeping at night anymore why the hell should he?

anto9

She was sleeping in the same bed as a grown up man for over a year ? What did she expect > F.F.S.

If i have the facts wrong ,enlighten me .

Samaris

anto9 wrote: »

She was sleeping in the same bed as a grown up man for over a year ? What did she expect > F.F.S.

If i have the facts wrong ,enlighten me .

Woah, woah. OK, I have -no- idea where you started off from in this case, but are you honestly and truthfully asking why someone would be in any way a tad MIFFED at being -repeatedly raped under sedation- because she was sharing a bed with him?

There are...no words.

Please for the love of God clarify that you don't think that because you're sharing a bed with another person, that gives you automatic rights over their body at any time you like, regardless of their consent or even knowledge? I mean...

No, there are no words. At least not coherent and uncensored ones.

anto9

Samaris wrote: »

Woah, woah. OK, I have -no- idea where you started off from in this case, but are you honestly and truthfully asking why someone would be in any way a tad MIFFED at being -repeatedly raped under sedation- because she was sharing a bed with him?

There are...no words.

Please for the love of God clarify that you don't think that because you're sharing a bed with another person, that gives you automatic rights over their body at any time you like, regardless of their consent or even knowledge? I mean...

No, there are no words. At least not coherent and uncensored ones.

I guess we see things differently .I also can not understand how he could get satisfaction from having sex with a sleeping woman .I can not understand how he got his penis into an un- aroused Vagina .I can not understand why she was not sore down there every morning .
In fact the whole thing is so bizare that i would really rather not think about it .

Mod

"What did she expect" about a rape victim is not a phrase that will go unactioned.

Anto9 banned.

zeffabelli

I suspect when people are married or in long terms there is a perception of implicit consent to start with.

I'm not understanding some things about this case, like how did she not wake up and I'm assuming she found some clues and asked him to stop this and then assumed he would and then didn't?

My guess is he pleaded not knowing any better, showed remorse, and convinced the judge or jury that he was not likely to re offend.

seamus

NachoBusiness wrote: »

How could you suggest that a lack of a custodial sentence here was: "the best outcome for society"?

Clearly it is not as now there is less deterrent than there was previously.

You don't assign people sentences to serve as a deterrent to others. That's barbaric and immoral. You sentence people based on the circumstances of their case and their person and nothing else.

The potential sentence serves as the deterrent, making examples out of people is what dictatorships do.

Society would gain the very same as they would currently for jailing a person for a whole plethora of other crimes: there would be less chance of recurrence.

You see the court disagrees. The court believes that the chance of recurrence is already so minimal that a custodial sentence will not reduce it any further.

It's worth remembering that this wasn't a case of a guy getting caught and saying sorry, or writing some grovelling letter pleading for clemency.

He could have gone on the rest of his life and never stood in front of a court. He was home free. Instead he turned around and voluntarily told everyone what he had done, without being prompted or investigated or threatened.
The fact that he provided the entire case which convicted him in effect proves that this isn't a case of someone being sorry for getting caught, it's a case of someone who is genuinely sorry for past wrongs and is willing to face the consequences of that.
That can't be denied.

So with that in mind, the question remains about what good can possibly be served by sending him to jail.

Worth noting that this is not without precedent. People have killed others and gotten off with completely suspended sentences on the same basis - that there is nothing to be gained for society in a custodial sentence.

eviltwin

Implied consent to me is a nice way of justifying sexual assault. It's not that long ago it was legal to rape your wife in this country. Let's not make out that it's not the same just because you share a bed with someone.

zeffabelli

eviltwin wrote: »

Implied consent to me is a nice way of justifying sexual assault. It's not that long ago it was legal to rape your wife in this country. Let's not make out that it's not the same just because you share a bed with someone.

I agree with you, I just think it can be perceived that way.

A judge might think if she was aware what was happening and still slept in the same bed it's not taking action.

seamus

scrimshanker wrote: »

Out there, there is a man who works with vulnerable people and who is a rapist. When I was 13, he 'befriended' me online and spent two years grooming me. He convinced me to send him pictures of me that became more and more explicit until I was sending him well, everything. Then when I was 15 and he was 30, he decided we should meet. He told me how to go about deceiving my parents so that I could spend time with him. Which I did. We had sex a number of times. It's 12 years since I last saw him and to this day I am trying to make sense of everything that happened, and to this day I continue to carry the awful burden of having been raped. I never said no. I couldn't; I was a teenager who had been manipulated and still hadn't reached an age where I could legally consent.

