h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

i suppose thats why people open these forums is to get other peoples opinions it kinda opens your eyes to what other people think!!
btw i'm no legal expert either

andy

Also, a false accusation can ruin a man's reputation/career/life, even if it's later disproven.

Sounds to me like this was a series of hate crimes rather than sexually motivated ones.

I agree with (sorry I've forgotten which researcher) whoever said that there were three individual attacks here, and four rapes, so there is a reasonable number of years sentenced for each crime. If the punishment were the same for 4 rapes as for 1 then why stop at 4? Once you have done it once you know there is (for example) a 15 year sentence ahead of you if caught, but if you do it again there is additional punishment.

This might no be the clearest post I have ever made, I am very hungover - sorry.

for all those that have suffered

k

Deterence is a funny thing. Just like everything else in criminology, it doesn't work the same way for everyone.

What would deter normal people doesn't generally deter criminals. The big thing about typical criminals, is that they have ahard time connecting their present actions (ie robbing someone with a weapon) with future events (ie injury, death, government paid lodging with metal bars).

There are some exceptions. The ATF is really cracking down on illegal gun possession in some high crime areas. If you're caught with one, you're charged federally, which means bare minimum 5 years with no chance of parole. In those areas, gun possession crimes are way down. It takes a really special effort to get those results though.

With most rapists, serial murderers, child molestors and domestic abusers, their problems seem to be that they're just screwed up. They do those things because that's their sexual preference or that's how they were socialized or something. It's just how they are. It's not fixable (with the possible exception of domestic abusers. They are socialized into their roles, but I haven't seen any studies that show that they can or can not be rehabilitated).

In the case of the 55 year sentence, I think that might do some good. From the articles that I've seen, this problem comes about because these kids have been brought up to believe that this behavior is socially acceptable. If we have this huge sentence out there that says that you're going away for a long time if you're caught, they might act rationally and stop. It would be sort of likethis: it's acceptable for me to carry gun anywhere in the state of Georgia. If I were to visit Australia, it wouldn't be acceptable. So I'm not going to do it. I doubt their police will extend the same courtesy to me that ours will and not charge me with carrying a concealed weapon.

Does it mean that actually the society is sick and we should cure it?

"Cured" societies have their limitations. When you think about it, rapes (and acts of violence against individuals in general) are reversions to the behaviour of an uncivilised society. Punishing people for such crimes seems more concerned with maintaining civilised order than with helping the victim to recover.

Part of the problem with rape is the reaction of society to it. Victims can be stigmatised. I once worked for a couple of months alongside a woman I knew to have been raped in a highly-publicised case. I'm not at all proud of this, but I didn't handle it well. I found I just couldn't be at ease with her, and I wasn't the only one.

Eventually she left the area. I'm sure that being treated as normal was all that the poor lady wanted. Maybe we need to work on that aspect of society, properly caring for and supporting the victims, rather than elaborating the punishments.

P.

One of the victims was raped 25 times by 14 gang members.
55 years for the leader.
Fair enough I say in lieu of a death penalty!

And the rapists were happy with it as I understood...
Will she have any life after that? Some people here think that 55 years is too harsh. Try to imagine her reading this conversation here. How would she feel about it? From my own experience I can say that I'd feel guilty - guilty for being raped, guilty for ruining rapists life, guilty for being born. And after that I'd feel sorry for my family and friends. And then maybe for myself... But first of all it is guilt.
This is not reasonable statement, this is carried by emotions. Just for the record...

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the age of the rapists. It appears that a lot of them can't be named because they are too young. Can't be named? I'm sorry, but in my opinion there shouldn't laws like this. They know it's illegal. They know it will ruin peoples lives and they know that because they are under a certain age they can get away with it.
I lot of opinion states that below a certain age children are unable to tell the difference between right and wrong. Okay, that I can agree with, but not at the ages that the laws determines. Some adults I know aren't mentally capable of determining right and wrong, and yet they would be prosecuted as adults.

Name them is what I say.
Society is, apparantly what we should be protecting. Let society protect itself. Publish the names and addresses of these people and let society make it's own mind up for justice. Too often society isn't being protected by the legal system but is being persecuted. A man found guilty of rape is sent to prison where a lot of the time he doesn't have to work, or even go and sign on for social support. His keep is paid for by the very society that he has chosen to persecute. So, society is persecuted once by the crime, and again by the punishment it delivers. Something is not right there.
I'm not going to condone the death penatly. I don't agree with it. Live is not ours to take.
But prisons are not appearing to be the answer.

