NationStates

The Judge is merely referencing feminist talking points from a while ago about how domestic violence against women is super bad and worse than it is for men. (The talking points which won, at least.)

So presumably he bought into that, doesn't give a shit about men, and saw the talking points didn't apply to this woman and went "Okay, so, you're basically like a male victim then, huh."

The whole "Can't escape", "Financial coercion" and "No options" stuff was heavily pushed during the spree to open shelters and change laws. Feminism hurts women too.
By making a massive deal about how domestic violence is worse for women, when women don't fit those criteria, this is the only logical outcome.

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.

Seems to confirm it.

"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."

Oh-ho-ho, remember this one, it'll come up later. *bookmarks.*

Indeed, the entire rationale for a lack of mens shelters is basically what the judge said. (They aren't trapped, etc.) For once, the law and philosophy behind it was applied equally.

Dread Lady Nathicana wrote:

Des-Bal wrote:Getting facts has been difficult. Here's some stuff we know:

The guy was convicted of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm
He was sentencecd to 18 months
Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm has an offense range of a fine to 3 years
Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm is divided into 3 categories with 1 being the most severe and 3 being the least
Category 1 and Category 2 both require serious injury.
As a matter of law, vulnerability of the victim is a factor in how serious the crime is.

Point of order - where's your law degree? Not present, be gone with ye.

Seriously though. This had other circumstances that probably ought to have been taken into consideration. And if the current laws do not allow for such things, perhaps the current laws need to be altered so that they more adequately cover domestic violence and abuse situations.

The current laws surrounding domestic violence (more-so defined under assault occasioning ABH/GBH) are fine. The issue here is we're either not getting enough information about the case, and thus our judgement is being clouded on the basis of the limited facts we do know, or the judge is merely inappropriately applying the law - I'm going to assume the former.

Dread Lady Nathicana wrote:Point of order - where's your law degree? Not present, be gone with ye.

Seriously though. This had other circumstances that probably ought to have been taken into consideration. And if the current laws do not allow for such things, perhaps the current laws need to be altered so that they more adequately cover domestic violence and abuse situations.

1. Still working on my degree but it wouldn't be much help here given that it's a case from a country I haven't studied. I read the limited available information and put together some of the more important parts in one spot.
2. What other circumstances should have been taken into consideration and why do you think they weren't?
3. You entered this thread by saying that CLEARLY the judge didn't understand the issues involved and making the accusation that the judge levied a light sentence because he blamed the victim and when I pointed out that you didn't know all the facts or any of the law involved here you doubled down. This sentence was completely in line with the law, and unless facts about her injuries aren't being reported on it's a fairly stiff sentence too. If you're now entertaining the possibility that the law is inadequate then I feel like there should be some acknowledgement that when you said clearly the judge fucked something up you were speaking prematurely.

Ostroeuropa wrote:The Judge is merely referencing feminist talking points from a while ago about how domestic violence against women is super bad and worse than it is for men. (The talking points which won, at least.)

So presumably he bought into that, doesn't give a shit about men, and saw the talking points didn't apply to this woman and went "Okay, so, you're basically like a male victim then, huh."

The whole "Can't escape", "Financial coercion" and "No options" stuff was heavily pushed during the spree to open shelters and change laws. Feminism hurts women too.
By making a massive deal about how domestic violence is worse for women, when women don't fit those criteria, this is the only logical outcome.

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.

Seems to confirm it.

"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."

Oh-ho-ho, remember this one, it'll come up later. *bookmarks.*

That's not what this is about. The vulnerability of the victim is relevant to the crime, if she was vulnerable within the meaning of the law then the charge would have to be more serious. He mentioned it for the reason he mentioned that he wasn't convinced of the defendant's repentance, because that is something that matters in terms of the law.

Des-Bal wrote:That's not what this is about. The vulnerability of the victim is relevant to the crime, if she was vulnerable within the meaning of the law then the charge would have to be more serious. He mentioned it for the reason he mentioned that he wasn't convinced of the defendant's repentance, because that is something that matters in terms of the law.

Exactly, but to clarify for other people - the vulnerability of the victim is not taken into account when determining whether or not the defendant committed a crime. It is only taken into account as an aggravating factor (i.e. a factor that increases the severity of a sentence, as opposed to a mitigating factor) when the judge is determining their verdict.