Recently I had thought about reporting all of what happened once I get to a place where I am able to. Until recently I wasn't even sure it was a crime; that anything wrong was done at all. Now I KNOW that the justice system won't take me seriously, that no punishment will be handed down because the judiciary and the legal profession are so caught up in legal logic such as the rubbish you've been spouting in this thread, that they forgot that victimless crimes don't exist.

I urge you, in fact beg you to come forward with this. Go speak to a counselor first, someone who specialises in this kind of thing, as coming forward is only the first step in quite a difficult process.

Yes, the law is an ass. And no, you may not get justice in the end. But you may get justice in the end, and there's a strong chance you will save other young people from having to go through what you went through.
Even if you don't get to see your abuser stood in court defending his actions, you will have put a marker over his head. A suspicion. There may be a string of allegations over this man, yours may be the one that prompts someone to take a proper look. Or yours may be the first, and then someone else makes a second, and together they make someone suspicious.

Every time he attempts to get Garda clearance, the allegation will appear on his file, and the question will be raised.

The worst thing you can do, for yourself, is to sit on this and bury it and hope it'll go away. Please talk to someone about it, even if you don't go as far as pursuing a legal case, you can't live with this on your own.

QuinDixie

Has it been reported what medication she was taking and what she was suffering from at the time?

the_monkey

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

This is a Norwegian company, Norwegian society has a much, much more progressive and effective way of dealing with issues such as crime and punishment.

This happened over 3 years ago, he has not offended since and is an asset to the company, I don't get your outrage.

Yeah, they reward killers apparently with top 5 star prison accommodation ...
think ill go to Norway and murder a few people if I ever fall on hard times here ..

scrimshanker

Seamus I'm already dealing with this in therapy.

You're glossing over the point I was making, maybe I wasn't clear enough so I'll repeat it. You asked how society would benefit from imprisoning the offender, given that he already appears genuinely sorry. I said it has two benefits - a deterrent for others from committing similar acts, and as a sign that rape and the effects on the victim are taken seriously.

The actual effect to society is that, firstly, do what you want and as long as you come forward and appear genuinely sorry all that happens is a slap on the wrist. Secondly, it sends a message to rape victims that even when the perpetrator admits to everything, he still spends no time in jail. So imagine the battle if he doesn't admit it?

I gave you the details of what happened to me as a real example of the harm that such a lenient sentence can cause. I already know the benefits of having him reported, but a great many of them rely on the court taking the effects of his actions seriously - and a case where the rapist admits to everything but spends no time in jail proves to me that the court does not take it seriously. That's real harm being done by a failure to sentence him in a way that many would view as appropriate.

eviltwin

scrimshanker wrote: »

Seamus I'm already dealing with this in therapy.

You're glossing over the point I was making, maybe I wasn't clear enough so I'll repeat it. You asked how society would benefit from imprisoning the offender, given that he already appears genuinely sorry. I said it has two benefits - a deterrent for others from committing similar acts, and as a sign that rape and the effects on the victim are taken seriously.

The actual effect to society is that, firstly, do what you want and as long as you come forward and appear genuinely sorry all that happens is a slap on the wrist. Secondly, it sends a message to rape victims that even when the perpetrator admits to everything, he still spends no time in jail.

This. I don't think people appreciate how hard it is for a rape survivor to go through the courts process, just that initial act of going to the gardai takes huge courage. The legal process is mentally and emotionally gruelling. You are forced to confront the person who hurt you and everything that happened is very much in the present, you're in a limbo where you can't move on from it because you're still dealing with it in the here and now. Add to that a legal system which is not very good at dealing with the needs of survivors and a very clinical way of discussing the assault and you can see why so many don't prosecute. For the brave people who do to go through all that, have your attacker convicted but then to be told he's free to go, the damage that does is immense. It's unbelievable that after she's put herself through that ordeal she now has to process the courts letting a guilty man go. It's like being told what happened to you didn't matter, that it's not that big a deal. And it puts others off seeking justice.