Judge criticised for sentence in domestic abuse case

[Calladan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-le ... e-39409193
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-le ... e-39416765

Judge Richard Mansell is being heavily criticised by MPs and by a domestic abuse charity after handing down what is being seen as an overly lenient sentence to a man who beat his wife with a cricket bat and forced bleach into her mouth.

While the sentence is being criticised, the reasoning for this sentence is the main target for the criticism and comments.

Judge Richard Mansell said Ms Karim was not vulnerable as she was "an intelligent woman with a network of friends" and a degree.

The court was told Bashir, of Hebers Court in Middleton, Rochdale, and Ms Karim married in 2013 but the relationship lasted less than two years.

Prosecutor Roger Brown highlighted a row in April 2014.

"He took her into the bathroom where he grabbed a bottle of bleach and he made her drink the bleach so she would kill herself. She spat that out as she was unable to swallow it.

"Then he gave her tablets from the house and told her to take them. She did but again she was unable to swallow them," he said.

Another argument in December 2014 led to Bashir, who played cricket for Oldham, strangling her, hitting her with the bat and saying, "If I hit you with this bat with my full power then you would be dead", the court heard.

But sentencing Bashir, Judge Mansell said Ms Karim was neither trapped nor isolated.

"She is plainly an intelligent woman with a network of friends and did go on to graduate university with a 2:1 and a masters - although this has had an ongoing effect on her.

An apparent defence claim, noted by the judge, that a prison sentence would have lost Bashir a contract with Leicestershire County Cricket Club has been rejected by the club, which denies it has ever been in contact with Bashir.

Charity Refuge said the comments showed "shocking ignorance".

Sandra Horley, chief executive of Refuge, said: "[The judge's] comments - that he was not convinced of the victim's 'vulnerability' - show a shocking ignorance around the impact of domestic violence on women.

"What a woman does for a job, her level of education or the number of friends she has makes no difference; for any woman, domestic violence is a devastating crime that has severe and long-lasting impacts."

While I realise some might see this as recurring theme with me - that some members of the Judiciary in the UK are perhaps not living in the real world, and possibly have some level of bias, or sexism, or other issues, surrounding cases involving women - but this is an unusual case that has provoked a lot of coverage in the media, and the fact that the Judge made a point of saying the woman in the case was not "vulnerable" and so apparently hitting her with a bat and force feeding her bleach was NOT worthy of jail does seem surprising.

Or am I wrong?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... -cricketer
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03 ... s-friends/

[Imperial States America]

I have a freind taking classes at university in Texas and his minor in CJ "Criminal Justice" and right now I'm taking Victimology and this sounds like something from lectures he heard. What the judge is trying to say I presume is that the term vulnerable means that the woman did not have any means of escaping the deteriorating relationship but in this case the woman had a masters and an extensive network of friends to turn too. Most women only have a few family members and at most a highschool diploma or even some college, which would make them more vulnerable than other women. But in the real world things don't always go the way we want them or think they should go. But all that should matter is the woman is alive and away from her ex for good and to move on from him.

[Alvecia]

Why should the future of the victim have any effect on the sentencing of a past action?

[Des-Bal]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... -cricketer

This article has a more complete quote. The relative vulnerability of the victim seems like something worth noting and as the judge says if she was an illiterate woman with no friends or family in the country she would be vulnerable in a way that she in reality is not.

Why should the future of the victim have any effect on the sentencing of a past action?

Someone hits you with their car, you have a two inch scrape on your shin that will not scar. Someone hits you with their car, you will never walk again and will eat every meal through a tube.

The damage cause impacts the sentence.

[Alvecia]

Why should the future of the victim have any effect on the sentencing of a past action?

Someone hits you with their car, you have a two inch scrape on your shin that will not scar. Someone hits you with their car, you will never walk again and will eat every meal through a tube.

The damage cause impacts the sentence.

Yeah, the damage done at time of the crime.
In this case we're talking about how she will be from this point onwards.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Excuse me, but whether or not she was as vulnerable as another woman might have been ought to have no goram place in a discussion over what to do about the man who abused her. Focus on what he did, not what someone thinks she might have done differently. Would say the same were the places switched. What, would he judge against a man who'd been through this abuse because, 'as a man, he wasn't as vulnerable as a woman would be in his position'? That judge has no idea what all the mental dynamics were between the two, the potential shame of being in an abusive relationship when she was an 'educated woman with a network of friends', or anything else along those lines. Hate to be that person, but this is a re-victimization, stating she should have done more to stop the abuse and its her fault for not having done that, rather than laying the blame firmly in the lap of her abuser.

