Judge criticised for sentence in domestic abuse case

[Alvecia]

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.

The damage done is how we measure the damage done, surely?

[Caracasus]

An eighteen month suspended sentence? What the actual fuck?

Pretty sure if I were to go out right now and whack someone with a cricket bat and force them to drink bleach I'd get a bit more than a suspended sentence.

Pretty hard to see this as anything but victim blaming really. The old "well why didn't you leave?" argument. An argument that has been thoroughly debunked. The judge needs a bit of a reminder that we're no longer in the 50's.

EDIT: This is quite an interesting read on sentencing guidelines. Don't know if the judge is working from an outdated copy or not, but can't see how he managed to pass a suspended sentence in this instance....

http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp- ... _Court.pdf

[Novus America]

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?

Exactly. Does the U.K. punish domestic abuse less than other crimes?
This is a very serious crime. Whether or not she has a degree or whatever has nothing to do with the fact he committed assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder.

I guess it is okay to attempt murder if the victim has a degree? I mean what the hell?

The the good thing about mandatory minimum sentences is it keeps this idiocy from happening as much.

[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?

Exactly. Does the U.K. punish domestic abuse less than other crimes?
This is a very serious crime. Whether or not she has a degree or whatever has nothing to do with the fact he committed assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder.

I guess it is okay to attempt murder if the victim has a degree? I mean what the hell?

The the good thing about mandatory minimum sentences is it keeps this idiocy from happening as much.

is "she was there and she could have left" EVER a mitigating circumstance to attempted murder?

[Novus America]

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.

This is not a torts case. This is a criminal case. The education level of a victim should not matter. It does not make the crime he committed less serious.

Should any crime against someone with a college degree make the crime less harmful? If I burglarize the house if someone with a college degree or commit armed robbery against them should I not get jail because they have a degree?

This guy is clearly a danger to society and a violent felon. He needs to be locked up until he can show it is safe to let him out again.

If I were the judge I would have given him the maximum.

This is victim blaming pure and simple.

[Des-Bal]

The damage done is how we measure the damage done, surely?

In the sense that inability to walk for the rest of your life is damage done, I don't see what part of this is confusing.

Exactly. Does the U.K. punish domestic abuse less than other crimes?
This is a very serious crime. Whether or not she has a degree or whatever has nothing to do with the fact he committed assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder.

I guess it is okay to attempt murder if the victim has a degree? I mean what the hell?

The the good thing about mandatory minimum sentences is it keeps this idiocy from happening as much.

Mandatory minimum sentences substitute the idiocy of personal judgement with the idiocy of blanket solutions, people getting life sentences for stealing dvds.

[Novus America]

Exactly. Does the U.K. punish domestic abuse less than other crimes?
This is a very serious crime. Whether or not she has a degree or whatever has nothing to do with the fact he committed assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder.

I guess it is okay to attempt murder if the victim has a degree? I mean what the hell?

The the good thing about mandatory minimum sentences is it keeps this idiocy from happening as much.

is "she was there and she could have left" EVER a mitigating circumstance to attempted murder?

Not that I am aware of.
Even in torts things like contributory negligence and assumption of the risk does not apply to intentional torts.

And this is a criminal case.

The mindset of the perpetrator does matter in sentencing, and in this guys case it is clear he is a monster of the worst sort, and should get punished as much a possible.

[Risottia]

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.

Most defs a possibility, I agree.

Just like forcing someone to ingest bleach could be just an alternative method to clean their teeth.

[The Islands of Versilia]

Sickening. Absolutely sickening.

[Des-Bal]

Most defs a possibility, I agree.

Just like forcing someone to ingest bleach could be just an alternative method to clean their teeth.

Oh I apologize, you were in fact part of this case?

[Risottia]

Mandatory minimum sentences substitute the idiocy of personal judgement with the idiocy of blanket solutions, people getting life sentences for stealing dvds.

Exactly in what kind of backwater hellhole stealing a DVD carries a life sentence as minimum?

[Risottia]

Most defs a possibility, I agree.

Just like forcing someone to ingest bleach could be just an alternative method to clean their teeth.

Oh I apologize, you were in fact part of this case?

No. Were you?
I wasn't aware that to debate here you had to be directly involved in the issue. I will hold you to that standard from now on.

[Novus America]

The damage done is how we measure the damage done, surely?

In the sense that inability to walk for the rest of your life is damage done, I don't see what part of this is confusing.

Mandatory minimum sentences substitute the idiocy of personal judgement with the idiocy of blanket solutions, people getting life sentences for stealing dvds.

Again this is a criminal case, not a torts or contracts case. The goal is not to simply put the victim back in the same financial situation. And even in torts you get punitive damages for this.

The goal is to deal with the perpetrator.
Attempted murder is still a serious crime even if the victim is not hurt.

And as far as minimum setencing I am not sure of any case in the western world where the minimum sentence for theft is life in prison.

