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

"For this reason, keeping the identities of rape defendants hidden until prosecution would be impractical for the huge majority of cases."

Keeping the identity of the accusers confidential seems to work OK. Why shouldn't the same apply to the the accused? It's obviously impossible to keep it entirely secret, but stopping the media from reporting the name seems to be acceptable for the victims.

H.

I dunno about where you live, but here the accusors' identities are kept hidden by the media rather than any law or judge's decision. It's a polite agreement that has nothing to do with the legal system.

I've also seen an interesting trend where rape victims are asking to be identified by the press, in hopes of reducing the social stigma. I tend to agree that removing the veil of secrecy is helping people to see rape victims as ordinary folks who haven't 'asked for it.'

Perhaps the press should keep rape defendants secret until conviction as well. It would make sense to me, given the social volatility of the subject, especially in cases where the victim's name was hidden. But I think that's an editorial decision, not a legal one.

I don't think the legal system should be responsible for hiding the defendant's identity. But then, I tend to believe that the media is an important check on the government -- including its judicial system.

This from the Sydney Morning Herald.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/07/1031115957994.html

I've got a stout length of rope he can use

Rod

Seems the mods are bored or something.
I only posted a link http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/07/1031115957994.html
and an offer of assistance. Or is it the ethnic thing?

Rod

Hmm... maybe he should have thought about what kind of life he would have BEFORE he committed such a brutal, vicious crime. What kind of lives will the victims have? I know what kind of effect being raped has had on my life.

Obviously, I have a biased opinion on this topic, but I still can't feel any pity for these monsters. I honestly hope the guy doesn't off himself, because he'd be getting off too easy.

It would be less expensive to the Australian tax payer if he did. These were brutal, racial/religiously driven, PACK rapes. And yes, I too am biased, this sort of behavior is totally abhorent and should be treated with the harshest of punishment(yes PUNISHMENT).

Rod

Or maybe the moderator is worried about this:
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/09/08/nextre08.xml

I've gone through the backlog (it was quite enlightening) but I'm surprised no one has mentioned the racial dimension to this (apart from Rocket Rod, but that last link was bugger all to do with this thread). It would be interesting to see what the average sentence handed down to a white gang of rapists who raped 'immigrant' women, or even white Australians. You can probably guarantee it would be a lot less, just as white rapists get more lenient sentences in most parts of the western world.
This is not to excuse the people that did this, they deserve to go away for a long, looooooooooong time.
The problems (with regards which should carry the biggest sentence) have been address elsewhere, but I'd like to say that making murder sentences lighter would encourage rapists to kill and, even though many rape victims often express the desire to die, most would fight their assailant(s) tooth and nail and go through the most extraordinary punishment in order to survive.

In the uk, it seems to me there's a big issue as far as sentencing is concerned, and that is the short sightedness of the judges.

I've heard of cases where a woman reported the crime, went through all the legalities, finally got the man who violated her found guilty, only to find that he got off lightly because, since she attended parts of the hearing, the judge made the oh so well informed decision that, since she was holding it together and wasn't melting away in tears, the rape obviously hadn't affected her much.

In my opinion, rapists should be given life - in this case meaning a minimum term (for the sake of argument 20 years, but I'm not really one to judge), and then be kept in as long after that as experts consider them a danger to other people. It shouldn't be discretionary on the part of the judge.

I haven't (thank God) been a victim of rape. But if I was, I would be so scared if the person who raped me was released whilst he could still go and do the same thing to someone else (or even me) again.

Just to get back to the case at hand,... I was trying to find the judgement on the net, but can't seem to find it. But I found an article about the trial when it was still underway.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/06/12/1023864300780.html

Surly this kind of behaviour added to the harshness of the sentence.

As for the racist aspects of the case, see maybe
http://www.wog.com.au/article_main2.asp?ArticleID=286

Why I want to answer this is mixed, but I thought I would give you a bit of background first.
I was the victim of incest from birth and I was gang raped by teenagers when I was seven. Because I was a kid I blocked these memories by creating "monsters". After three years of counciling I have had my memories returned. Not pleasant. So I do know what it's like to be raped. I also know my attackers very well. And they ALL come from abusive homes.
I don't think gaol is the answer. I think we seriously need to look at rehabilitation. As this is also a racist crime this should also be examined. These boys felt that these women had no value. That's taught. We need to speak out about rape, racism, crime in general. We need to teach people that there are no circumstances where you have the right to make people feel unsafe.
If gaol is the only place where the criminals and society can be kept safe while this is happening then the sentence for any crime should be until the perpetrator is reformed. So a rapist my get it in three weeks and a burgular may take 60 years.
Our system isn't working because people are hurting, both victim and criminals.

I would like to make an observation on the fact that these crimes were racially motivated. I realize that the perps in this case felt that the women were worthless because of their race, but I feel that rape is a crime that is *always* motivated by hatred. I don't care if the rape was motivated by race, because the perp was abused, or just lacks the social skills to pull a date, no one who has any respect for other human beings would put another human being through this kind of torture unless one has learned to hate. And hating oneself is *no* excuse to brutalize another, ever.


As far as rehabilitation goes, I wish I could believe in it, but I can't. I believe a murderer can be rehabilitated before a rapist or child molester. The motivations for the crime are too different.

Three of the men who assaulted me were paroled after only seven years. The other four were released during this past year, having served 15 years each. Although I was a minor, and my name was not released during the trial or afterward, I still live in constant fear that I'll run into one of them again, or that they'll do the same thing to someone else. These men felt no remorse for their crime- during the trial, one of them spit at me as I walked to the witness stand. People like this need to be locked up and punished, not pitied.

Surely the question shouldn't be "is 55 years too much for rape?" but "is the sentence for murder too short?"

Blues Shark once very patiently explained to me the thinking behind concurrent sentencing, and I'm ashamed to say it has fallen out of my brain.

Sorry, their background has no bearing on this other than the fact that they were imposing their moral values on others. They were in a non-muslim country, and sorry if this sounds intolerant or racist because it's not meant that way, so they should learn to live with it. (I live in a country other than were I was born and I try very hard to fit in with them)

Anyway, I have nothing constructive to add, apart from in this case I don't feel the sentence is too harsh.

And to go slightly off topic, since somewhere in the backlog is mention of not naming names because of the "innocent until found guilty" thing. Why, in the UK, has the guy accused of murdering Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells (and his girlfriend) had his name plastered all over the papers?