Is 55 years too harsh a sentance? I think not. Not even if it was for one rape. I've dated a three lasses who were rape victims. None of them reported the crime. And that's mostly the case. Most occurances of rape aren't reported as crimes. Mostly because the crime itself is so traumatic for the victim. It's a form of mental torture. We don't allow torture, we even send soldiers into countries that permit it. But we do allow our citizens to perform a form of it on each other. And I do mean that we allow them. What deterent is there when it seems that the normal sentance is a few years of sitting around not having to pay for anything?

Then you've got the comparisson with murder. Which is the worst crime? Which should carry the heavier sentence? Should the rape sentence be reduced to reflect the murder sentence? NO. The murder sentence should be increased.
I apologise now if I come across as someone who wants all criminals hung drawn and quartered, I don't. But it is starting to seem that the only time when a crime gets a high punishment is when it has become a high profile media case.

And as for miscarriages and victims of the justice system, what about when a man living in a remote farm house gets jailed for shooting a burgler? And then gets sued by the second burgler whom he wounded?

I don't know about the general cases and state of the Austrailian legal system, but if this rape case is anything to go by it seems as though they've decided enough pampering to the criminal is enough.
If they don't want to live within the rules of society, then society shouldn't support them.

>Society is, apparantly what we should be protecting. Let society protect itself. Publish the names and addresses of these people and let society make it's own mind up for justice.<

So that's a vote for a vigilante system of justice then Pastey? Like the one where a peadeatrician gets his house burnt down because people who read the Currant Bun can't tell the difference between a doctor a child molester?

>And as for miscarriages and victims of the justice system, what about when a man living in a remote farm house gets jailed for shooting a burgler? And then gets sued by the second burgler whom he wounded?<

I'm probably going to regret getting into this offtopic discussion, but of course, I do think it's important to point out that Barrass was shot in the back at point blank range as he was leaving the premises. None of my colleagues from the area that dealt with the case (that I have spoken to or had their opinions reported to me) had any doubt that this was a case of murder, and not legitimate self-defence. Of course, we could do away with the Jury system, in which 12 people were presumably stupid enough to fall for whatever trumped up evidence was produced by the prosecution in the Martin case, but what are you going to replace it with? And of course we'd need to do away with the CPsw and the Police, both of whom ok'd the prosecution. I assume you have a solution for that as well?

"It appears that a lot of them can't be named because they are too young. Can't be named?"

I don't know if the law is the same in Australia, but the way it is in the UK is this - underage defendants cannot be named, UNLESS AND UNTIL they are found guilty. Until that moment they are innocent in the eyes of the law and deserve its protection as much as anyone else. After they're found guilty, it's open season, as it was on the killers of James Bulger. The day before the verdict, they were Boy A and Boy B. They day after the verdict their pictures were on the front page of every paper in the country and Johnson and Venables were names they'd never be able to use again.

My own opinion is that this anonymity until found guilty should apply to EVERYONE, not just children. Far too many innocent people have been dragged through the ordeal of court actions and had to deal on top of that with lurid coverage in the newspapers prying into their background, coverage which, after they have been found innocent, cannot be undone.

"Let society protect itself. Publish the names and addresses of these people and let society make it's own mind up for justice."

Excellent idea, worthy of the editor of the News of the World.

You mean, presumably, like the way society was "protecting itself" when a baying mob of illiterate Welsh people hounded a woman from her home and daubed "paedo scum" in red paint on the front of her house because they were too pig-ignorant to know the difference between a paediatrician and a paedophile, and were too dense to wonder why a "paedo" would bolt a brass plaque to the front of her house announcing her status as such. They made up their own minds for justice. I'm just glad there isn't a crime which sounds a bit like engineering, otherwise I'd be in trouble.

"A man found guilty of rape is sent to prison where a lot of the time he doesn't have to work, or even go and sign on for social support."

Prison is not the ideal solution, and I'm not pretending it is. But it's better than NOT sending people to prison. The only alternative is killing them, and you're thankfully not in favour of that, so what do you suggest?

"What deterent is there when it seems that the normal sentance is a few years of sitting around not having to pay for anything?"

I suggest you read that link I provided to the account of the Kiszko case. He didn't sit around for a few years not having to pay for anything.

"Should the rape sentence be reduced to reflect the murder sentence? NO. The murder sentence should be increased."

