sparticuss Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 Yesterday an Australian judge sentenced a rapist, who had raped eleven known victims, over the course of seven years, to a total of 12 months jail. The judge said that she was giving the short sentence because, apart from the rapes, the man in question was a model citizen. Any opinons anybody. PS. I knew the rapist quite well. And yes. The judge got it right when she said he was a model citizen. He was! Thats why we didn't suspect him. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Craig Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 I would have thought that a model citizen convicted of being a serial rapist would have deserved and received a much longer sentence. Just one more day in the pseudo-justice industry. SNAFU. Link to post Share on other sites
Neptune Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 He must have been a doctor. I believe most societies will forgive almost any transgression a doctor commits with barely a slap on the wrist in comparison to the damage they incur. They will reward victims enormous sums of money (all from insurance) but scarely punish the source of the crime. Link to post Share on other sites
Author sparticuss Posted December 18, 2005 Author Share Posted December 18, 2005 He must have been a doctor. I believe most societies will forgive almost any transgression a doctor commits with barely a slap on the wrist in comparison to the damage they incur. They will reward victims enormous sums of money (all from insurance) but scarely punish the source of the crime. Not a doctor! Link to post Share on other sites
Outcast Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 The BTK killer was a model citizen - except for brutally murdering ten people. That judge is a moron. Have you a higher court that can overturn her sentence? Link to post Share on other sites
loony Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 I hope he has the chance one day to visit her at home to thank her in his special way. Link to post Share on other sites
Outcast Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 Ooooh loony! You're a mean one you are! Link to post Share on other sites
RecordProducer Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 Ever heard of coruption? 1 Link to post Share on other sites
lindya Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 Any opinons anybody. Yes. Australia isn't some undeveloped country where a judgement like that wouldn't attract any news coverage. Where are the links to news items that will substantiate this little tale? Second opinion. You need to get a bit of fresh air and perhaps some therapy too. It really won't do you any good to endlessly fantasise about misogynistic female judges telling rapists that they're model citizens. If it weren't for the fact that you really come across as someone nursing tankfuls of resentment, I'd just write you off as a troll. You weirdo. Link to post Share on other sites
Craig Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 Australia does appear to be weird about sentencing rapists. Little or no jail for 11% of rapists http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/little-or-no-jail-for-11-of-rapists/2005/12/14/1134500913372.html Link to post Share on other sites
Author sparticuss Posted December 18, 2005 Author Share Posted December 18, 2005 The BTK killer was a model citizen - except for brutally murdering ten people. That judge is a moron. Have you a higher court that can overturn her sentence? - Who was the BTK killer? I dn't know that story. - No higher courts for a prosecution. Only for a defence appeal. Link to post Share on other sites
Author sparticuss Posted December 18, 2005 Author Share Posted December 18, 2005 Australia does appear to be weird about sentencing rapists. Little or no jail for 11% of rapists http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/little-or-no-jail-for-11-of-rapists/2005/12/14/1134500913372.html The reason is that so many lunatic women are screaming rrraaappppeee, if a man so much as looks at them. And getting away with it. The courts are still tough on the real thing but Craig m boy. This following case is the sort of thing that could hapen to you to me to anyone. In 1985 the Western Australian parliament dramatically amended the law relating to rape, first by changing the term rape to sexual assault and then greatly widening the definition of what could be classed as sexual assault. Many acts not previously constituting rape were included in the new Act and the criteria for sexual assault was any type of penetration where consent was not present and ongoing. It did not matter that force or threats were not used. The penalty for any type of sexual assault was increased to fifteen years imprisonment. Where any type of force was used, the charge was aggravated sexual assault, carrying a penalty of twenty years imprisonment. The draconian Act soon snared its first victim. Perth resident Kevin Ibbs was having consensual sex with Christine Watson on the night of 29 November 1986. Watson, a close friend of Ibbs's wife, Katrina Carter, was living in the same house with Ibbs and Carter. The sex act was taking place with the full knowledge of Carter who was in the house at the time. As Ibbs was nearing ejaculation, Watson suddenly withdrew her consent to sex (so she later claimed) and tried to push Ibbs away. He continued for a short time. Too late, he was trapped. He was charged with sexual assault and found guilty under the new law. The judge found that Ibbs had continued sexual intercourse for about thirty seconds without consent (for which he was later dubbed the 30-second rapist). The judge sentenced him to four years imprisonment. [Details of the case] Some years later Watson admitted to police that the whole incident was a set-up orchestrated by Carter to have Ibbs charged with sexual assault to get him out of the house they were sharing. Christine Elizabeth Watson a.k.a. Christine Elizabeth Wardle and Katrina Ann Carter were subsequently convicted of conspiring to pervert the course of justice. They served seven months in jail. Mr Ibbs was acquitted in 2001 but the damage was done. He says that his health has been affected, his career as a tradesman has been ruined and the whole affair has cost him over one million dollars Link to post Share on other sites
Outcast Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 Who was the BTK killer? I dn't know that story. A man who murdered ten people brutally over the space of thirty years while having a home, family, jobs, and even an important role in his local church. Seems, Sparty, you are on a crusade to 'protect' men from horrible women. As with everything else on the planet, there are some rotten women who will call 'rape' when they're mad about what a man has done to them. However the proportion of that sort of women is no different from the incidence of other aberrations of human behaviour - in fact it's probably significantly less than most. the criteria for sexual assault was any type of penetration where consent was not present and ongoing. This is perfectly reasonable and your '30-second rapist' case is an exception rather than the rule. Surely you don't defend the actions of the multiple rapist with the minimal sentence? Link to post Share on other sites