In this case, there was ruled to be no vulnerability and thus no aggravating factor of vulnerability to take into account when determining a verdict - thus, the added severity that would be imposed by the aggravating factor doesn't exist, explaining why the sentence could be viewed as too short by some people.

Des-Bal wrote:

Aethrys wrote:18 months for attempted murder? Was this guy a titled aristocrat or does the UK have absurdly short sentences for regular people as well?

1. He wasn't charged with attempted murder. Stop saying attempted murder. If he was charged with attempted murder he would almost definitely have won.
2. He was charged with assault and based on the sentencing guidelines this was a fairly severe penalty.

Why should I stop saying attempted murder? Trying to forcibly poison someone with bleach sounds like attempted murder to me.

Dread Lady Nathicana wrote: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.

Male victims of abuse seldom get justice. police and prosecutors do not take them seriously. Judges may simply say "Take it like a man." I had this happen tomy client.
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/domviol/men.htm
http://www.avaloncenter.org/blog/male-v ... ce-stigmas
"

Aethrys wrote:
Why should I stop saying attempted murder? Trying to forcibly poison someone with bleach sounds like attempted murder to me.

If he had strapped her to a table and shoved a funnel in her mouth? Probably. If basically anything else happened then that's just not going to stick.

The only crime here is the man did not walk free.

Unified Heartless States wrote:The only crime here is the man did not walk free.

Can you explain why you think this?

The Islands of Versilia wrote:

Unified Heartless States wrote:The only crime here is the man did not walk free.

Can you explain why you think this?

Especially since he did walk free.

Pope Joan wrote:

Dread Lady Nathicana wrote: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.

Male victims of abuse seldom get justice. police and prosecutors do not take them seriously. Judges may simply say "Take it like a man." I had this happen tomy client.
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/domviol/men.htm
http://www.avaloncenter.org/blog/male-v ... ce-stigmas
"

I have disgustingly little problem believing this. Sad, sad state of affairs when people can't get justice, neh? Gender etc shouldn't matter. What the perpetrator did now ... that really ought to be the crux.

Good lord I don't know how someone can trust someone else so completely that they had a situation they didn't have an out for.

Like he's screwed in the head for doing that and needs more than a slap on the wrist. But I can't see someone going from cool to bleach in the mouth like that without some progression. Keep a set of clothes and a thousand bucks somewhere safe, just in case.

Donut section wrote:Good lord I don't know how someone can trust someone else so completely that they had a situation they didn't have an out for.

Like he's screwed in the head for doing that and needs more than a slap on the wrist. But I can't see someone going from cool to bleach in the mouth like that without some progression. Keep a set of clothes and a thousand bucks somewhere safe, just in case.

Depends on what you mean by an out. Abusers will often prey upon peoples need for companionship and erode someones self-worth and self-esteem to the point where they view the abuser as their only option for companionship due to how undesirable they are as a person themselves.

Schmaltzy (or depressing) as it may be, in the post-apocalypse, most people would settle for the nazi redneck who beats them rather than wander alone.
By making their victim convinced that there is noone else who will put up with them, or worse, that the abuse is an expression of the victims worthlessness and ANY partner would treat them thus as a response to their disgusting nature, the abuser controls the victim and prevents them leaving through fear.

So long as they remain with the abuser, they are at least, not alone. There's a deeper fear than that of fear of violence or mistreatment for most people, I suspect it's hard-coded into us. It's how you can draft millions of men and not have them just say "Nope.".
If you can force someone into a situation where they are forced to choose between being seen as and feeling worthless to their fellow humans, or being abused and beaten, they'll go for the latter.

A baseball bat has nothing on your inner demons.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Donut section wrote:Good lord I don't know how someone can trust someone else so completely that they had a situation they didn't have an out for.

Like he's screwed in the head for doing that and needs more than a slap on the wrist. But I can't see someone going from cool to bleach in the mouth like that without some progression. Keep a set of clothes and a thousand bucks somewhere safe, just in case.

Depends on what you mean by an out. Abusers will often prey upon peoples need for companionship and erode someones self-worth and self-esteem to the point where they view the abuser as their only option for companionship due to how undesirable they are as a person themselves.

Schmaltzy (or depressing) as it may be, in the post-apocalypse, most people would settle for the nazi redneck who beats them rather than wander alone.
By making their victim convinced that there is noone else who will put up with them, or worse, that the abuse is an expression of the victims worthlessness and ANY partner would treat them thus as a response to their disgusting nature, the abuser controls the victim and prevents them leaving through fear.

So long as they remain with the abuser, they are at least, not alone.

Do you think that's a cultural thing?
"Find a mate or you lose." Type deal.

Donut section wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Depends on what you mean by an out. Abusers will often prey upon peoples need for companionship and erode someones self-worth and self-esteem to the point where they view the abuser as their only option for companionship due to how undesirable they are as a person themselves.

Schmaltzy (or depressing) as it may be, in the post-apocalypse, most people would settle for the nazi redneck who beats them rather than wander alone.
By making their victim convinced that there is noone else who will put up with them, or worse, that the abuse is an expression of the victims worthlessness and ANY partner would treat them thus as a response to their disgusting nature, the abuser controls the victim and prevents them leaving through fear.

So long as they remain with the abuser, they are at least, not alone.

Do you think that's a cultural thing?
"Find a mate or you lose." Type deal.

I think culture definitely plays a role, but as I said, I suspect it's hard-coded into us to have a need to feel useful to those around us. Culture may take a nagging fear and turn it up to 11, but it'd always be there i think.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Donut section wrote:
Do you think that's a cultural thing?
"Find a mate or you lose." Type deal.

I think culture definitely plays a role, but as I said, I suspect it's hard-coded into us to have a need to feel useful to those around us. Culture may take a nagging fear and turn it up to 11, but it'd always be there i think.

I get wanting to be useful to others, but to the extent that you have to be in a relationship.

I don't buy it.

Donut section wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
I think culture definitely plays a role, but as I said, I suspect it's hard-coded into us to have a need to feel useful to those around us. Culture may take a nagging fear and turn it up to 11, but it'd always be there i think.

I get wanting to be useful to others, but to the extent that you have to be in a relationship.

I don't buy it.

I haven't studied it in great detail, or even at all, but domestic abuse is an incredibly complex and difficult subject. The reasons why people stay with partners who abuse them so badly are obviously complex and difficult and generally only understood by that person.

http://www.domesticviolenceroundtable.o ... -stay.html
http://www.loveisrespect.org/is-this-ab ... ople-stay/
http://time.com/3309687/why-women-stay- ... tionships/

Even "professionals" have wildly varying opinions.

But the fact that the woman in this case was "not vulnerable" doesn't seem like it should be relevent - especially not to the severity of the sentence. And yet somehow the judge managed to link the two together.......

Calladan wrote:
I haven't studied it in great detail, or even at all, but domestic abuse is an incredibly complex and difficult subject. The reasons why people stay with partners who abuse them so badly are obviously complex and difficult and generally only understood by that person.

http://www.domesticviolenceroundtable.o ... -stay.html
http://www.loveisrespect.org/is-this-ab ... ople-stay/
http://time.com/3309687/why-women-stay- ... tionships/

Even "professionals" have wildly varying opinions.

But the fact that the woman in this case was "not vulnerable" doesn't seem like it should be relevent - especially not to the severity of the sentence. And yet somehow the judge managed to link the two together.......

It doesn't seem relevant because the news isn't discussing what's relevant. The law specifically says that if the victim is vulnerable the sentence should be longer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39529714

A man who admitted attacking his wife with a cricket bat and forcing her to drink bleach has been jailed after a judge said the court was "misled" over a cricket contract.

Mustafa Bashir, 33, was spared a custodial term in March as the judge heard he would lose out on a cricket contract with Leicestershire.

Judge Richard Mansell QC, reviewing the sentence at Manchester Crown Court, said he was "fundamentally misled".

He sentenced Bashir to 18 months.

Just so as I have this straight....

This man :-

Beat his wife with a cricket bat;
forced her to drink bleach;
forced her to take pills;
admitted to all this IN COURT;

and yet wasn't sentenced to jail because the judge wanted to let him play CRICKET PROFESSIONALLY?

THAT'S the only reason he wasn't sent to jail??? So he could play CRICKET? Not so he could continue his job as a doctor? Or a fire-fighter? But so that he could play CRICKET???

Again - the phrase "what the fuck is wrong with this country" literally leaps to mind.

And before anyone yells that there might be other circumstances, stuff we are not being told, the Judge in this case has been quoted as saying

Imposing the new sentence, the judge told Bashir: "You were clearly making a claim to the court you had a career in professional cricket ahead of you which was false.
"You made that quite clearly in the hope you would avoid a prison sentence.

