Friday, 4 May 2012

A Very Curious Case Indeed…

At Tim Worstall’s site, The Thought Gang comments on the disparity of sentencing in many rape cases with drink involved, with the drunken state of one party counted while the other's is discarded.

This case, however, might just be the oddity:
A "drunken" man who raped a woman has walked free from court after a judge said the case was " wholly exceptional”.
I’d have hoped we’d be told why. But sadly, no…
Maddock, currently out of work because of an injury and said to be a binge drinker, had no previous convictions.
A judge ruled he did not pose a risk to the public.
Hmmmm. I wonder what will happen when the Sisterhood get wind of this? They aren't going to be happy, are they?
He was given a two year community order, with two years' supervision and an alcohol treatment programme. Maddock must pay £200 costs.
So, back to those circumstances:
Sentencing, Judge Jonathan Gibson said the circumstance of the case were " extremely unusual” .
He said: "It's for these reasons that I am not going to apply the sentencing guidelines because it seems to me it's not in the interests of justice to do so."
The judge said he thought the defendant, who had been in a "drunken state" at the time of the offence, did have an alcohol problem.
It surely can’t be the mere fact of him being drunk, can it?
at

4 comments:

  1. Anonymous4 May 2012 at 15:41

    Nowt on the Ched Evans case. Well done for propping up plod.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous4 May 2012 at 16:17

    I would have accepted the Judge's ruling more if he had then introduced the man to his daughter, given him 2 x 6packs of strong lager and said, "Have a good time and don't bother coming back too soon." Under those circumstances, i.e. where the Judge had a personal involvement, I doubt if the man would have escaped with merely having his testicles removed wqith a very rusty, blunt, knife. Another case of our lawmakers being completely out of touch with reality.
    Penseivat

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tatty4 May 2012 at 19:01

    "The judge told the defendant :" I do not consider you to be a dangerous offender."

    Wait..what ?

    If someone is to avoid prison for something they have actually done...as opposed to what a judge ALONE thinks they may or may not do in future...then exactly what was the point of a charade of a trial ?

    Or..is this a softly softly approach to doing away with prosecutions for anything, ever. Seeing as hardly anyone goes to prison anymore, anyway.

    'Cos that's the only method in the madness that I can see here.

    ReplyDelete
  4. JuliaM5 May 2012 at 07:20

    "Nowt on the Ched Evans case. Well done for propping up plod."

    Eh..?

    I don't have time to write about everything you know!

    If you're referring to the Twitter arrests, they named a rape victim on a public forum. That's illegal.

    "Another case of our lawmakers being completely out of touch with reality."

    Well maybe. But since we aren't given anything like the whole story, it makes me wonder...

    "Seeing as hardly anyone goes to prison anymore, anyway."

    Oh, politically-incorrect crimes will still see you doing a spot of bird!

    ReplyDelete