Bogun Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 How about one bullet per rape? I agree with lindya, where is some evidence to support this trial you mention? As Ibbs was nearing ejaculation, Watson suddenly withdrew her consent to sex (so she later claimed) and tried to push Ibbs away. He continued for a short time. Too late, he was trapped. He was charged with sexual assault and found guilty under the new law. The judge found that Ibbs had continued sexual intercourse for about thirty seconds without consent (for which he was later dubbed the 30-second rapist). The judge sentenced him to four years imprisonment. [Details of the case] IMO it doesnt matter when a woman decides that she does not consent. If she says no at any point then there is no justification in continuing. Sparticus rape is an abhorent crime, one which I feel is worse than murder, as the victim is traumatised by it for the rest of their lives. If you defended rape like this to my face I'd happily punch you in the head sparticus. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Art_Critic Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 I would think that raping 11 women would prove that he wasn't a model citizen.. He should've been castrated first then served 1 month per rape.. Link to post Share on other sites
RecordProducer Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 I would think that raping 11 women would prove that he wasn't a model citizen.. I think he was a model citizen - a model of what people shouldn't be like! He should've been castrated first then served 1 month per rape.. Castrated for 11 months... after that he can get it back. Link to post Share on other sites
Author sparticuss Posted December 19, 2005 Author Share Posted December 19, 2005 I would think that raping 11 women would prove that he wasn't a model citizen.. He should've been castrated first then served 1 month per rape.. Time to let the cat out of the bag. The offender was Father G Klep, and his victims were not mature women. They were boys who were too sick to fight on the ocasions that the assaults occurred. And thats the real point. Why are these molestings still being soft pedaled. (not the trumped up ones, the real ones ) instead of treated as any other form of rape? (Oh! To whoever accused me of fabricating the whole story. Check the Melbourne Herald/Sun and the Melbourne Age newspapers from three days ago. Nothing's fabricated.) 2 Link to post Share on other sites
lindya Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 Time to let the cat out of the bag. The offender was Father G Klep, and his victims were not mature women. They were boys who were too sick to fight on the ocasions that the assaults occurred. In the situation you describe, courts would be unable to sentence him for rape, because under the circumstances the legal test for rape (penile penetration of a vagina) would not be met. Given the newspaper accounts of him flying to Samoa in 1998 following charges of sexual abuse, I'm also surprised that you said this : "PS. I knew the rapist quite well. And yes. The judge got it right when she said he was a model citizen. He was! Thats why we didn't suspect him." If you want people to comment on a newspaper item, it would be helpful to provide links and/or salient background details rather than just presenting the more controversial aspects to the story in hazy detail. Link to post Share on other sites
Art_Critic Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 I agree with Lynda.. next time don't play a game with words to create a reaction that had nothing to do with the real story. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
RecordProducer Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 In the situation you describe, courts would be unable to sentence him for rape, because under the circumstances the legal test for rape (penile penetration of a vagina) would not be met. It IS a rape, Lyndia. Vaginal or anal or oral, what's the difference? Are you saying that if someone raped you in the ass, it's not rape? I don't care how books define the word "rape", the whole point of this is that someone can get away with 11 rapes. For us - it's rape. He forced 11 ill boys to sex. That's definitely rape. Besides, the point of the story was obviously that monsters like him go to jail for a very short time. I don't see any dramatic turn of events here. The reality is almost even worse than we thought - he raped boys that were too sick to oppose. He should get a death sentence for this. Link to post Share on other sites
lindya Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 It IS a rape, Lyndia. Vaginal or anal or oral, what's the difference? Are you saying that if someone raped you in the ass, it's not rape? My understanding of this case (from the info available) is that the sexual assaults involved oral sex and genital fondling, not vaginal and anal intercourse (and in some jurisdictions including my own, the broader definition of rape as including anal penetration is a relatively recent development). I'm in no way suggesting that such assaults aren't serious, but the charge for such crimes would be sexual assault - not rape. That is why I found the original post very misleading and lacking credibility. It stated that a judge had passed a sentence for the rape of 11 victims, when the crimes specified are not crimes which a court would define as rape. I don't care how books define the word "rape", the whole point of this is that someone can get away with 11 rapes. For us - it's rape. Well, you should care, because how books/case law define the word has huge implications for society. Those who make sentencing decisions regarding sex offenders are led by those materials...and not by what you or I think about the matter. Link to post Share on other sites
Outcast Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 I think it's picking nits to worry about the 'legal' definition of rape vs sexual assault. In neither case is a sentence of one month per instance acceptable when the acts were foisted on young people. Link to post Share on other sites
bab Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 I would think that raping 11 women would prove that he wasn't a model citizen... My thoughts exactly. Model citizen do NOT rape 11 women. Geez. Talk about relaxing definitions of model citizen....yikes! Ooops...only read the first page of replies. I agree with Outcast, whatever the legal definition, the sentence doesn't fit the crime. Link to post Share on other sites
Outcast Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 Bab, you have to read the whole thread. Turns out it wasn't 11 women. Link to post Share on other sites
lilguiltyone Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 If it weren't for the fact that you really come across as someone nursing tankfuls of resentment, I'd just write you off as a troll. You weirdo ================================================== lindya i was thinking the same thing when i read your post. seems to be some hard feelings there Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts