Thursday, 1 July 2010

Rapist gets off lightly - AGAIN

Once again, Britain's criminal-friendly judges have let a rapist off lightly.  This time the rapist is an 18-year-old man who, when he was a 12-year-old boy raped a teacher.  She is still receiving therapy for the psychological trauma that the dirty little scumbag inflicted on her.

The original trial judge correctly stated that the rapist posed a "grave danger."  This might be because in addition to being a rapist he was also a drug junkie, a solvent addict, a pyromaniac and a violent young thug.  However Lord Justice Hughes, vice-president of the criminal court of appeal, decided that eight years with an extended licence period after release, was sufficient to protect the public from this death-deserving yob.  He was backed in this corrupt and depraved decision by Mr Justice Wyn Williams and Mr Justice King.

But what prompted this miscarriage of justice?  (And make no mistake, this reduction in the rapist's sentence IS a miscarriage of Justice.)  Well it is tempting to speculate that male judges have a "there but for the grace of God go I" attitude when it comes to rape.  But we must also acknowledge the significant contribution of the rapists lawyer, Edward Fitzgerald QC, who used the best of his abilities to cause his rapist client to be unleashed on society as early as possible.  Fitzgerald told the Appeal Court that the original sentence should never have been passed.

Now we should remember that barristers operate according to the so-called "taxi rank" principle of accepting the first "fare" that comes along.  Personally I would call this the Red Light District streetwalker principle of going with the first punter that comes along.  But I can understand why members of that august profession prefer to compare themselves to skilled workers who have "done the knowledge" rather than members of the oldest profession whom they more closely resemble.

In any event, no one can deny that Fitzgerald did a good job in securing an earlier release for this rapist client.  Whilst it is quite likely that he was paid by the taxpayer (through the legal aid system) he was serving not the taxpayer, but his client.  And if that means that other women will be raped by his client in the future - something that is highly probable - that is not Mr Fitzgerald's problem.

And what of the victim?  Well it is all too easy to forget the victim in all of this.  Victims are not entitled to any representation in criminal proceedings.  Even victim impact statements are largely ignored by the judges and any change in this policy has been opposed by those who support the criminals.  The only "redress" that the law purports to allow the victim is the right to bring a civil lawsuit for financial compensation.  But no matter how much money is awarded, if the rapist hasn't got the money (or is able to conceal it) he will not be obliged to pay it.  or if he pays it will be a couple of quid a week.  And then he can duck the debt by having himself declared bankrupt.

Is it surprising then that in another case going before the courts involves a 15-year-old girl (then 14) accused murdering a man she accused of raping her?  As a rape victim says to the man who raped her many years later in my latest thriller No Way Out You think the pain of your victims ebbs into oblivion just because you turned your life around. You think it’s that easy? Don’t you know that for the victims the pain never goes away!"

The answer is: it doesn't.  So may be it's time to inflict some pain on the rapists.  As a modest first step, if anyone knows the identity of the rapist in this case, would they please reveal it on a website hosted outside the United Kingdom.

No comments:

Post a Comment