Man gets 10 months for threatening to send personal pics

It's about assessing the nuance of what is a proportionate sentence for the crime committed.

The OP has been pretty clear what they think, I don't see much nuance TBF.

However, 10 months in prison for essentially saying something he shouldn't have is absolutely preposterous

The OP seems to have a remedial view on the crime itself and most importantly the effect this type of crime can have on it's victims.

The criminal in this case was in possession of intimate pictures of the victim and threatened to send them to others. So the narrative that he was jailed merely for saying something is both utterly false and idiotic. It's blackmail to inflict harm.

As whether the sentence is appropriate or not that is decided by numerous factors.

Legislation.

Victim Impact.

Previous Convictions.

Previous sentencing for similar crimes.

Probation report.

Etc, etc.

That is the nuance you seem to be demanding but haven't engaged in.

There is certainly an argument he shouldn't be confined to prison at all, given his circumstances he should be confined to a facility that can address his issues, "cure" him somewhat so his chances of reoffending are minimised and the public in the future are safer.

But the mere suggestion of that will get you labelled a soft on crime lunatic by the some nutters who think black mailing someone is a violation of ones freedom of speech.

It's ridiculously long and given the loss of evidence if that's true then it will be the subject of an appeal.

He won't be appealing the verdict on those grounds because he plead guilty.

The headline sentence was 20 months, he got a 10 month reduction because he plead guilty and showed remorse.

Would an appeal court rule that a 50% reduction was not generous enough for a guilty plea? Would they rule given previous precedent that a 20 month headline sentence was too harsh, I severely doubt it.

There is no information that he has been bailed on foot of an appeal, so I doubt one is forth coming.

So Nolan is the bad guy when he gives light sentences, and he's the bad guy when he gives appropriate ones too?

The stress and psychological trauma of even being threatened with it would be horrific, it's not a victimless crime just because the images weren't made public.

Imagine the thoughts of your family, friends, colleagues, employer, neighbours and strangers watching it? Imagine how hard it would be to move on and trust another partner?

A few high profile cases with a custodial sentence might help prevent it happening in the future.

He was a scumbag, regardless of what happened in his life.

Was the 'footage' the accused possessed not his own property to do with as he pleases? Were any stipulations put on the recording of the 'footage' by the complainant when it was recorded?

Good, more of these sentences please.

Nice to get a laugh here in CA sometimes

Intimate videos and pics of another person and you think he can just "do as he pleases" with them? What planet are you living on?

It's attitudes like this that make me really happy that this is now a crime and people are actually going to prison for it. What a horrible attitude to have!

Jaysus. 🤨

I'm in two minds on this one: on the one hand publishing anyone's intimate pictures without their consent porn is a horrible crime (yet seemingly totally legal for the paparazzi should the victim happen to be famous / a member of the British royal family etc.).

A custodial sentence for drunkenly threatening to do it, however, seems very harsh when drunken threats to commit the ultimate crime against someone (i.e. murder) are practically an everyday occurrence (particularly among the class of people that seem to be involved in this case - reading between the lines I'm understanding this to have happened between a pair of junkies - perhaps an element of classism in the sentencing?).

I can't see how imposing a custodial sentence for this will do much to make the perpetrator see the error of his ways. If anything, I'm guessing it's likely to make him hate/mistrust women more than he already seems to… By all means if he'd actually carried out the threat, prison time would be appropriate but I'd have thought that for what seems like a drunken threat some court-mandated therapy/counselling would be a more useful outcome particularly if there was no real intent to make good on the threat.

It does set an interesting precedent though: if this guy gets 10 months for drunkenly threatening revenge porn, are we going to see a surge in cases of women being sent to prison for threatening their cheating partners with castration/murder ?