[Calladan]

I have a freind taking classes at university in Texas and his minor in CJ "Criminal Justice" and right now I'm taking Victimology and this sounds like something from lectures he heard. What the judge is trying to say I presume is that the term vulnerable means that the woman did not have any means of escaping the deteriorating relationship but in this case the woman had a masters and an extensive network of friends to turn too. Most women only have a few family members and at most a highschool diploma or even some college, which would make them more vulnerable than other women. But in the real world things don't always go the way we want them or think they should go. But all that should matter is the woman is alive and away from her ex for good and to move on from him.

But how does that relate to the sentencing?

Does the fact this woman had a network of friends and a degree mean what this man did to her (and none of what he did is in doubt or being questioned) any less worse? And that if she had been "vulnerable" then he would have got a much harsher sentence?

Because that suggests - and forgive me if this is not what you are implying (because I am really not trying to put words in your mouth) - because this woman had a network of friends, and was reasonably well educated and intelligent, she must have - in someway - wanted this treatment and wanted to stay in the marriage despite this treatment, so that makes what he did less despicable and abhorrent.

So it's almost like blaming the victim for the abusive treatment SHE received at the hands of this man by excusing the fact the Judge reduced the sentence for the man who did this.

But - as I said - if that's not what you are suggesting, I apologise, because I would never want to put words in someone else's mouth

[Des-Bal]

Yeah, the damage done at time of the crime.
In this case we're talking about how she will be from this point onwards.

Right and we're talking about the damage that lingers. If his abuse caused her to be totally incapable of functioning in society this looks more like she's eating through a tube than waiting for a scab to fall off.

[Ashmoria]

why wasn't he tried for attempted murder? for assault with a deadly weapon?

surely he is guilty of either of those things. what does the domestic part have to do with it when try to force someone to swallow bleach?

what the fuck does "staying" have to do with it?

[Katganistan]

One's level of education and number of friends has nothing to do with whether an abuser who tried to force her to kill herself with bleach and tablets, and beat her with a cricket bat should go to jail. I think another person should beat him with a bat and try to make him drink bleach, because when that person is jailed it will show how utterly stupid this judgment is.

It also does not take into account that when one is abused, one sometimes is trapped in an emotional state of helplessness, where literally they are so traumatized and fearful they CAN'T see a way out. Abuse victims can suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. They spend their life in fear that their abuser will kill them if they leave -- and that is NOT an illogical fear, as we can see in other cases where an abusive ex HAS killed the partner who left.

Please note the lack of specified genders in this post: the victim of domestic abuse is not always a woman.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/so ... nsequences

http://ncadv.org/learn-more/statistics



The judge is utterly, horrifically wrong on this one.

[Alvecia]

Yeah, the damage done at time of the crime.
In this case we're talking about how she will be from this point onwards.

Right and we're talking about the damage that lingers. If his abuse caused her to be totally incapable of functioning in society this looks more like she's eating through a tube than waiting for a scab to fall off.

That still sounds more damage done then, rather than potential damage in the future.

[Des-Bal]

Excuse me, but whether or not she was as vulnerable as another woman might have been ought to have no goram place in a discussion over what to do about the man who abused her. Focus on what he did, not what someone thinks she might have done differently. Would say the same were the places switched. What, would he judge against a man who'd been through this abuse because, 'as a man, he wasn't as vulnerable as a woman would be in his position'? That judge has no idea what all the mental dynamics were between the two, the potential shame of being in an abusive relationship when she was an 'educated woman with a network of friends', or anything else along those lines. Hate to be that person, but this is a re-victimization, stating she should have done more to stop the abuse and its her fault for not having done that, rather than laying the blame firmly in the lap of her abuser.

You have no idea what all the mental dynamics were between the two. The judge actually spent time with the case.

[The Federation of Kendor]

Yes, sentence him to community service, law teaching, and some re-education, like being more harsh on criminals, but not too harsh as to be fair. That wife can suffer from severe injuries, especially from the pouring bleach down the mouth part, as it can posion her digestive tract and her whole body

[Gages Icelandic Army]

We have victim blaming in the US too.

[Des-Bal]

One's level of education and number of friends has nothing to do with whether an abuser who tried to force her to kill herself with bleach and tablets, and beat her with a cricket bat should go to jail. I think another person should beat him with a bat and try to make him drink bleach, because when that person is jailed it will show how utterly stupid this judgment is.

It also does not take into account that when one is abused, one sometimes is trapped in an emotional state of helplessness, where literally they are so traumatized and fearful they CAN'T see a way out. They spend their life in fear that their abuser will kill them if they leave -- and that is NOT an illogical fear, as we can see in other cases where an abusive ex HAS killed the partner who left.

The judge is utterly, horrifically wrong on this one.

I think that beating someone with a bat or trying to make them drink bleach is something we should generally avoid.