"There's not a shred of evidence you were ever chosen to play for Leicestershire County Cricket Club, let alone you had received any offer of a full time contract."

Apparently if this man - who beat and poisoned his wife - was going to be a professional cricketer, he would still be walking the streets, a free man.

So - you know - what the fuck???

Calladan wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39529714

A man who admitted attacking his wife with a cricket bat and forcing her to drink bleach has been jailed after a judge said the court was "misled" over a cricket contract.

Mustafa Bashir, 33, was spared a custodial term in March as the judge heard he would lose out on a cricket contract with Leicestershire.

Judge Richard Mansell QC, reviewing the sentence at Manchester Crown Court, said he was "fundamentally misled".

He sentenced Bashir to 18 months.

Just so as I have this straight....

This man :-

Beat his wife with a cricket bat;
forced her to drink bleach;
forced her to take pills;
admitted to all this IN COURT;

and yet wasn't sentenced to jail because the judge wanted to let him play CRICKET PROFESSIONALLY?

THAT'S the only reason he wasn't sent to jail??? So he could play CRICKET? Not so he could continue his job as a doctor? Or a fire-fighter? But so that he could play CRICKET???

Again - the phrase "what the fuck is wrong with this country" literally leaps to mind.

And before anyone yells that there might be other circumstances, stuff we are not being told, the Judge in this case has been quoted as saying

Imposing the new sentence, the judge told Bashir: "You were clearly making a claim to the court you had a career in professional cricket ahead of you which was false.
"You made that quite clearly in the hope you would avoid a prison sentence.

"There's not a shred of evidence you were ever chosen to play for Leicestershire County Cricket Club, let alone you had received any offer of a full time contract."

Apparently if this man - who beat and poisoned his wife - was going to be a professional cricketer, he would still be walking the streets, a free man.

So - you know - what the fuck???

The collateral effects of a sentence are relevant to how severe it is. For example, 24 hours in jail is a minor punishment if as a side effect of that you are eligible for deportation this is something that needs to be considered when handing down the sentence. The fact that a custodial sentence would destroy a professional sports career isn't relevant because athletes should get a free pass it's relevant because it would impact his life in a way it would not necessarily impact another person's.

Des-Bal wrote:The collateral effects of a sentence are relevant to how severe it is. For example, 24 hours in jail is a minor punishment if as a side effect of that you are eligible for deportation this is something that needs to be considered when handing down the sentence. The fact that a custodial sentence would destroy a professional sports career isn't relevant because athletes should get a free pass it's relevant because it would impact his life in a way it would not necessarily impact another person's.

You seriously don't see the problem with this? I mean - that wasn't just sarcasm or satire, but an actual serious response?

Because to me it basically looks like this :-

"When you were going to be a professional sports star, we didn't want to fuck up your career, so despite the fact you beat a woman with a cricket bat, tried to poison her with bleach and pills, then admitted to that and showed no sign of remorse, we were not going to send you to jail and were going to let you walk out of court a free man. Because hey - who wants to interfere with a the future career of a cricket player? That would just be mean and not at all what men do.

But now - since apparently your proficiency in hitting things with a bat doesn't extend to anything other than helpless targets, and you are just going to be an average joe on the street, we're going to send you to jail instead. Never mind that this sends the message sports stars can beat the shit out of women and walk away without consequences - why would anyone think that?"

But maybe that's just me.

Passing an 18-month jail term suspended for two years, the judge also ordered Bashir to attend a workshop entitled ''building better relationships'', pay £1,000 costs and banned him from contacting Ms Karim indefinitely.

Forget about the domestic issue bit. He basically got off scot-free for attempt at murder and battery by going to a workshop and paying a $1000 fine. Wtf judge.

This was a really stupid verdict.

The logic is appalling considering the case.

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:This was a really stupid verdict.

The logic is appalling considering the case.

I concur, honestly.

Bleach is not a substance to be messed with. If we were ever attacked by aliens, it's what we should use when we get to point where chemical warfare becomes a viable alternative.

Galloism wrote:

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:This was a really stupid verdict.

The logic is appalling considering the case.

I concur, honestly.

Bleach is not a substance to be messed with. If we were ever attacked by aliens, it's what we should use when we get to point where chemical warfare becomes a viable alternative.

I mean, the whole scenario in general.

This definitely sounds like attempted murder and not DV either way. You don't just let someone walk off free of charges after they beat them with a cricket bat and pour bleach into someone else's mouth, regardless of your relation to a person.