And I have no sympathy for monsters like this. He should get life in prison for this crime.
But I would not say life is the appropriate minimum here. Maybe 10 years. But this guy should not be getting the minimum either, but the maximum.

I trust the collective idiocy over the individual because it is written down for all to see.
That way it can be scutinized and changed as needed.

[Caracasus]

Damage done (or not done) etc. is kind of irrelevant when you consider the aggravating factors that should have led to at the very least a custodial sentence:

Sustained or repeated assault on the same victim
(More than one incident)

Use of weapon or weapon equivalent (for example, shod
foot, headbutting, use of acid, use of animal)

(Cricket bat, bleach)

Intention to commit more serious harm than actually
resulted from the offence

(The drinking bleach thing - reported that he wanted her to die)

Ongoing effect upon the victim

(THe judge himself admitted as much)

Honestly, how the hell the judge arrived at that ruling is beyond me.

[Raoganya]

Rapists, molestors, abusers and assaulters should not be sentenced lightly because such a sentence would be inconvenient to them. Period. I don't know why this is a question is some peoples minds. That kind of mentality is a disgrace to law and sound moral judgement. He actively threatened her life. He was trying to kill her for goodness sakes.The judge is an idiotic and incompetent individual, and no one should defend him in any form. Any judge who does something similar is incompetent and idiotic as well. Whatever gender, ethnicity and background of the accused, whatever gender, ethnicity and background of the victim, you aren't above the law because the law hurts your violent black hearted feelings. Period. No rights are being infringed and no cruel and unusual punishments are being delivered by punishing an abuser to the full extent of the law. People can learn to deal with their actions.

[Des-Bal]

Again this is a criminal case, not a torts or contracts case. The goal is not to simply put the victim back in the same financial situation. And even in torts you get punitive damages for this.

The goal is to deal with the perpetrator.
Attempted murder is still a serious crime even if the victim is not hurt.

And as far as minimum setencing I am not sure of any case in the western world where the minimum sentence for theft is life in prison.

And I have no sympathy for monsters like this. He should get life in prison for this crime.
But I would not say life is the appropriate minimum here. Maybe 10 years. But this guy should not be getting the minimum either, but the maximum.

I trust the collective idiocy over the individual because it is written down for all to see.
That way it can be scutinized and changed as needed.

Stop bringing up torts and contracts. You are the only person talking about torts and contracts. The goals of criminal justice are retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and incapacitation. The suspended sentence, bar from contacting her, and classes suggest the judge is erring on the side of rehabilitation while paying deference to specific incapacitation and deterrence.

Gotta love those recidivist statutes.

You aren't going to scrutinize anything until it comes up in the news. Public oversight is exactly the same in both scenarios, the only difference is that there's no professional.

[Des-Bal]

No. Were you?
I wasn't aware that to debate here you had to be directly involved in the issue. I will hold you to that standard from now on.

You made the case that you would "call it attempted murder [yourself] and slam the perpetrator with the maximum penalty available for every single instance of the crime, but maybe, as a continental, [you were] a bit too dramatic."

I presented the alternative that
"It [was] also possible you [didn't] know the case or laws involved all that well. "

You compared the likelihood to forcing someone to ingest bleach being a valid method of teeth cleaning.

If you weren't part of the case I'd have a hard time believing you're more familiar with it than the judge.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

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?

Don't be disingenuous here. The article stated that because she wasn't as vulnerable as say, a less connected or educated woman, and thus this apparently wasn't as serious in his eyes. That makes no sense. A person was tortured, forced to attempt suicide on more than one occasion, and the judge in his wisdom opted for a suspended short term, and a class on how to form better relationships. Because hey, she was connected and educated so she what - could have done something more about it? Perceived vulnerability is now the measure for whether or not abuse was 'legitimate' or similar nonsense? Oh no, he might have lost employment with a place that denied they had anything to do with him? Say it isn't so! What a cruel and unfair world we must live in when a man gets blamed for his actions when they might have negative consequences, and the person on the other end of those actions was educated and connected, so it wasn't his fault.

Yeah. That's what I'm getting from this. You still haven't offered anything to the contrary of note. Again, the genders don't matter to me. The base cause and effect however, do. Abuse was done upon a person. That ought not be excused out of hand because of some vague sense of 'well the poor guy' or 'she could have gotten out of it'.

[Novus America]

Again this is a criminal case, not a torts or contracts case. The goal is not to simply put the victim back in the same financial situation. And even in torts you get punitive damages for this.

The goal is to deal with the perpetrator.
Attempted murder is still a serious crime even if the victim is not hurt.

And as far as minimum setencing I am not sure of any case in the western world where the minimum sentence for theft is life in prison.

And I have no sympathy for monsters like this. He should get life in prison for this crime.
But I would not say life is the appropriate minimum here. Maybe 10 years. But this guy should not be getting the minimum either, but the maximum.