That still sounds more damage done then, rather than potential damage in the future.

It's focusing on the damage the person has to live with.

[Risottia]

An apparent defence claim, noted by the judge, that a prison sentence would have lost Bashir a contract with Leicestershire County Cricket Club has been rejected by the club, which denies it has ever been in contact with Bashir.

What, seriously?

A fitting punishment for this judge should having him on one of the extremities of the pitch for the next test. Not as umpire. As wicket.

I think that beating someone with a bat or trying to make them drink bleach is something we should generally avoid.

I'd call it attempted murder myself and slam the perpetrator with the maximum penalty available for every single instance of the crime, but maybe, as a continental, I'm a bit too dramatic.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Excuse me, but whether or not she was as vulnerable as another woman might have been ought to have no goram place in a discussion over what to do about the man who abused her. Focus on what he did, not what someone thinks she might have done differently. Would say the same were the places switched. What, would he judge against a man who'd been through this abuse because, 'as a man, he wasn't as vulnerable as a woman would be in his position'? That judge has no idea what all the mental dynamics were between the two, the potential shame of being in an abusive relationship when she was an 'educated woman with a network of friends', or anything else along those lines. Hate to be that person, but this is a re-victimization, stating she should have done more to stop the abuse and its her fault for not having done that, rather than laying the blame firmly in the lap of her abuser.

You have no idea what all the mental dynamics were between the two. The judge actually spent time with the case.

Yes, he did - and clearly didn't listen or pay attention to some simple facts.

[Olivaero]

A suspended sentance?! What in the ever loving fuck... I've never been of the opinion that prison sentences should be based on vengance or retribution or even punishment but they should remove a person from society so that they can reflect on particularly grievous crimes and hopefully be re-socialised. Feeding someone bleach should be a grievous crime. It's just ridiculous no matter which way you look at it.

[Alvecia]

That still sounds more damage done then, rather than potential damage in the future.

It's focusing on the damage the person has to live with.

Yeah, but, like I've said, damage done at the time.

[Des-Bal]

I'd call it attempted murder myself and slam the perpetrator with the maximum penalty available for every single instance of the crime, but maybe, as a continental, I'm a bit too dramatic.

It's also possible you don't know the case or laws involved all that well.

Yes, he did - and clearly didn't listen or pay attention to some simple facts.

If you're ever reading a legal opinion and see the word "clearly," it's a heads up that the speaker doesn't feel very strongly about what they're saying. You're saying that the judge has no idea of the mental dynamics between the two of them, the potential shame she felt, or anything else along those lines. You are psychic, intimately involved in the case, or talking nonsense. I'm not familiar with the English legal system but I'd be quite surprised if this judge wasn't experienced with domestic abuse cases and hadn't been presented with expert information regularly.

[Des-Bal]

Yeah, but, like I've said, damage done at the time.

Except we don't do that. We never do that. Depending on the context it may be illegal to do that. When an act causes damage that lasts into the future you have to address that damage now.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

I'd call it attempted murder myself and slam the perpetrator with the maximum penalty available for every single instance of the crime, but maybe, as a continental, I'm a bit too dramatic.

It's also possible you don't know the case or laws involved all that well.

Yes, he did - and clearly didn't listen or pay attention to some simple facts.

If you're ever reading a legal opinion and see the word "clearly," it's a heads up that the speaker doesn't feel very strongly about what they're saying. You're saying that the judge has no idea of the mental dynamics between the two of them, the potential shame she felt, or anything else along those lines. You are psychic, intimately involved in the case, or talking nonsense. I'm not familiar with the English legal system but I'd be quite surprised if this judge wasn't experienced with domestic abuse cases and hadn't been presented with expert information regularly.

Remind me again how any of that has anything to do with the actual abuse done to this woman? How is one given a pass because the victim 'ought to have done something differently'? Can you answer me that?

[Des-Bal]

Remind me again how any of that has anything to do with the actual abuse done to this woman? How is one given a pass because the victim 'ought to have done something differently'? Can you answer me that?

Could you direct me to where you found that quote?

[Alvecia]

Yeah, but, like I've said, damage done at the time.

Except we don't do that. We never do that. Depending on the context it may be illegal to do that. When an act causes damage that lasts into the future you have to address that damage now.

My point is that lasting damage is done at a point. It merely takes longer to recover from depending on the severity.
The victim isn't instantly healed overnight with the attacker returning each day to inflict a slightly less severe amount of damage.

[Des-Bal]

My point is that lasting damage is done at a point. It merely takes longer to recover from depending on the severity.
The victim isn't instantly healed overnight with the attacker returning each day to inflict a slightly less severe amount of damage.

Right, and the future of the victim is how we measure the damage done.