This is a tough one. But here's a practical question - how do you control a prisoner who has no realistic hope of release before their death? What hope do you hold out to them? As I said above, the criminal in the case we're talking about won't be eligible for parole until he's sixty. His sentence could have been longer... but if it had been, what has he got to look forward to? There is a real practical problem in dealing with people in that situation, and someone (i.e. the prison staff) has to deal with them. Just saying "they shouldn't have anything to look forward to" doesn't offer any help to the prison staff who have to control them.

"And as for miscarriages and victims of the justice system, what about when a man living in a remote farm house gets jailed for shooting a burgler? And then gets sued by the second burgler whom he wounded?"

Different case, and not one that's not *quite* as clear cut as I'd like. I agree that that was a travesty - but... It's not often reported that the shotgun Tony Martin used to kill Fred Barras and wound Brendan Fearon was held illegally. Martin was an eccentric recluse with no shotgun licence. I'm forced to wonder how different the coverage and the trial and verdict would have been if the two had broken into the house of, say, a surgeon and clay pigeon enthusiast, and met a similar greeting from a legally held weapon.

"If they don't want to live within the rules of society, then society shouldn't support them."

So are you against the death penalty, or not? Because like it or not, as a member of a civilised society, you have the responsibility to support those who cannot support themselves in everyday life - whether that is for reasons of unemployment, mental or physical ill-health, age, or criminality. I agree - it sticks in the throat to have one's taxes feeding and housing thieves and killers. But one of the markers of a civilised society is how it treats its old, disabled and criminals. Australia, Europe and North America are largely pretty civilised in that regard. I wouldn't like to see that change, personally. I would like to see our treatment of them become more use, but as Two-Bit has rightly pointed out, it's not clear how we can, because criminology is never simple.

H.

Shock 1 - simulpost!
Shock 2 - me and Blues Shark agreeing!

H.

*faints*

Why is that so strange? I've agreed with stranger people than you in the past you know...

Though it was a pretty monumental simulpost, I have to agree-even down to our use of the poor woman in wales as a victim of mob rule.

Don't worry, I'm not advocating vigilanties or mob rule, both of which are pretty much the same thing. But the response does suggest that society in general, us in particular, aren't happy with our current legal systems. And that they need to be changed. The fact that we are having this debate suggests that there may be something wrong with the legal system.

I don't suggest people should take the law into their own hands, but I do suggest that perhaps people should be consulted on the law. Law reform is a very tricky business. A whole load of things need to be considered, the criminal mind, the non-criminal mind, lots of things. I don't even think that there is a way to develop a system that everyone would be happy with, I don't think it's possible. But when was there last a referendum asking the populace what they thought the law should be? We've got lots of polls all over the place asking our opinions, but when do the people making the laws listen to them?

I think one of the reasons laws are not made by the majority is that the majority can be wrong. After all, a majority are in favour of the death penalty. A majority believe in bloody horoscopes, so their opinions are hardly to be trusted. Being vaguely dissatisfied with the current system is a lot different from knowing what should replace it.

Oh, and Blues? F19585?thread=203256

H.

I *had* started to write a long and rambling response, but we agree again .
And you put it much more succinctly than me.

I *had* started to write a long and rambling response, but we agree again .
And you put it much more succinctly than me.

Even if a prisoner has no hope of getting out of prison, there are still ways to control him. He can do easy time, hard time, or he can do really hard time. The corrections officers still hav means to control the system.

A few quick thoughts:

* 55 years is not too high a sentence for four rapes. Four is enough to show a pattern of behaviour. Serial rapists tend not to stop until they reach old age and stop functioning sexually. Keeping them in jail until then prevents future rapes far better than castration.

* I've never seen a legitimate study answering the question of whether would-be rapists are deterred by harsh sentences. In lieu of evidence either way, society is wise to send a clear message. If nothing else, doing so bolsters the self esteem of victims.

* Rape is not a worse crime than murder, in my opinion. It is our social mores which make it seem so, rather than any logical reality. Western society still finds sex more taboo than violence, and one unfortunate upshot is that rape victims tend to be treated as if they have leprosy. Social education on survival after rape would be nice. Free psychological care for rape victims would also make sense.

* One last thing: Rapes against strangers are extremely rare. The huge majority of rapists target their wives, children, and friends. For this reason, keeping the identities of rape defendants hidden until prosecution would be impractical for the huge majority of cases.