I trust the collective idiocy over the individual because it is written down for all to see.
That way it can be scutinized and changed as needed.

Stop bringing up torts and contracts. You are the only person talking about torts and contracts. The goals of criminal justice are retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and incapacitation. The suspended sentence, bar from contacting her, and classes suggest the judge is erring on the side of rehabilitation while paying deference to specific incapacitation and deterrence.

Gotta love those recidivist statutes.

You aren't going to scrutinize anything until it comes up in the news. Public oversight is exactly the same in both scenarios, the only difference is that there's no professional.

The judge brough it up by alllying the law wrong. The education of the victim is irrelevant.
An in the case of dangerous people they need to be locked up UNTIL they prove the are rehabilitated. And this is not rehabilitation. Simply taking a class does not fix his mindset.
And you should err on the side of public safety.

And laws get tons of scrutiny by various groups and legal professionals help write them.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Only 18 months?

Lock the bastard up for life.

Abuse is the worst thing you can do to someone.

[Des-Bal]

Don't be disingenuous here. The article stated that because she wasn't as vulnerable as say, a less connected or educated woman, and thus this apparently wasn't as serious in his eyes. That makes no sense. A person was tortured, forced to attempt suicide on more than one occasion, and the judge in his wisdom opted for a suspended short term, and a class on how to form better relationships. Because hey, she was connected and educated so she what - could have done something more about it? Perceived vulnerability is now the measure for whether or not abuse was 'legitimate' or similar nonsense? Oh no, he might have lost employment with a place that denied they had anything to do with him? Say it isn't so! What a cruel and unfair world we must live in when a man gets blamed for his actions when they might have negative consequences, and the person on the other end of those actions was educated and connected, so it wasn't his fault.

Yeah. That's what I'm getting from this. You still haven't offered anything to the contrary of note. Again, the genders don't matter to me. The base cause and effect however, do. Abuse was done upon a person. That ought not be excused out of hand because of some vague sense of 'well the poor guy' or 'she could have gotten out of it'.

Can you appreciate the irony in accusing me of being disingenuous in direct response to challenging you on presenting something that no relevant party ever said as a quote? I'll also note that you just did it again with the word "legitimate", 'well the poor guy' and 'she could have gotten out of it. I can't help but feel you're responding to things nobody said because you don't actually know what's going on, which is fair, because you've been presented with exceedingly little information.

I can't really tell you how vulnerability it's relevant because the news is so excited about telling us to be upset I can't find out what he was charged with. Does the written or common law treat the victims vulnerability as central in determining a sentence? Was the relevant law written with the specific intent to protect vulnerable classes? How much of this abuse was, for legal purposes, actually able to be considered in the sentencing? Even if you accept that the sentence is a problem without knowing the law involved it's impossible to say whether the law was poorly drafted, misapplied, or flat out ignored.

I'm not presenting counter arguments because I'm not supporting the sentence, I'm urging temperance because even if you had expert knowledge of the case based on the information in the two articles presented it's impossible to make a gauge what the judge did.

It is totally and completely appropriate for judges to consider the impact of a sentence on the defendant.

[Des-Bal]

The judge brough it up by alllying the law wrong.

What law did he misapply?

[Caracasus]

The judge brough it up by alllying the law wrong.

What law did he misapply?

He misapplied sentencing guidelines for assault. As has already been mentioned here.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

It is totally and completely appropriate for judges to consider the impact of a sentence on the defendant.

Not when it comes at the cost of the victim, I would strongly suggest. As for the supposed misquote, it wasn't a direct quote, it was a supposition drawn from the article and what it suggested was the reasoning - which anyone reading could suss out, one would think. You're getting hung up on minutiae rather than look at the base facts, as offered - which is all you have to go off of as well.

How you're coming across is this - the rights and suffering of the victim come secondary to the potential harm done to the perpetrator by his own actions. Additionally, if the victim is perceived as having less vulnerability than someone of less education, contacts, influence, or other such concepts, their case ought to be considered less serious than someone who lacks in all those categories.

That does not make sense. Would you allow a murderer to walk free if the victim happened to have training in self defense? Would you allow a doctor to dodge a valid and proved malpractice suit because it might damage his reputation or business? Perhaps a child abuser because the kid had lots of friends he could have asked help from?

Still not seeing any potential parallels? If not, then there's no point in attempting to discuss this any further with you, as you are unlikely to grasp the core of my concern, and are more focused on things such as grammar, direct quotes which would more likely be posted as "This is a quote" rather than 'a suggested summary', and taking on an air of insulted superiority because the rest of us are apparently not at your grand level of interpretation and comprehension.

[Herskerstad]

18 Months for that? Remember a person who attempted to blind an officer who only got 10 months. I am not familiar with the average term of serious first time offenders, but I would imagine crimes on such scope merits dual digit years.